Perhaps. In theory, you're definitely right. I just feel that this is something where building the momentum during a single election cycle isn't feasible. The most likely result of voting for a third party without laying this groundwork would be splitting the vote and giving a landslide victory to the greater of the two evils.

Formally organising online would make it possible to demonstrate how much support each candidate actually has without giving an official vote to a candidate that the general public isn't confident enough to vote for. Watching participation grow and third parties receive substantial semi-official support could build excitement and lead to a third party being trusted to have the sway to win.

I'd love to be proven wrong though. If we can organize enough support for a third party within a single election cycle that it's reasonable to risk voting for that candidate, I'm open to it. I already have too much on my plate, but if no one has built this service by the time I have energy for it, I'll definitely be thinking about it

I suppose it'll continue until enough people believe that it's possible for a third party to win.

I think ranked choice voting would make it much simpler to foment that change. People need to be able to trust that breaking from the party line has a real chance of success, but that can't happen without demonstrating support.

If we can't have real ranked choice voting, a third party could build a website to let people coordinate votes according to ranked choice, and hopefully carry the result as a unified bloc to the polls. Have an agreement that if a certain threshold of participation is met, vote for the ranked choice result. Otherwise, lesser of 2 evils.

Nor did I elect you king of what I'm allowed to enjoy. Go ahead and police people's thoughts if you insist, but don't expect to be included by people you willfully offend.

You're welcome to dislike something, but that doesn't mean you need to discourage someone else from liking that thing. You can share an opinion without making it sound like it's a sin against nature to disagree with that opinion.

I hope your new diagnosis helps you. Learning more about how you think, what motivates you, and what holds you back can help a lot with choosing realistic and satisfying goals. If you keep at it, I think you'll figure out how to achieve something you can call success.

And for what it's worth, I don't think it's possible to be a failure, but I do understand the pain of defeat. Thinking more about it, defeat seems like the pain of wanting something, believing (correctly or otherwise) that it's impossible, and then continuing to hold onto that desire. It's the gap between what we believe to be possible and our expectations, not all that different from grief.

deleted by creator

Fair enough, regulating the specific ways that people speak is challenging and prone to either overreach or being ineffectual. The only way I can think of to attempt it would require a law that is algorithmic. Speech that matches a specific pattern, and whose reach is sufficient to be a threat to our democratic process, would be analyzed in court with a team of linguists and psychologists doing their best to explain the problematic bits to a judge and jury.

I don't think the general public (or probably congress, for that matter) would accept such a high profile a law that was algorithmic and only understandable to a small subset of the population though, so this isn't really feasible. And new charlatans would find a way to work around it anyway.

It sounds like since we can clearly articulate the types of strategies used to rile up the masses and bypass critical thinking, it should be possible to create a law that would make this type of rhetoric illegal. While I'm generally opposed to limitations on speech, I would make an exception for limiting the tactics that allow the rise of fascism, particularly since it doesn't limit sharing of ideas, and simply limits the same type of behavior as shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

Next time the opportunity arises (next time we have a major event that snaps the zealots back to their senses), we should be pushing our representatives to implement an amendment that bans this behavior. It's a necessary restraint on freedom of expression to protect the democratic process. This should specifically be an amendment because:

• Implementing as a regular law would likely be blocked by the supreme court as an infringement on freedom of speech.
• It's too important to allow future legislators to easily overturn.