• Pup Biru@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    are you literally questioning whether concrete policy comes from discussion? do you think 1 guy just snaps his fingers and makes it so?

    politics doesn’t require 1 action… politics and swaying large groups of people requires those people to discuss and support to build over time

      • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        the way you do for literally anything else that becomes policy… discussion is an absolute requirement to forming policy. it is, without exception, the only way to start making any change

        what comes after that is varied and complex

          • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            that’s called politics mate, and since it’s varied and complex - obviously so - i refuse to engage because i no longer believe you’re acting in good faith

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              I am 100% acting in good faith. My point is that you can signal all you want, but that absolutely does not mean you can cross the finish line. Parties in power do not operate based on what the public wants, but what their donors want. The US doesn’t have federally enshrined abortion rights, medicare for all, stricter gun laws, even though the majority want those, because party donors do not.

              Organizing is how you get popular policy through. MLK Jr., the Black Panther Party, and Malcolm X got the Civil Rights movement to actually enact change, not just discussion, because the government was worried about armed revolt.