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?
longtime lurker deciding to come out and start participating since the days of AOL
currently an independent, would be a Democrat if they would acknowledge the materiality of sex differences in a way that centers mothers and children. understand that there was historical sexism but from my perspective the women can and are outcompeting the men and will continue to do so in greater numbers as we get more egalitarian
I would like to be persuaded on the internet to change my opinion on this matter. thank you
Hi Michael, I’m not entirely sure I’m following your argument. Are you saying there are fundamental biological differences between men and women that Democrats deny and that this leads to adverse social consequences?
appreciate the response. I am arguing that there are sex differences (they are a dyad) that are material to outcomes in the same way that I would argue sexuality/race are immaterial (social construct). the reason is because you seek equity for one type and equality between the other. each major side treats the identity characteristics in the same thought bucket. this is under the assumption that we have controlled for male violence (which is why we formed societies in the first place)
Hmm. Still a little confused. What I can say is that I’m a Democrat and a feminist AND I believe there are sex differences that matter a lot and our goal should be to ensure equality of opportunity for all along with guaranteed healthcare for everyone, regardless of sex, as well as universal basic income and family leave for all. I also believe there’s nothing wrong with having a disproportionate number of women or men in certain jobs as long as they are freely chosen with sex blind hiring and the pay is commensurate with skill. I’m also willing to bet the vast majority of Democrats agree with me on these statements. What about you?
thank you for being bold enough to say that you are a Democrat, feminist and there are sex differences. that feels very refreshing and opens me to persuasion :-D
I agree with the intent or outcomes of your thoughts but disagree on the process. think that when there are not enough jobs that it is the government's responsibility to invest in work projects (think infrastructure bill or Americorps or GI Bill) vs a "handout" like UBI.
I am also open to raising taxes on myself and everyone making more money than me, for the former, or for paying a minimum "mother's wage" of ~40k a year to make sure every mother has the agency to feed the babies and potentially educate or upskill if she wants a better life than sustenance. cuz I know mothers work hard.
America is a story of people working their butts off for a better life for the ones who come next. it is not a perfect journey, but I am a rising tide lifts all boats person versus redistribution of existing resources.
I am a feminist too and I vote Democrat (as an Independent), but I am holding my nose with each passing election. I can begrudgingly live with the identity politics but can't with gender critical, socialist and frankly anti American stuff. if the legal protections under the ADA are good enough for me and therapy has meaningfully improved my life, it is insulting that it is not good enough for a non-binary, transgender or gender queer individual. I affirm every American's right to safety, tolerance and acceptance as I expect for others to do for my own imperfect human existence.
what loses me is hearing the protests for Palestine rumble past my apartment the same way the protests for Trayvon Martin rumbled by and I do not feel the need to put shoes on and join like I would have in 2012/2013. as a potential cause, I feel alienated vs welcomed to participate as an ally.
give me a politician that presents an accurate representation of reality. give me a politician that centers their platform on how we can come together and work hard to satisfy the material needs the mother in poverty requires for the babies. give me a politician that admits when they were wrong and evolves like Obama did on gay marriage. give me a politician that states what they are for vs what they are against, and the rest of the stuff will work itself out.
frankly the reason I am even engaging in discourse on the internet is because I cannot successfully organize myself into a community based on identity. I feel like my only path forward is to get out of the renter class and into the property-owning class because at least then I can attempt to form a physical location-based and hopefully values-based community.
I know that you are neither an opponent or nor the problem and I am sorry for this rant but I am tired of the loudest voices being inaccurate depictions of my perceived reality.
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?
longtime lurker deciding to come out and start participating since the days of AOL
currently an independent, would be a Democrat if they would acknowledge the materiality of sex differences in a way that centers mothers and children. understand that there was historical sexism but from my perspective the women can and are outcompeting the men and will continue to do so in greater numbers as we get more egalitarian
I would like to be persuaded on the internet to change my opinion on this matter. thank you
Hi Michael, I’m not entirely sure I’m following your argument. Are you saying there are fundamental biological differences between men and women that Democrats deny and that this leads to adverse social consequences?
appreciate the response. I am arguing that there are sex differences (they are a dyad) that are material to outcomes in the same way that I would argue sexuality/race are immaterial (social construct). the reason is because you seek equity for one type and equality between the other. each major side treats the identity characteristics in the same thought bucket. this is under the assumption that we have controlled for male violence (which is why we formed societies in the first place)
Hmm. Still a little confused. What I can say is that I’m a Democrat and a feminist AND I believe there are sex differences that matter a lot and our goal should be to ensure equality of opportunity for all along with guaranteed healthcare for everyone, regardless of sex, as well as universal basic income and family leave for all. I also believe there’s nothing wrong with having a disproportionate number of women or men in certain jobs as long as they are freely chosen with sex blind hiring and the pay is commensurate with skill. I’m also willing to bet the vast majority of Democrats agree with me on these statements. What about you?
thank you for being bold enough to say that you are a Democrat, feminist and there are sex differences. that feels very refreshing and opens me to persuasion :-D
I agree with the intent or outcomes of your thoughts but disagree on the process. think that when there are not enough jobs that it is the government's responsibility to invest in work projects (think infrastructure bill or Americorps or GI Bill) vs a "handout" like UBI.
I am also open to raising taxes on myself and everyone making more money than me, for the former, or for paying a minimum "mother's wage" of ~40k a year to make sure every mother has the agency to feed the babies and potentially educate or upskill if she wants a better life than sustenance. cuz I know mothers work hard.
America is a story of people working their butts off for a better life for the ones who come next. it is not a perfect journey, but I am a rising tide lifts all boats person versus redistribution of existing resources.
I am a feminist too and I vote Democrat (as an Independent), but I am holding my nose with each passing election. I can begrudgingly live with the identity politics but can't with gender critical, socialist and frankly anti American stuff. if the legal protections under the ADA are good enough for me and therapy has meaningfully improved my life, it is insulting that it is not good enough for a non-binary, transgender or gender queer individual. I affirm every American's right to safety, tolerance and acceptance as I expect for others to do for my own imperfect human existence.
what loses me is hearing the protests for Palestine rumble past my apartment the same way the protests for Trayvon Martin rumbled by and I do not feel the need to put shoes on and join like I would have in 2012/2013. as a potential cause, I feel alienated vs welcomed to participate as an ally.
give me a politician that presents an accurate representation of reality. give me a politician that centers their platform on how we can come together and work hard to satisfy the material needs the mother in poverty requires for the babies. give me a politician that admits when they were wrong and evolves like Obama did on gay marriage. give me a politician that states what they are for vs what they are against, and the rest of the stuff will work itself out.
frankly the reason I am even engaging in discourse on the internet is because I cannot successfully organize myself into a community based on identity. I feel like my only path forward is to get out of the renter class and into the property-owning class because at least then I can attempt to form a physical location-based and hopefully values-based community.
I know that you are neither an opponent or nor the problem and I am sorry for this rant but I am tired of the loudest voices being inaccurate depictions of my perceived reality.
thank you for coming to my ted talk lol
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.