The big war is control of information, yes?

Idealism is fine when tempered with pragmatism. It is a hazard otherwise.

I agree. But my question?

That is my answer.

I didn't argue with you the point that you supposedly rebutted. But look fine. Let's assume we just take everything here as read and move on.

This is the state of things to my mind. Democrats are clearly willing to speak out of both sides of their mouths. First, they will make a claim of being the moral arbiters because either they supposedly don't do what they accuse their opposition of doing or they apologized for it. Second, they will accuse their opposition of virtually anything to tarnish them. While neither of those positions are exclusive to one side, they have been utilized in a way I don't really think I've seen in recent memory.

Where we get into the point of what I was saying in not nearly enough words was that the Democrats have something Republicans simply don't have. A veritable nuclear arsenal of reputational destruction that can with an almost lightspeed rapidity destroy people. Between conventional media outlets and celebrity endorsements, the democrats have managed to maintain their popular culture stranglehold that is shockingly resilient. Republicans have no large scale popular culture or celebrity endorsements. This is a consequence of not playing the game decades ago when the need was urgent to do so.

If you are in competition with someone for anything... Love, Business, War, Ideas... you can't merely be idealistic about it.

However, this has resulted in a strange current day dichotomy that hinges at least in part on Trump himself. Democrats consistently overreact to the situation at hand. As a result, people watch and think "That isn't actually happening. Why are they lying and/or being hyperbolic regarding this?" Brett Kavanaugh being the preeminent example of this. Worse yet, Democrats are simply proving they are a reflection of the worst qualities of Trump which aren't the reason he got elected anyway.

The fact is, you don't have to "take the high road". You can still be realistic about what the dems are doing and keep handing them the rope to hang themselves with. The democrats are flailing and being incredibly silly in a way I haven't seen before. Republicans maintaining a sense of calm, decorum, and general discipline makes them look competent while Democrats look increasingly incompetent. Call out the opposition when you can hurt them. Ignore them when you can't. There isn't another strategy here at all.

Fact: Republicans don't have cultural control. They don't have the method to be able to dish out hits the way Democrats can and do.

Pragmatism here demands that Republicans effectively make strategic decisions about when to strike the dems but at the same time have the recognition they don't have the structural popular culture outlets to do it. Strike when and where you can but be clear when you do it and make sure you're not going to screw yourself when you do it.

Their weapon is more like a poison if you want to use analogies than it is a nuclear weapon.

It is most effective when used sparingly... it loses power the more frequently they use it. Resistance to the toxin happens.

As I said above, I did not like your analogy.

ok

you don't like the analogy

anything else?

I don't like it because it doesn't describe the subject.

It is contextually unsupportable. Nuclear weapons don't lose effectiveness the more you use them. They also annhilate everything leaving nothing.

A smear campaign relies upon belief which is not as reliable as the physical laws which govern a fission bomb.

The internet is the slowly growing Republican control base. As a whole, from what I have seen, the internet is remarkably right wing or at least right of center.

A better analogy is one that describes the strengths and weaknesses of the subject you're analogizing... in this case a smear campaign.

so can I go with the assumption you don't like the analogy?

My objection is not pedantry.

and that would be it?

Given that your analogy suggested a judgment and informed the rest of your argument, by removing that analogy... we leave your argument without a foundation.

How would you better put his analogy?

glad I wasted all this time writing on this just to have some ACTUALLY pedantic argument about "the effectiveness of nuclear weapon analogies"

I suggested a poison or toxin for which a biological resistance can be built up.

Nuclear weapons are not simply a weapon in and of themselves

They are also a tool of influence

Again, the more frequently they use it, the less well it works.

nuclear weapons don't work that way.

yes and the more frequently you threaten to nuke people the less they think you'll do it

The analogy doesn't work because if they do it... I build up a resistance. I don't build up a resistance to nuking.

and instead of even considering the ACTUAL argument you'll sit here having some silly argument about how nukes work

fine

lets say you replace it with your analogy

Ok, going with the poison analogy, and the build up of resistance... Have you ever considered that there are some poisons powerful enough and fast acting enough as to not allow the build up of said resistance.

now can we talk about the actual argument or no?

No, you're the one making hyperbolic argument suggesting that using effective political tactics = nuclear MAD annhilation.

the difference between business and politics is that a nation must be founded on ideals. Also "the only winning move is not to play" is a perfectly valid statement wrt increased partisanship and idpol taking over the political landscape

@TheDogOfSinope that would require both sides to have nukes. And both sides dont

All respect, Beemann, if you don't play... you concede in politics.

the current trajectory will see the credibility of both sides ultimately destroyed, if it isn't already

@Beemann This.

If I choose to not play the "accuse everyone of rape" game, how do I lose