this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
979 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19097 readers
2941 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar

That's not always true. Like the literal case linked, politicians dragging their feet is one of the exceptions to the rule that positive reinforcement works better than loudly stating that you're not satisfied and why you're not satisfied.

Or how about if I get your thoughts on how to rear a child

Politicians aren't children and shouldn't be coddled as if they were.

Encouragement, support, and excitement do more to inspire change than any amount of complaints.

Again, politics is an exception. A politician who is informed of a problem or the inadequacy of their solutions will perform better than one who receives praise and adulation every time they affect a tiny fraction of the positive change within their power.

Incrementalism is ~~the only bloodless~~ a truly feckless way to achieve ~~true~~ extremely limited progress

Fixed that for you. Here's what Martin Luther King thought of your Incrementalism:

[–] alilbee@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Haha, I do like the study on actual flies. That's fun. I still think the analogy holds true for human behavior. I hope it should be obvious I'm not condoning never taking anyone to task when it's deserved, politician or otherwise. I think making it the core of your political movement is complete folly though.

I obviously recognize that politicians are not children. That's not how analogies work. I also think embracing celebration of wins instead of immediately scolding for not going far enough is not "coddling", either in the case of children or politicians. I think viewing it as such is part of the problem.

I disagree that MLK Jr was referring to Incrementalism explicitly there, but regardless, I'm not a big fan of pulling out political "saints" to make a point. If you think my underlying point is that we should embrace tradition and stability over all progress, I think that's an unfair assumption based on what I've written here. But do I want my country and society to improve without us all killing each other or breaking every rule that gets in the way of our view? Yeah, I think that's true for me. And I don't see anything that MLK advocated for, in ends or means, that disagreed with that notion.

So yeah, I want congress to legalize weed. Hell, I smoke daily and have bought my weed illegally in sketchy parking lots. But I'm going to celebrate this, because some good people who did nothing wrong get to celebrate Christmas at home.

[–] jimbo@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Did MLK ever say something like "we're getting what we wanted but we're going to bitch about it anyway"?

[–] blazeknave@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Stop. This isn't coherent. The MLK quote is irrelevant and out of context. Moderate support by a human, has no parallel to a weak law. They're different concepts.