When in reality, it's just them projecting their own view. Libs or the media do it all the time when "defund the police" comes up. They say "well, it just sounds like you're getting rid of the police entirely and your messaging is off. Its gonna turn off people in middle america." or something.
I think there was a segment of a Citations Needed episode that talks about this.
Saul Alinsky called these people "Do-Nothings":
These Do-Nothings profess a commitment to social change for ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity, and then abstain from and discourage all effective action for change. They are known by their brand, 'I agree with your ends but not your means'.
The real problem isn't that they're criticizing a specific policy/message, it's that they have no solution themselves. The subtext is always that people should stop working against the status quo and keep doing what already isn't working. The contrast between "defund the police" and "8 can't wait" is a good example. Leaving aside whether "defund the police" is an effective message, it's a clear policy position, and represents a meaningful change to the status quo. "8 can't wait" on the other hand is a list of reforms that are mostly already implemented. People who oppose "defund the police" and support "8 can't wait" are basically arguing for doing nothing.
Good stuff!
I keep running into it on reddit, and I would love to have an articulate argument against that thinking..
Its so devoid of a point, that it's hard to attack sometimes
Don't overthink it. Demand that they tell you why they believe what they believe. More often than not, there's no argument. Who, specifically, will be turned off by X? In what way? What would be a more effective way of addressing X? You're right, there is no point, so ask what their point is and force them to either concede or out themselves as polite conservatives.
Sometimes they do "offer a solution" that is essentially the same thing, just with different words, or they offer up a nothing solution that they refuse to admit won't fix the problem
Definitely. I guess I'm looking for a well written article or something I can link them to so maybe they at least have to do the bare minimum of self reflection. Even when they don't want to hear they're wrong, it still sticks in some of their craws
Relevant Citations Needed eps that I could think of:
- Episode 67: The Gate-Keeping, Power-Serving Tautology of “Electability”
- Episode 112: How "Polarization" Discourse Flattens Power Dynamics and Says Nothing
Sounds like what I was thinking of. Maybe I'll give those a re-listen this week
I believe that's known as the Normative-Descriptive Shuffle (Episode 87: Nate Silver and the Crisis of Pundit Brain)
