One thing I always notice about debate analysis is that commentary often talks about who won, who lost, who was "effective," without filling in the obvious gap -- effective at what? What are you assuming "winning" is?
Because let's say someone goes into a restaurant and starts yelling at the staff. Insults them, berates them, and makes them feel like garbage -- and they remain calm and don't really talk back. The person leaves, feeling invigorated and very "I guess I told THEM."
Is that effective? Well, it's effective at making the person doing it feel good, and even at making the staff annoyed. It might even make them feel helpless. But if you flip it around and assume the audience is the restaurant manager or the other diners, who won?
This is one of the things I think @titonka is getting at when she talks about masculinity politics. What do we assume represents effective politicking? Whose eyes are we trying to see through? Why do so many assume "landing blows" is what debates are for?
Have we checked that "landing blows" or frustrating opponents is persuasive, without more, to voters? At the very least, I feel like there should be a better definition of what you assume is the objective before you declare a winner. /fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
