You'll notice I didn't say we have to be dishonest. The problem is that in the quest to be unequivocally, unquestionably correct, the message ends up getting diluted and ultimately destroyed.
The reasons the Republicans control the debate is because they come to a decision on an issue, and focus on getting their message and viewpoint across in the simplest way possible. They do not play devil's advocate, do not focus on arguments against their point, because it's an ineffective use of their time when being listened to. They frame issues in a way that people can understand them, and, in their own perverse way, respect their audience for the fact they often are not very interested in the details and would like someone to sum up their views succinctly and in a way that makes a value judgement possible quickly.
Where they cross the line is where they outright lie. But it's not their responsibility to point out the flaws in their own argument, nor is it their responsibility to avoid logical fallacies in making their case if those appeals to emotion make the issue more 'real' for their audience.
Meanwhile, Democrats trying to do the right thing end up in-fighting over the most minute detail of how to frame their argument in a way that is both pure and honest. They acknowledge the argument of the other side, and always posit themselves as a refutation to the primary mover, the Republicans (or in this case, the big media industry.) They do not frame the argument. They do not set the grounds for discussion. They do not assert their power.
A lot can be learned by watching the way the right-wing spin machine works. It is a tool that can be used for good or evil, and used in a way that is ethically sound. Of course, it is important to avoid the trap of going too far, and we can see clearly the result of doing so. But this doesn't mean that we can't channel the power of messaging, framing, and so on in order to bring about progress.
For example, we've already lost this debate in so many ways. The response to this shouldn't just be "block this bill" it should be "block this bill", and:
- Here is a concise message that summarizes our position: "Don't break our Internet," "Get your hands off our Internet", "Leave the Internet alone," "Stop trying to break the Internet" (Edit: Right now, Google's position is "Please don't censor the web!" Say that in the voice of a little girl and you might understand why this messaging sucks. Don't say please. Don't use the word censor. Tell them to fuck off without using profanity.)
- Here is a pledge that you as a representative must sign about passing Internet legislation or else you will not receive any votes from this consitutency.
- Here is a bill we would like you to pass (pushed by lobbyists from Google/Facebook/etc) that prevents future legislation from tampering with the free flow of information on the Internet.
- We now refer to the companies pushing SOPA as the "Old Media", "Content Monopolies", "Pre-Internet Media", "Legacy Content Providers", "Anti-Artist Media", or "Copyright Law Abusers". We refer to sites like Spotify and Youtube as "Modern Media", "Open Media", "Pro-Artist Media", or "Modern Content Providers."
- "Copyright infringement" is not "piracy" but is "missharing." "Net Neutrality" is "Free Internet" or "Web Freedom". DRM is on "Chained Content" or "Locked Content". Etc.
It's not dishonest. It's controlling the debate from a position of power and righteousness.
> It's not dishonest. It's controlling the debate from a position of power and righteousness.
Thank you for writing this. I've really been feeling the same way. Not very many people understand group psychology and they argue and fight in ways which are self-defeating.
We are not even fighting deeply irrational people, mostly they are smart rational people employed by big industry and taught the simple fact: appealing to people's emotions and unconscious mind is the foremost way democratic decisions are won.
It might be an awful truth but it is reality and a rational person must therefore accept it or face defeat over and over again.
I hope you and others do something great with this insight.
This is great advice, save this link. If we don't do this, we will lose and it will be perceived as "just another thing those liberal hippy kids started that petered out"... just like Occupy Wall Street. We can do better, and this is an issue that is unifying people who don't always agree. There is a HUGE opportunity (and risk) here.
The reasons the Republicans control the debate is because they come to a decision on an issue, and focus on getting their message and viewpoint across in the simplest way possible. They do not play devil's advocate, do not focus on arguments against their point, because it's an ineffective use of their time when being listened to. They frame issues in a way that people can understand them, and, in their own perverse way, respect their audience for the fact they often are not very interested in the details and would like someone to sum up their views succinctly and in a way that makes a value judgement possible quickly.
Where they cross the line is where they outright lie. But it's not their responsibility to point out the flaws in their own argument, nor is it their responsibility to avoid logical fallacies in making their case if those appeals to emotion make the issue more 'real' for their audience.
Meanwhile, Democrats trying to do the right thing end up in-fighting over the most minute detail of how to frame their argument in a way that is both pure and honest. They acknowledge the argument of the other side, and always posit themselves as a refutation to the primary mover, the Republicans (or in this case, the big media industry.) They do not frame the argument. They do not set the grounds for discussion. They do not assert their power.
A lot can be learned by watching the way the right-wing spin machine works. It is a tool that can be used for good or evil, and used in a way that is ethically sound. Of course, it is important to avoid the trap of going too far, and we can see clearly the result of doing so. But this doesn't mean that we can't channel the power of messaging, framing, and so on in order to bring about progress.
For example, we've already lost this debate in so many ways. The response to this shouldn't just be "block this bill" it should be "block this bill", and:
- Here is a concise message that summarizes our position: "Don't break our Internet," "Get your hands off our Internet", "Leave the Internet alone," "Stop trying to break the Internet" (Edit: Right now, Google's position is "Please don't censor the web!" Say that in the voice of a little girl and you might understand why this messaging sucks. Don't say please. Don't use the word censor. Tell them to fuck off without using profanity.)
- Here is a pledge that you as a representative must sign about passing Internet legislation or else you will not receive any votes from this consitutency.
- Here is a bill we would like you to pass (pushed by lobbyists from Google/Facebook/etc) that prevents future legislation from tampering with the free flow of information on the Internet.
- We now refer to the companies pushing SOPA as the "Old Media", "Content Monopolies", "Pre-Internet Media", "Legacy Content Providers", "Anti-Artist Media", or "Copyright Law Abusers". We refer to sites like Spotify and Youtube as "Modern Media", "Open Media", "Pro-Artist Media", or "Modern Content Providers."
- "Copyright infringement" is not "piracy" but is "missharing." "Net Neutrality" is "Free Internet" or "Web Freedom". DRM is on "Chained Content" or "Locked Content". Etc.
It's not dishonest. It's controlling the debate from a position of power and righteousness.