Thank you. This article from Dr. Karin Tamerius is a brilliant toolbox wrapped in an internet redemption arc.
People complain that “online isn’t real life,” but when it comes to political dialogue, it’s actually closer to the training ground than the battlefield. Asynchronous space. Emotional rehearsal. No visible grimace when your uncle says the Civil War wasn’t about slavery.
The part about lurkers? That’s the secret sauce. You're not debating for the loudmouth with the Pepe avatar. You're seeding thought in the dozens watching silently, wondering if there’s a way to disagree without becoming a monster.
Smart Politics isn’t about coddling ignorance. It’s about knowing when to plant a question instead of a flag. That’s how consciousness shifts—not with a mic drop, but a pause that stays with someone days later.
Internet dialogue can suck. But it can also be the dojo. Where you practice not flinching. Where you choose curiosity over ego. Where you learn to speak truth like a tuning fork instead of a hammer.
Turns out, the comments section is sacred ground. Who knew?
I commented on another article about this, so thank you for going further in detail here! As a political live streamer talking to a chat room, I’m curious about the nuance of one side being seen and heard while the other side is not. Again, thank you!
Oh my. This isn't a game. I believe we have all seen that disingenuous tactics have been exposed as counterproductive to changing minds.
Once a person who has given you sone trust understands that you are trying to persuade them to a particular bent, their trust is broken and you become like all the rest.
Please consider being open and honest.
Of course you will say you are, but are your readers?
Readers, what do you say? Are you open to changing your opinions too and compromise or are you just interested in being a more effective progressive to regain your lost power?
Well, the narrowest answer is "No", but in charity, I want to reply to what might be the spirit of the question rather than the letter. My personal focus is/was more towards technology policy than voting for Democrats. However, coming up with solid logical arguments and evidence is basically useless. Does anything actually work in reality, *at scale*, besides being a shameless manipulative propagandist? (that's not for me). Hence reading "Smart Politics", hoping there's something helpful in it.
Thank you. This article from Dr. Karin Tamerius is a brilliant toolbox wrapped in an internet redemption arc.
People complain that “online isn’t real life,” but when it comes to political dialogue, it’s actually closer to the training ground than the battlefield. Asynchronous space. Emotional rehearsal. No visible grimace when your uncle says the Civil War wasn’t about slavery.
The part about lurkers? That’s the secret sauce. You're not debating for the loudmouth with the Pepe avatar. You're seeding thought in the dozens watching silently, wondering if there’s a way to disagree without becoming a monster.
Smart Politics isn’t about coddling ignorance. It’s about knowing when to plant a question instead of a flag. That’s how consciousness shifts—not with a mic drop, but a pause that stays with someone days later.
Internet dialogue can suck. But it can also be the dojo. Where you practice not flinching. Where you choose curiosity over ego. Where you learn to speak truth like a tuning fork instead of a hammer.
Turns out, the comments section is sacred ground. Who knew?
I commented on another article about this, so thank you for going further in detail here! As a political live streamer talking to a chat room, I’m curious about the nuance of one side being seen and heard while the other side is not. Again, thank you!
Your comment reminded me that I’d been meaning to write this article, so thank YOU!
Oh my. This isn't a game. I believe we have all seen that disingenuous tactics have been exposed as counterproductive to changing minds.
Once a person who has given you sone trust understands that you are trying to persuade them to a particular bent, their trust is broken and you become like all the rest.
Please consider being open and honest.
Of course you will say you are, but are your readers?
Readers, what do you say? Are you open to changing your opinions too and compromise or are you just interested in being a more effective progressive to regain your lost power?
I say that’s too vague to answer, because “compromise” can cover too much.
I’m tempted to do a supervillain-type monologue about wanting power bwa-ha-ha, but I remind myself humor doesn’t work well on the Internet.
OK, let's try it differently, is your primary interest in "Smart Politics" to get folks to vote for Democrats?
Lol ty, so using "smart politics" tactics to mask being a shameless manipulative propagandist is about right?
Well, the narrowest answer is "No", but in charity, I want to reply to what might be the spirit of the question rather than the letter. My personal focus is/was more towards technology policy than voting for Democrats. However, coming up with solid logical arguments and evidence is basically useless. Does anything actually work in reality, *at scale*, besides being a shameless manipulative propagandist? (that's not for me). Hence reading "Smart Politics", hoping there's something helpful in it.