There's also "team undecided" and "team not playing."
Those teams actually determine who wins, far more than either "team red" or "team blue."
You may not be able to convince "team red" to join "team blue" (or vice versa) but you certainly can get them to join "team undecided" or "team not playing."
You also can get "team undecided" or "team not playing" to join your team, if you choose to play the game and be a part of a team.
That's what makes that system much, much better than systems where you're forced to play and there's only one team you can be a part of.
It's not a very good game, but it's better than the alternatives.
I do not like the tribalism of politics. I wish more people would be willing to say, “Well some of (Harris’s)/(Trump’s) ideas are ok…” instead of absolute and complete rejection of the “other” team.
I have a preference between the two candidates, but I am not, nor will I ever be, “tribal” in that preference.
Lastly, it is correct, especially in an online “argument,” you will not change the other person’s mind. But the reason for engaging is for other people who might happen across your thread. Seeing the “arguments” laid out, might change their mind.
I've changed over the years to speaking through action. Speaking, engaging with people also has the high probability of drawing you into a time consuming argument - to which you will never win. I'm very conscious of time and spending it as I choose.
I'm gonna say the probability of changing someone's vote when you have binary options is low.
Also who is so weak in their beliefs and conviction that they can change at a whim? Also, if they've changed their mind, were all their previous decisions in life wrong too? Quite possibly.
I can see someone being fed up with incompetence that lies outside of what they say they will do and the actual execution of something and then perhaps switching parties.
There's also "team undecided" and "team not playing."
Those teams actually determine who wins, far more than either "team red" or "team blue."
You may not be able to convince "team red" to join "team blue" (or vice versa) but you certainly can get them to join "team undecided" or "team not playing."
You also can get "team undecided" or "team not playing" to join your team, if you choose to play the game and be a part of a team.
That's what makes that system much, much better than systems where you're forced to play and there's only one team you can be a part of.
It's not a very good game, but it's better than the alternatives.
I'm on team not playing. I hope that with enough animosity the people one day will rise up and smash the system in place.
That's already happened.
What comes next is picking up the pieces and rebuilding.
I do not like the tribalism of politics. I wish more people would be willing to say, “Well some of (Harris’s)/(Trump’s) ideas are ok…” instead of absolute and complete rejection of the “other” team.
I have a preference between the two candidates, but I am not, nor will I ever be, “tribal” in that preference.
Lastly, it is correct, especially in an online “argument,” you will not change the other person’s mind. But the reason for engaging is for other people who might happen across your thread. Seeing the “arguments” laid out, might change their mind.
I've changed over the years to speaking through action. Speaking, engaging with people also has the high probability of drawing you into a time consuming argument - to which you will never win. I'm very conscious of time and spending it as I choose.
I'm gonna say the probability of changing someone's vote when you have binary options is low.
Also who is so weak in their beliefs and conviction that they can change at a whim? Also, if they've changed their mind, were all their previous decisions in life wrong too? Quite possibly.
I can see someone being fed up with incompetence that lies outside of what they say they will do and the actual execution of something and then perhaps switching parties.
You’re a true rebel, thinking for yourself. Love it!