I mean I might make an argument for ethical door knocking, if literal Nazis weren’t cutting into my project car time. 
It starts with something as seemingly innocuous as basically lying to people when you knock on their doors. But what’s the next step? And the step after that? Eventually, the “do anything to win” mentality leads to voter suppression, fraud, gerrymandering, etc.
“We have met the enemy and he is us.”
“We have to burn the village to save it.”
1 Like
I mean I am literally in “we need to burn the US to save it” mode.
Even if I believed that were true (I don’t), I’m worried that after we burned the village down, any rebuilt village would be even worse.
That’s why I’m against a new Constitutional Convention. As imperfect as our current Constitution is, I honestly have no idea if we’d even keep the protections we currently have in a new one. Same thing with our government. As flawed and bad as our current government is, I can think of a lot worse possibilities.
That doesn’t mean that we don’t try to fix things, but I’m unwilling to take the Nihilistic view that the US is completely unsalvageable.
1 Like
Slippery slope fallacy. Just because there could be a slope doesn’t mean there will be.
I’m against murder. I’m against war in most cases.
When the Nazis occupied France, their murder was justified. The war against them was justified. When the Nazis were no longer a thread, the murder stopped being justified.
We use the tactics we need to use to fight the rise of fascism. They become once-again unjustifiable if fascism is no longer a serious threat.
3 Likes
It’s not a fallacy. It’s what has literally happened with the Republicans. They keep slipping down the slope more and more in order to try and gain and maintain their hold on power.
1 Like
Good. I don’t think it’s completely unsalvageable either, but we’ve got some folks working hard to make it that way. Hence my acceptance of dirty tactics. But yeah, we do have to stay vigilant that we don’t become the monsters.
1 Like
Just some examples of the slope:
Slaves can’t vote
Jim Crow laws to prevent Black people from voting
Document ID laws to prevent minorities, POC, and poor people from voting
Lack of funding for additional polling places in predominantly minority voting locations
Other voter suppression techniques
Gerrymandering
Repealing important parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Controlling state legislatures and passing laws to limit Democratic governor’s powers
Threatening to impeach state supreme court justices when they hold above laws unconstitutional
Claiming massive unsubstantiated voter fraud in order to suppress the vote
Inserting questions into the census asking about citizenship to try and skew the census results
How the hell is that not a slope?
1 Like
That slope has primarily existed in one core group of people, who are currently represented primarily by one specific party.
1 Like
And is that because Republicans are inherently more dishonest and amoral than Democrats or because Democrats have, at least up until now, held to various standards of ethics to prevent themselves from slipping down that slope?
I would argue that both parties are capable of amoral and unethical actions. It is the rare person who can resist that temptation.
1 Like
Yes. Look at what they consider a victory. No immigrants and less rights for minorities.
And there’s no value in setting up an equivalency. If a Democratic supermajority gets corrupt, we start punching again. It’s pretty simple.
Right now, the entire GOP platform is anathema to reason. It’s dangerous. It’s deadly. It is beyond saving.
Punch until there’s no more nazis, then stop punching. If nazis return, resume punching.
4 Likes
That just leads to the cycle of lowered and lowered standards I talked about above.
At some point, it becomes more important to win the right way, to set an example, and try to reestablish a correct standard, otherwise the entire system breaks down and @thewhaleshark can start burning down the country.
1 Like
I think we agree but have a different idea of where that point is. If things were less dire then your plan is best. At this point, we do what we have to. If things become less dire then we can start working on those issues.
This relates to a more general question I have had about ethics:
If your understanding of society and psychology put you in a position to significantly manipulate people who are unaware of their vulnerability to these techniques, is it unethical to do so? Or is it unethical to act ignorantly & abide by perceived ground rules that are unspoken and unestablished?
The idea that one is vulnerable to psychological hacking is counter to the ideal of free will. I think it is too taboo for people.
People manipulate others all the time, but there’s this natural / artificial dichotomy around how it is perceived in terms of ethics. Somehow you’re innocent as long as you don’t intend / know what you are doing. But then self-ignorance essentially becomes plausible deniability. The question is seemingly simpler when speaking in terms of harm or coercion, but what about its application in more imperialistic / colonial forms.
p.s. I hate the fake survey thing. I can usually spot it fairly quickly & positions me negatively against the campaigns using it.
4 Likes
That was the point I raised at the training I went to. If you’re starting out by telling someone a lie, trying to talk to them under false pretenses, and they figure it out like I did, it’s going to negatively impact your goal in speaking to that person in the first place.
The problem is that we (Democrats) aren’t operating in isolation.
Knocking on a person’s door and lying to him or her might not be that bad, by itself, and might be pretty high up on the metaphorical slope, but each action Democrats take in breaking the norms and ethics will only result in Republicans taking a further step down the slope. This will cause Democrats to take the next step down the slope and the cycle repeats.
I disagree with @SkeleRym’s assertion that the slope only applies to Republicans. People are people and they will take perceived shortcuts to achieve their goals if they can.
Additionally, any amoral or unethical action Democrats take in winning an election will be held against them by Republicans, diminishing that victory’s legitimacy in their eyes.
1 Like
Ehhhhhhhhhhh that’s not always the case, at least not in my experience. There are times where you enter into a discussion with an unspoken understanding of the context of that discussion.
Like.
I go to buy a car. I walk into the dealership understanding that literally every nicety offered to me is there to convince me to buy a car.
But should I begrudge someone for trying hard to sell me a car?
Similarly (and this actually touches on @no_fun_girl 's question), almost all political discussions and interactions of any sort involve some degree of attempted manipulation.
What do I mean?
When I advocate for a position, I am trying to convince someone of the value of that position, or more accurately my value as a person in their life. Doing this involves some degree of figuring out and appealing to someone’s sensibilities through a variety of manipulation techniques that vary in intensity.
Phrasing, body language, topics to discuss - we curate these based on our audience in order to make them receptive to our ideas (assuming that’s our goal - we can curate interactions to achieve other goals too) and thus reinforce our perceived social value. I might use positive language to create a feeling of agreement and camaraderie, and doing so makes a person more receptive to my ideas even if they disagree with them.
This is also true of pretty much all social interaction to differing degrees, but politics being the art of cultivating cooperation among diverse opinion-holders, it is at its most flagrant in that setting.
SO
If I walk into a political function, I understand what’s happening there. No matter how it’s couched, the goal is for the group to reinforce its value to me. They want me to vote the way they want me to - I mean why else put in that effort?
The difference between bad manipulation and good manipulation, I think, is informed consent. If I want a car, I walk into a car dealership and consent to salesmanship because I know what’s happening.
The issue is not with a manipulative tactic, but in not having an honest meta-conversation about what politics really is in the first place.
Consent and manipulation have a very strange relationship, but it is possible to be manipulated by consent - that’s how hypnotism and magic shows work.
In order to have a good experience in politics, we have to get people invested in the idea that politics is not a dirty word, but a necessary component of consensus-building.
3 Likes
I generally agree with your points, but I think there’s a big difference in who initiates the conversation.
In your examples, you’re the one initiating the conversation with the car salesman. You’re the one walking into a political function. In those circumstances, your expectations are going to be different than if you’re at home on a Sunday and some random person rings your doorbell.
Edited to add: By initiating the conversation with the car salesman, by walking into that political function, by agreeing to the hypnotism, or by viewing the magic show, there’s a level of implied consent to the manipulation going on. That implied consent might not be there if you haven’t initiated or agreed to the conversation, or if the conversation was started under false pretenses.
2 Likes
The tents they’re keeping the kids in cost $775/night.
Trump Administration: We spare no expense… to ensure a horrible experience… for your non-white children.
Incidentally, there’s a movement to call these tent cities “Trump Hotels”.
3 Likes