this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
506 points (89.9% liked)

Showerthoughts

30032 readers
397 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    • 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    • 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    • 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Debates and actually adressing the problems.

You can't say "Party X just wants your money", try "Our party will help you keep your money", or even "Unlike some parties today, we will put your taxes to good use".

It's a lot harder to make a compelling attack without a concrete focus. "Some parties are corrupt" is so trivially true that's it embarassing, but "Party X is corrupt" is a rallying cry.

It won't prevent lies by any means, but since specific claims can only be nade about your own party it gives an advantage to talking about your own party instead of every ad being incredibly negative claims one step off of a flame war. Hopefully that leads to building a strong case and then defending that case during debates, but at least the ads will have less direct negativity.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It would be more positive, but potentially less accurate. A party that does a lot of very specific and bad stuff but has some vaguely good policies to point towards would beat a neutral party, even if they shouldn't.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Maybe if you only see the political ads of a single party. It would still be better because you would know of even a single stance of one party.

Last election, I can't remember a single actual stance taken by any party based on political ads. They were all attack ads. Without discussion you couldn't separate the resonable accusations from the trash anyway.

Basing your politocal opinions purely on ads is a terrible stance anyway, and the party best at fearmongering will win there. There aren't any restrictions on ads that can fix people forming opinions only on ads anyway, we'd need to encourage public political debates and discourse instead.