I have never respected this circular logic. You could use this argument to make any position a “bad one” as long as biases, foolishness or gullibility on the part of the listener override any convincing points. At some point, it is possible for recipients of a message to be bad listeners, and for voters to be irresponsible in their naivety towards a candidate.
Okay, but we’re not talking about any random position, we’re talking about “nothing will change with me” being a terrible position if you want to get elected by people who aren’t doing so well.
At some point, the senders of the messages have to accept blame. Otherwise things will never get better, as the least shitty option will get ever shittier.
I have never respected this circular logic. You could use this argument to make any position a “bad one” as long as biases, foolishness or gullibility on the part of the listener override any convincing points. At some point, it is possible for recipients of a message to be bad listeners, and for voters to be irresponsible in their naivety towards a candidate.
Okay, but we’re not talking about any random position, we’re talking about “nothing will change with me” being a terrible position if you want to get elected by people who aren’t doing so well.
At some point, the senders of the messages have to accept blame. Otherwise things will never get better, as the least shitty option will get ever shittier.