I do think our general unwillingness to push back, to fight, to support ourselves on whatever shit labels we get is part of why those labels keep being used over and over and over again. Republicans wouldn't go through four year cycle on random insults if they didn't work.
A big part of why they work is that instead of defending ourselves…
I do think our general unwillingness to push back, to fight, to support ourselves on whatever shit labels we get is part of why those labels keep being used over and over and over again. Republicans wouldn't go through four year cycle on random insults if they didn't work.
A big part of why they work is that instead of defending ourselves too many democrats run away in fear of those labels. That empowers the attack, both in republicans' willingness to keep using it but also in the mind of voters: as a general rule humans run away from attacks that have truth to them. Thus, running away acts as a psychological flag saying "hey, this attack is not only true, but it's also a bad thing!"
The problem isn't people like AOC for sticking by those labels. The problem is people that run away at the first chance.
I don't know if that does or does not apply to Slotkin in this instance because I don't feel like reading the article and it's not uncommon for headlines to add bullshit for drama purposes.
Could you cite some Democrats in non deep, deep blue districts who "fight back" and win? Just because you "fight" doesn't mean you win. With no offense to you intended, I see virtually everyone saying Democrats just need to fight, without really acknowledging that fighting spirit is great, until you actually go up against a boxer, and they kill you in the ring.
Similarly no offense intended, I think you're disagreeing on seeing the word "fight" and not on the substance of my point, because you've had a disagreement on other topics where the word "fight" was used. Would you have responded the same if my initial sentence omitted the "to fight" part early on?
To provide an answer: I'd point heartily and easily to Harry Reid. Nevada was either a light red state or a swing state for much of his career. He didn't back down from the ACA in 2010. He was always and consistently a fighter. He was a political pugilist if there ever was one in our history and he came out on top even when the odds were solidly against him.
Circling back to the start: I think focusing on the word "fight" resulted in a misunderstanding of the core point of my comment. It wasn't about "fighting republicans" in the sense that I have articulated in the past. It's about not running away from any and every random smear attack they use. If republicans run around eg calling every democrat "woke", that attack becomes more potent if those democrats run away from that attack. Psychologically humans are primed to believe those attacks, and to believe the attacks are merited, when they see the target dodge that attack. People who do not react that way get a better result from third parties assessing the validity of the attack.
I do think our general unwillingness to push back, to fight, to support ourselves on whatever shit labels we get is part of why those labels keep being used over and over and over again. Republicans wouldn't go through four year cycle on random insults if they didn't work.
A big part of why they work is that instead of defending ourselves too many democrats run away in fear of those labels. That empowers the attack, both in republicans' willingness to keep using it but also in the mind of voters: as a general rule humans run away from attacks that have truth to them. Thus, running away acts as a psychological flag saying "hey, this attack is not only true, but it's also a bad thing!"
The problem isn't people like AOC for sticking by those labels. The problem is people that run away at the first chance.
I don't know if that does or does not apply to Slotkin in this instance because I don't feel like reading the article and it's not uncommon for headlines to add bullshit for drama purposes.
Could you cite some Democrats in non deep, deep blue districts who "fight back" and win? Just because you "fight" doesn't mean you win. With no offense to you intended, I see virtually everyone saying Democrats just need to fight, without really acknowledging that fighting spirit is great, until you actually go up against a boxer, and they kill you in the ring.
Similarly no offense intended, I think you're disagreeing on seeing the word "fight" and not on the substance of my point, because you've had a disagreement on other topics where the word "fight" was used. Would you have responded the same if my initial sentence omitted the "to fight" part early on?
To provide an answer: I'd point heartily and easily to Harry Reid. Nevada was either a light red state or a swing state for much of his career. He didn't back down from the ACA in 2010. He was always and consistently a fighter. He was a political pugilist if there ever was one in our history and he came out on top even when the odds were solidly against him.
Circling back to the start: I think focusing on the word "fight" resulted in a misunderstanding of the core point of my comment. It wasn't about "fighting republicans" in the sense that I have articulated in the past. It's about not running away from any and every random smear attack they use. If republicans run around eg calling every democrat "woke", that attack becomes more potent if those democrats run away from that attack. Psychologically humans are primed to believe those attacks, and to believe the attacks are merited, when they see the target dodge that attack. People who do not react that way get a better result from third parties assessing the validity of the attack.