[fnordpiglet]

I suspect this government isn’t receptive to commentary from anyone other than only one person. While I’d never discourage anyone from advocating their beliefs this feels like at best a waste of energy. They are going to do it because they decided to do it - the solicitation of comments is performative and required. The only way to stop it is via the courts and by voting next November.

[saghm]

There's even precedent for the current president's agencies compiling some pretty sketchy "comments" in the past due to not doing basic sanity checks on pretty obvious fake comments that happened to support their agenda, like when supposedly seeking input from the public about repealing net neutrality[1]. There were so many duplicates that only thirty 30 unique comments made up 57% of the overall total, and the second most common "name" among the authors was literally "The Internet".

No one in the current administration cares about what random members of the public think about their policies, and that's by design. Even the government positions that are intended to be permanent across administrations aren't a safe bet at this point with was things have been going

[1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/11/29/public-comme...

[mmooss]

You are 'this government's best friend, advocating for their opponents to give up and quit. In a remarkable pattern that I never thought I'd see in the rugged individualistic, idealistic, freedom-loving USA, a large group is literally self-defeating: They defeat themselves before even getting out of bed.

That's why your opponents are unstoppable - because you don't stop them. The performative nonsense is their aggression display.

They still want to win the election. Political and policy outcomes aren't all or nothing; the more they see, the more it will nudge them in whatever direction you want. Others will see it and it will nudge them too. If one person didn't embrace being a quitter, others would do the same.

[the_gipsy]

First, the post literally gives instructions to do something.

Second, the root problem is not incompetence, it's that half of America wanted exactly this, for a second time now.

[mmooss]

> the root problem is not incompetence, it's that half of America wanted exactly this, for a second time now.

That is the same psychology I described in the GP: Instead of looking in the mirror and figuring out what they need to do better, they blame outside forces. It's victim psychology - powerless, someone else's fault, etc.

Your group failed; people didn't vote for it because you are well-known quitters and whiners and victims - and losers; you're ok with losing and quit when it happens - and you conduct shitty politics as a result. Who votes for that? Who even can stand to listen to it - it's sickening, depressing, disheartening.

The right wing says, 'we believe in X and we won't be stopped no matter what; we will never give up'. That gets votes. That gets things done.

Get out of bed, stop crying, and get to work. That you still hold on politically with this victim psychology shows how bad the right wing's message is. Never give up, never even talk about it.

[the_gipsy]

> Instead of looking in the mirror and figuring out what they need to do better, they blame outside forces.

I'm not American, so let me ask you: what do you think they should have done better? Maybe a not presenting a woman candidate? I ask because that's the most common denominator in their last two election losses.

[mmooss]

> what do you think they should have done better?

Take a good position - the GOP leaves the field wide open, maybe as simple as 'Liberty and Justice for All' (part of the American pledge of allegiance that everyone knows) - and fight for it, stand up for yourself, against all enemies and attacks, and fight until you win. Take punches, never go down, keep going, have a winning strategy and keep going until it works. Nobody will believe in you until you do it.

The Dems never confront the GOP and always fold. I think if they fought, successfully, for almost any policy, they'd attract a lot of support.

> the most common denominator

Not at all. How about they were Democrats, Senators, .... If it stand out the most to you, maybe ask why?

[the_gipsy]

> Not at all.

With a straight face lmao

[fnordpiglet]

Taking performative actions you are certain will fail unnoticed is a waste of energy. I most certainly didn’t advise doing nothing, this seems like a hyperbolic take that ignores what I suggested was more impactful. By extension, encouraging others to take those actions is productive and there are other actions I didn’t enumerate that are productive - I didn’t intend to be exhaustive in all actions that could be productive, just that this specific action of commenting on their preordained policy decisions is pointless. I don’t see any argument here that in any way refutes that so I assume you agree.

[mmooss]

> Taking performative actions you are certain will fail unnoticed is a waste of energy.

It's true, but usually in the opposite way you intend. If you go into ventures thinking they will "fail unnoticed", you certainly will fail. For example, who would hire someone or invest in someone with this attitude?

If you go in determined to succeed no matter what, there are no guarantees but you have a good chance.

Comments certainly contribute - the only risk to their power is people like you mocking them. And have you ever seen a successful team where some people mock others doing work?

[fnordpiglet]

I’d note you’ve not really proposed anything related to how commenting on policy in this administration achieves anything just pointed to cases where negative thinking brings bad mojo or something. Along that vein, I have been trying to grow wings and fly to the moon for the last 15 years but despite the investment of effort have not succeeded. It’s probably because people kept telling me it’s not possible and a waste of time, by the reasoning here. If I could get people to stop mocking me when I flop off the roof onto the ground I surely would succeed?

There are activities that are absolutely not worth doing because their chance of succeeding is zero percent even with the strongest of desire for it to not be zero.

I posit because this administration literally does not care what you have to say only what one individual on this planet has to say there’s no point in trying to reason with them. The only action that will work to stop them is in court and in the voting booth, and by proxy activities that magnify the value of either of those activities by getting others to participate. I think protest is a much more effective use of energy for that reason - it energizes like minded people and when this administration reacts with brutality to opposing opinions it shocks people not aligned with dictatorial oppression - which is almost everyone. But participating in the comment processes of their regulatory capture? Waste of time with zero chance of causing even an iota of change no matter how hard you wish it to be otherwise or how much you ignore the naysayers. Spend that energy growing wings and flying to the moon.

[vintermann]

The government isn't one person, and I think both bureaucrats and judges are actually quite receptive to lots of people - only it's nebulous to who and why. Trying to please, and hoping to get rewarded, but neither you or they themselves are 100% certain of by who. Opaque power structures, everyone's paranoid, including the powerful.

[themafia]

> this government isn’t receptive to commentary from anyone

Name one government of the past 60 years that was.

[fnordpiglet]

Actually the comment collection process has in fact caused changes in policy over many administrations, largely because the policy makers were interested in achieving some goal aligned to their function and believed in our system. When commentary went strongly against their policy there was often a step back and reassessment. This administration appears to have two goals: maximally hurt people who hurt Trumps feelings and create the deep state they lamented but never really existed until now to continue to maximally hurt people similar to those who hurt trumps feels in perpetuity.