the way you do for literally anything else that becomes policy… discussion is an absolute requirement to forming policy. it is, without exception, the only way to start making any change
that’s called politics mate, and since it’s varied and complex - obviously so - i refuse to engage because i no longer believe you’re acting in good faith
I am 100% acting in good faith. My point is that you can signal all you want, but that absolutely does not mean you can cross the finish line. Parties in power do not operate based on what the public wants, but what their donors want. The US doesn’t have federally enshrined abortion rights, medicare for all, stricter gun laws, even though the majority want those, because party donors do not.
Organizing is how you get popular policy through. MLK Jr., the Black Panther Party, and Malcolm X got the Civil Rights movement to actually enact change, not just discussion, because the government was worried about armed revolt.
i never said it meant you can cross the finish line; just that discussion, aka signalling, is the first step that is required to do so
organising IS a form of discussion… you organise a movement BY discussing, and that forces politicians to discuss
signalling without intent is bad for sure, but simply saying “only signalling” when applied to a small group of people is unhelpful - they’re the people who are going to be on your side if YOU organise
How do you start? How does it “build?” How does this translate into reality?
Reality doesn’t run on 40k Ork magic logic, ideas don’t become material reality if you believe hard enough.
are you literally questioning whether concrete policy comes from discussion? do you think 1 guy just snaps his fingers and makes it so?
politics doesn’t require 1 action… politics and swaying large groups of people requires those people to discuss and support to build over time
I am asking you how you translate broad discussion into enacted policy.
the way you do for literally anything else that becomes policy… discussion is an absolute requirement to forming policy. it is, without exception, the only way to start making any change
what comes after that is varied and complex
Yes. I am asking you about the “varied and complex” proceeses that turn talked about policy into policy.
that’s called politics mate, and since it’s varied and complex - obviously so - i refuse to engage because i no longer believe you’re acting in good faith
I am 100% acting in good faith. My point is that you can signal all you want, but that absolutely does not mean you can cross the finish line. Parties in power do not operate based on what the public wants, but what their donors want. The US doesn’t have federally enshrined abortion rights, medicare for all, stricter gun laws, even though the majority want those, because party donors do not.
Organizing is how you get popular policy through. MLK Jr., the Black Panther Party, and Malcolm X got the Civil Rights movement to actually enact change, not just discussion, because the government was worried about armed revolt.
i never said it meant you can cross the finish line; just that discussion, aka signalling, is the first step that is required to do so
organising IS a form of discussion… you organise a movement BY discussing, and that forces politicians to discuss
signalling without intent is bad for sure, but simply saying “only signalling” when applied to a small group of people is unhelpful - they’re the people who are going to be on your side if YOU organise