That's not a feeling, that's a claim or an hypothesis. Such claims can be based on feelings, but the claims themselves can be empirically tested. What can't be empirically proven or disproven, however, is whether or not someone's subjective feelings about something are "right" or "wrong." So, if you ask someone how they feel about the economy, and they say, "I don't feel good about it," there is no way to prove that feeling is factually "wrong."
TheDemonBuer
joined 1 year ago
I don't know what messaging would have worked better, and I don't know why people chose Trump over Kamala. I don't believe Trump will make their situations better, in fact I think he likely will make them worse, but a majority of voters didn't see it that way. Again, I don't know why that is, other than at some point it became a popular idea that Trump was simply "better on the economy."
What I really, really want people to understand is that while I don't understand why people chose Trump that doesn't mean the economic anxieties that drove them to do it are not real. They are real, and their feelings about the economy should not be dismissed because they don't necessarily align with what the economic indicators seem to be telling us.
But a person's feelings about their economic and financial situation is not something that can be proven "wrong" empirically. If a person feels stressed about making rent, or frustrated about higher grocery prices, or pessimistic about their job prospects, there is no study or experiment you can conduct that can empirically prove those feelings or anxieties are "wrong."
It's not so much that people are claiming that the economic indicators are false or incorrect, because that is something that can be definitely disproven, it's that they don't feel great about the economy DESPITE the indicators being good, which means the economic indicators might not be very good at actually indicating how people are going to feel about the economy.
And how do you explain to someone that how they "feel" about the economy is factually wrong?
There is no such thing as a factually wrong feeling. This is everything that's wrong with the liberal elites. The people say they don't feel great about things and the elites simply look down their nose at them and say, "you're factually wrong."
all indicators show a healthy economy
Fuck.Your.Indicators.
If a majority of people don't FEEL like the economy is doing well, then it's not doing well. Period.
The economy right now is doing very well...
And yet the economy, and people's fears about it, were the main reason Trump won. Until liberal elites like this guy get it through their thick fucking skulls that how the majority of people FEEL about the economy is INFINITELY more important than what the economic indicators say, they will continue to lose. If people tell you they don't feel good about the state of the economy, believe them. Don't ignore them, don't wave them off, don't dismiss them as ignorant morons, believe them and listen to them.
Preventing any climate change was never really an option. The climate is going to change, it already has. The goal has always been to limit the change as much as possible to keep it within the most stable and least harmful range possible. It was decided that limiting warming to 1.5C was our optimum target. We will not meet that target.
So, the best case scenario is no longer on the table, but we can still limit warming, and the harm caused by rapid, anthropogenic climate change as much as possible. Every degree, every tenth of a degree of warming that we are able to prevent will reduce harm. Therefore, we should still be working diligently to reduce human GHG emissions to net zero as quickly as possible, even if we will not be able to meet the Paris climate goals.
Make no mistake, however, it's going to be bad. Even at 1.5C it was going to be bad, it would have just been the most manageable level of bad that we felt was achievable. I'm all for hope and optimism but we need to understand that bad things are coming so that we can adequately prepare and try to mitigate the impacts as much as possible. Just how bad things get depends on what we do, and by "we" I mean all of humanity.
But while there is a floor for how bad things will be, there's also a ceiling. I think the chances of near term human extinction or the total, permanent collapse of human civilization are essentially zero. Climate change isn't going to bring on the apocalypse.
Well, there's still 42% who voted for Harris. What's wrong with them?
There are a lot of things that are just universally beneficial, like healthcare, environment, education.
Ok, so let's focus on that stuff, then. My point is, maybe we can't achieve perfect justice and fairness for everyone, so let's just try to like make rent more affordable and make it so people don't have to stress as much about paying their bills and maintaining a decent standard of living.
It's all too much. The Democratic party wants to be a big tent party, the party of all. That's just not possible. Every group wants the party to prioritize their issues. Blacks and whites, straight people and gay people, men and women, young and old, religious people and atheists, owners and workers, cops and criminals, leftists, moderates, and conservatives, etc, etc, etc. We can't give everyone what they want.
I'm sorry, I really am, but we can't make everyone happy. Especially since a lot of these groups do not like each other. Look, it would be great if all these different groups could come together in one big rainbow coalition of peace, join hands and sing Kumbaya but it ain't gonna fucking happen. Stop trying to please and appease all these people and instead try to materially improve the lives of as many people as possible.
Stop trying to achieve perfect justice for every identity group and just focus on making housing more fucking affordable for as many people as possible, and healthcare, and a decent education, and so forth.
You've proven nothing. Feelings are not hypotheses that can be tested through experimentation or research. There is no objectively right or correct emotional reaction to a situation or experience. If someone feels anxiety or stress about their economic situation, there is no objective, verifiable way of proving that feeling is "factually wrong."