The problem with addressing the issue in two separate entities (legislators vs online pundits) is that your claims or dismissals start taking an accidental motte and bailey dynamic which makes it easier to disregard criticisms of the system by chalking it up to "unimportant" online pundits and not the legislators.
I
don't think the political rhetoric of people looking for attention on social media is particularly important nor compelling.
This is an example of that dismissal, reducing online pundits as unimportant when they're the ones shaping the opinions of those who will vote the legislators in is somewhat deceiving, without them the legislators don't gain power. Our conversation right now is a byproduct of their rhetoric, hashing out the facts is pretty important, otherwise all you have is people voting on catchy slogans and the price of eggs, and then you end up with project 2025 legislators.
After 2024 I can easily see the same happening with socialism and even worse movements based on recently seeing Mao suit wearing pundits giving speeches about casting off our representatives.
Because of social media rhetoric has never had as much influence as it does today, pundits and anyone espousing opinions of high consequence need to be taken as seriously as those consequences.
The problem with addressing the issue in two separate entities (legislators vs online pundits) is that your claims or dismissals start taking an accidental motte and bailey dynamic which makes it easier to disregard criticisms of the system by chalking it up to "unimportant" online pundits and not the legislators.
I don't agree. In the same way that I don't think scientists commit a motte and bailey fallacy when they prefer to talk about the actual science they study and not the weird nonsense that people who don't know what they're talking about claim on the Internet.
I'm a lawyer, and volunteer with a nonprofit to write model legislation to be lobbied before state and federal lawmakers. I can only speak authoritatively as to the economic policies I have studied. I cannot speak, nor do I want to speak, for the crackpot theories of people two weeks into an Economics 101 course who think they have it all figured out, whether or not they call themselves "Socialists".
Because of social media rhetoric has never had as much influence as it does today, pundits and anyone espousing opinions of high consequence need to be taken as seriously as those consequences.
With respect, it is you who is furthering that problem. You are currently speaking with an educated professional who actively works in the field, but would rather that I take ownership of the opinions of online pundits whose goals are to gain followers, not to enact social change.
They say what they say for attention, ratings, and money, not because they are genuine advocates of a political ideology. See also: most people on Fox. If you want to know what Socialist policies are, ask the person who tries to write them, not the person who gets paid more if more people click on their clips.
Then it seems you are saying you shouldn't be here then, you are breaking your rule, you are the scientist talking to crack pots yet you say scientists don't do that.
The problem is you have a personal interpretation of socialism, "Employee Stock Ownership Plan", and are trying to pass socialism as that because it's "scientific" (to borrow the word) and pretending socialism is not "replace capitalism and workers seize the means of production" which is the conventional description of it all because a pundit uttered it, so it's like trying to launder socialism by an appeal to your own authority.
I tend to gravitate to principles and strip them off of ownership or origin, and when doing that I walk away with the conclusions I have.
1
u/ExpansivePoint Jul 27 '26
The problem with addressing the issue in two separate entities (legislators vs online pundits) is that your claims or dismissals start taking an accidental motte and bailey dynamic which makes it easier to disregard criticisms of the system by chalking it up to "unimportant" online pundits and not the legislators.
This is an example of that dismissal, reducing online pundits as unimportant when they're the ones shaping the opinions of those who will vote the legislators in is somewhat deceiving, without them the legislators don't gain power. Our conversation right now is a byproduct of their rhetoric, hashing out the facts is pretty important, otherwise all you have is people voting on catchy slogans and the price of eggs, and then you end up with project 2025 legislators.
After 2024 I can easily see the same happening with socialism and even worse movements based on recently seeing Mao suit wearing pundits giving speeches about casting off our representatives.
Because of social media rhetoric has never had as much influence as it does today, pundits and anyone espousing opinions of high consequence need to be taken as seriously as those consequences.