Thread by @AlexandraErin

Saw this meme.

Here's the thing we have to understand: as it's not a direct democracy we don't get to pull the lever that saves lives. We can only pull a lever that sends someone else to divert the trolley.

So the question is: who do we trust to actually get there and do it?

I trust Bernie Sanders more than I trust Joe Biden on the grounds that I think Bernie will care more about diverting the trolley. But with lives at stake -- and they really are -- people really have to believe that the person they want to send will get that trolley diverted!

How do we make this decision?

Some people are looking at how each candidate conducts their affairs, which includes how the people around them behave and what they seem to do in response to problems there.

You can think their judgment is flawed or unfair.

But you're not going to convince them to send a specific person to divert the trolley by acting like they're a bunch of jerks choosing to kill the people on the tracks for petty reasons, just because their concern for those people's lives led them to choose a different person.

The worst kind of evangelism, the least effectual, is the kind that starts from the premise that everybody already agrees with you. For instance, a lot of Christian evangelism relies on referring to the Bible as an authority - which it isn't, to people who "need" converting.

If you're voting for Bernie to institute progressive policies and save lives, you believe he's the best choice to actually get those things in place.

If you assume people who won't vote for him are callous, you're assuming they must also already believe as you do, but they suck.

And you are not going to convince anyone that way.

"Oh here it comes, the part where she tells us to be nice," and now you can tune me out, right?

This isn't about civility. This is about persuasion. You can't persuade without perspective.

If your perspective is that *everybody knows and believes* that Bernie will save lives and some people just suck and are voting against that out of spite, you will not convince a single person to switch because your argument, apart from being civil or not, has a false premise.

The way to win votes for Bernie is to convince people that he's the right person to send to divert the trolley - that he can get there, that he will assess the situation, and do what it takes.

Heck, he'll untie the people from the tracks while he's there.

It's technically possible to convince someone of something without understanding their point of view, but only through sheer luck and random chance as you happen to hit on something that works.

I said earlier that the polling suggests that Bernie needs diplomats more than he needs defenders, and I stand by that. Empathy is useful for winning people over not because usu soft babies who need gentle words but because there is no convincing without understanding.

You want to be a hardass? Go ahead and try to change someone's mind without understanding them. You can't even *coerce* or *intimidate* someone without sufficient shared point of view.

"I'd try to get someone to help me save those people on the tracks, but that would require seeing the person I need help from as a fully human being and understanding why they might not fully trust me in a situation where time is short and lives are on the line."