Wanting to help third parties get off the ground local to you and help progressives win more in your state? Join the Equal Vote Coalition and we can organize to help make a difference.

Want to start a grassroots initiative local to you specifically? Find out more here.

  • Logi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    I agree there is a simple and more concise way of answering, but I saw it as a teaching moment to go a bit more in depth.

    Yeah, I think what you’ll really get with a wall of text like this is that people don’t read it and you missed the chance to influence them at all. Case in point: I didn’t read your response. Just skimmed it for the above paragraph.

    If you feel the need to write a lecture, at least answer the why question first. Otherwise people really don’t care about the mechanics of the damned thing.

    • FrostBlazer@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      “Just because a person’s favorite choice isn’t the most popular, doesn’t mean the winning candidate is preferred by the majority of voters.”

      If we’re being specific, I am acknowledging the why from the very first sentence of my original comment. I needed the details to help elaborate my point though.

      To clarify though, I am not trying to cater to everyone, I’m trying to have a dialogue. People that are interested will likely want to read more, those that don’t will skim.

      If I was marketing or just cared about short points I wouldn’t be so detailed, but I believe in what I am saying matters beyond just a surface level glance. Sometimes the answers are not short and sweet, sometimes to make change we have to dig in and put in some more effort.

      The why is answered in the explanation, how many professors give you the answer upfront before you solve a problem? Usually they want you to be presented with the whole problem and have you work your way to finding the answer. I could spoonfeed the answer, but that lacks nuance. I’m personally tired of things being designed just for short attention spans to give a dopamine hit and then they jump to the next source of dopamine. I feel this view has degraded my own mental facilities after looking for ‘efficiency’ in language for several years now.

      If my comment was a post on its own I would have included a hook for why it matters at the start, but if someone is specifically asking me to explain it I’m going to frame it differently.