I am sad this idea is getting so many down votes. More smart people need to engage with politics and you cannot engage in any better way than by backing a candidate.
You cannot engage (in politics) in any better way than by backing a candidate.
Why do you believe that?
Backing a candidate is an opportunity to change political rhetoric.
How does it do that? Especially if it involves backing a mainstream candidate?
I don’t need to back a candidate to change political rhetoric. A more effective way to change political rhetoric is figure out ways to change the current culture.
By supporting a candidate, we are instigating a conversation.
I doubt it. I don’t think you’re interested in having an open-minded conversation. I suspect that you’re only interested in supporting Kamala Harris. You haven’t explained why you support Harris, and you obviously need to do that if you want to start a conversation.
It’s about using political engagement to bring more people into the rationalist fold and out of tribalism.
How does backing a candidate “bring more people out of tribalism”? You haven’t given any explanation for this.
There is basically no method of engaging with politics worse than backing a national candidate. It has tiny impact even if successful, is the most aggressively tribalism-infected, and is incredibly hard to say anything novel.
If you must get involved in politics, it should be local, issue-based, and unaffiliated with LW or rationalism. It is far more effective to lobby on issues than for candidates, it is far more effective to support local candidates than national, and there is minimal upside and enormous downside to having any of your political efforts tied with the ‘brand’ of rationalism or LW.
Agreed. I don’t think I’m tying our event with the LW or Rat brand. I am simply saying more rats need to support a candidate.
This is a local event in which I will push my anti-tribalism agenda. My bet is many who attend are not interested in being tribalistic. Myself and those I know who are behind Kamala are largely behind her because we appreciate evidence-based thinking, which Donald Trump has worked against.
The first paragraph of the post is an explicit tie between the “Rat brand” and your event. You did not say that you were hosting an unaffiliated event, and you think Rats should join in—you said “My rationalist group is hosting the event”. By doing it under the aegis of your rationalist group, you are creating the tie.
I am sad this idea is getting so many down votes. More smart people need to engage with politics and you cannot engage in any better way than by backing a candidate.
Why do you believe that?
How does it do that? Especially if it involves backing a mainstream candidate?
I don’t need to back a candidate to change political rhetoric. A more effective way to change political rhetoric is figure out ways to change the current culture.
I doubt it. I don’t think you’re interested in having an open-minded conversation. I suspect that you’re only interested in supporting Kamala Harris. You haven’t explained why you support Harris, and you obviously need to do that if you want to start a conversation.
How does backing a candidate “bring more people out of tribalism”? You haven’t given any explanation for this.
I believe that because over 200 people RSVPed for the event, unlike anything else we’ve done. This even eclipses our AI event.
We’re going to focus on action and reasons for backing Harris vs “rah rah” hype making.
The open conversation is how to get a candidate elected.
Most people back a candidate like they back a sports team. They don’t have reasons. We’ll work toward reasons.
There is basically no method of engaging with politics worse than backing a national candidate. It has tiny impact even if successful, is the most aggressively tribalism-infected, and is incredibly hard to say anything novel.
If you must get involved in politics, it should be local, issue-based, and unaffiliated with LW or rationalism. It is far more effective to lobby on issues than for candidates, it is far more effective to support local candidates than national, and there is minimal upside and enormous downside to having any of your political efforts tied with the ‘brand’ of rationalism or LW.
Agreed. I don’t think I’m tying our event with the LW or Rat brand. I am simply saying more rats need to support a candidate.
This is a local event in which I will push my anti-tribalism agenda. My bet is many who attend are not interested in being tribalistic. Myself and those I know who are behind Kamala are largely behind her because we appreciate evidence-based thinking, which Donald Trump has worked against.
The first paragraph of the post is an explicit tie between the “Rat brand” and your event. You did not say that you were hosting an unaffiliated event, and you think Rats should join in—you said “My rationalist group is hosting the event”. By doing it under the aegis of your rationalist group, you are creating the tie.
Ah, yes. I meant I am not publicly tying a Rat brand to our event. There is no mention of rationality on the DNC event page.
I live in Europe.
I hope you can get political with EU rats.