Thread by @AlexandraErin

So here's another "I'm new here, please explain to me like I'm five" thing about the Bernie camp.

Any time I see someone talking about doing outreach to a community, I also see Bernie fans saying "Actually we do very well with that community, so tell it to the other candidate."

So... are we full up on votes, then? Do we have the exact number we want? Just the right amount?

If so, great! Sorry I didn't check before switching my vote to Bernie, hope I didn't screw anything up.

And really charitable to direct those "extra" votes to a rival. So laudable.

If we're not actually full up on votes and we think Bernie could use some more votes than he's been getting, then this is another example of how defensiveness is not helpful.

You can't actually defend someone (yourself, or someone else) with defensiveness. Doesn't work.

The difference between defense and defensiveness is like the difference between "covered in chocolate" and "a chocolatey coating". A chocolatey substance is not chocolate. Defensiveness is not defense.

I get the impulse, I really do. I wrestle with it every day, as does every human being. You see someone saying something negative about you or something you identify with and you think it's unfair and you want to set the record straight.

But as someone who until recently was not a Bernie voter, I can tell you from the outside it makes it harder to tell the difference between the mass of well-meaning, principled Bernie supporters and the small toxic subset. It amplifies the toxicity.

I mean, we all know Biden both had a bad look and a fairly unorthodox strategy for winning elections those (multiple, plural) times he snapped at someone that they should be voting for someone else, then, right?

Responding to someone suggesting that our candidate could do better with, "How about your candidate does better?" is in the same category of error.

And based on Super Tuesday, our candidate *does* need to do better.

Now maybe you read this and think, "Fine, okay, I'll only do it when the person has no idea what they're talking about and needs to be corrected."

Like, say the person's advice is just vague platitudes and there's no actual way to implement it or chance it would measurably affect the outcome.

...why does this need correcting? What's that accomplish? Their advice isn't affecting anything.

But stepping into argue with them creates the impression that the movement around Bernie Sanders isn't interested in outreach, isn't interested in coalition building, isn't interested in getting more votes.

Which is poison for a political campaign.

And I know, I know. Twitter is only a small subset of the electorate and the dynamics here are a bit different than offline, because Political Twitter is paying more attention and cares more about both the minutiae of campaigns and the drama.

But we're also frequently the people who are passionate and talkative about these topics offline, too. So the experiences the people we engage or browbeat on here have will carry over to "real life", shaping how they see and discuss the Sanders campaign and our candidate.

One of the many apparently very unfair things is that there are many fewer signs of toxicity IRL... but that doesn't stop people who never get into political arguments on Twitter from knowing about it.

Is that just because "the lying snakes won't shut up about it"? I doubt it.

Whether it's fair or not, whether we like it or not, the tubes are leaking... the online discourse is affecting the offline discourse. That can't be avoided.

Let me tell you something about arguments in general, as someone who is good at arguing with people and who used to be fully aboard the "actually if your ideas were sound you would expose them to the purifying fires of public debate so they would come out the stronger" train.

Arguing with someone does more to change your own mind than to change the other person's. When you aggressively argue your ideas, you're forced to think about them in terms of their strongest points, while also emotionally investing in them on a deeper level than before.

So if you get into an argument with somebody who doesn't think Medicare 4 All will be a good deal for their community, you're less likely to change your mind than to harder *their* position, because while you're arguing, so are they.

So, I mean, if you encounter a voter who wants universal healthcare but is afraid of Medicare 4 All because of some policy quibble (even if you think it's based on false info) or who doesn't think Bernie Sanders can seal the deal, you probably won't help with "But you're wrong."

You're more likely to help with, "I hear your concerns, and I really think Bernie would hear them, too. Sending him to the White House would be the start of a conversation. Whatever health care we can get, he's the candidate who will fight for it. I hope you'll keep him in mind."

Do you know why I do these long threads and don't really engage with the replies directly?

Like I said, I'm an inveterate arguer. Usually if you see me threading like this, it means the urge to jump into the comments somewhere and mix it up on a topic is getting overwhelming.

Usually means I've seen enough different people repeating the same idea or behavior I'd disagree with that I think it's a pattern worth addressing.

So what to do?

Argue individually with each and every one of them?

That's beyond pointless.

The chance that you'll change a stranger's mind on Twitter dot com by replying to their reply to another reply with a reply with "But that's where you're wrong, see, and you're being completely unfair, and here is some logic, debate it if you can." isn't 0 but it rounds to it.

And the deeper into threading you get in an argument with someone, the harder it is to follow, the less people will look at it for anything other than popcorn value, and the less compelling the dazzling displays of logic get.

Also everything takes ten times as long because you have to wait for the other person to respond. And if their response misinterprets or twists or doesn't address what you said then you've got to spend more time and words getting your point back on track.

Whereas if you make a thread, addressed to no one, making your points to the general case... you have no opponent who is defensive, and you have less reason to be defensive yourself. Your point is not buried deep in a sub-thread, and additional tweets increase the visibility.

I'm not calling anyone in particular out and saying, "No, stop, you're doing it wrong." So someone might come across this thread and get drawn in because I've written it in a way they might find interesting and they might think, "Well, that's a perspective I never considered."

So the chance that this thread will convince someone to reconsider their approach is greater than zero, and the thread is also being read by more people who might be that someone, so the total number of "conversions" is going to be much higher than if I stopped to argue.

To put it very simply: on Twitter, you will change more hearts and minds by dragging a soapbox to the public square and speaking your truth than you will be getting in the comments and arguing with other people's truths.

(Even when their truths are false.)

There's this fabulous concept I hear about, a marketplace of ideas. It's like everyone has a stall where they can sell their ideas, and we're all going to each other's stalls and fighting to the death until only one idea remains... wait, that's not how marketplaces work, is it?

In a real marketplace of ideas, we all have our little stands and we can all hawk our wares, and the person whose ideas are most useful and attainable and whose pitch is most appealing will get the most people to buy their ideas.

(Other ideas will continue to exist.)

If you want to counter the impression that Bernie appeals only to bored white college students or whatever you're seeing, it might feel satisfying to just get in there and mix it up with people you think are spreading it.

(Or it might be deeply unsatisfying yet you can't stop.)

But it's not going to be effective. It's not going to change anyone's minds. It will at best make them feel like talking about increasing his reach is a third rail (which again, not ideal for a political candidate!) and at worst harden their minds against him as a candidate.

The absolute best way to have that argument is by not having it with anyone. Just make your case. Mute the conversation from the first tweet if you expect to be deluged with "But actually" and you don't want to see them if you're not going to reply.

My point is not to bury your truth but to unbury it. Don't bury it in arguments with individuals, and don't let argumentative individuals come and bury it while you're making it. Make it front and center. Shout it from the rooftops. Tell it from the mountain.

As Monty Python fans know, an argument is not just a river in... I mean, an argument is not just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other party says.

It's a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

Notice that there's no mention in that definition of another person.

This thread is my argument. It started out cheeky and provocative, which is a calculated risk and means some people won't accept it, but it will go farther and be seen by more.

I've laid out my case from the specific (relating to how to deal with "Bernie needs to reach more people in these groups") to the general (how to make your case on basically anything).

Probably there are people in the replies who disagree with parts or all of it. If not yet, there will be, because this thread is going to travel.

I might read them later, when time has passed, to see what I can take on board from them. But I'm satisfied with the case I've made.

And being satisfied with the case I've made, I have nothing here to defend, no reason to have an argument with another person that either will be seen by no one else or will be seen by thousands on some internet drama forum by people who think one or both of us are "cringe".

You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like. This thread *will* change minds in a way a reply argument won't. Your mind? Maybe not. I can't control you. You can't target an individual to change their mind by pure logical brute force. It just doesn't work.

If you would like to make the case that Bernie Sanders has the most diverse coalition of voters behind him or you would like to illustrate the appeal he has to your community in particular, these are cases well worth making!

I just suggest you consider audience and venue.

Do you want to tell everybody your truth, or fight somebody over your truth?

I think the former is a better use of time and more likely to have a good outcome.

That's all.