I really remember that day, somewhere in the heart of the election campaigns of a year and a half ago.
I was standing outside a TV studio with a bunch of smokers.
Suddenly the conversation turned from gossip and trivia to politics.
I made a little joke and did what I do in such cases: I left the conversation on the way in.
Just before I opened the door, one of the participants in the conversation stopped me.
Wait, he said, where are you going?
Leave it, I told him, we'll talk about politics in the studio, I don't have the strength for these arguments.
Then he told me something that I admit has been with me since a long time: "It's not that you don't have the strength for political debates, you don't have the strength to hear a different opinion. You just got used to the radio that you play and hear only your opinion."
And I admit that something of that got into me then.
For a moment I pondered this and blamed myself for perhaps not paying attention to the other side of the political debate.
Some months have passed since then, and today I know for sure that I am not paying attention.
I am perfectly capable of having a debate with a liberal leftist about the nature of the country, I am capable of having a bitter debate with a rightist grappling with internal right-wing questions, but I have absolutely no ability to hold a reasonable debate with Yesh Atid and Blue and White voters and RALBists of all kinds. I also know another thing. , and that no one is capable of conducting such a debate. And another thing: that debates are not conducted because they cannot be conducted.
They can in no way really conduct themselves.
And why is this happening?
For the same reason, there has been no fluctuation in the results of the polls for such a long time.
The geniuses who conceived the RLV campaign built it so that it would feed itself. It has mechanisms that preserve conflict. After all, if it were a real struggle over principles or opinions, it would be possible, through debate, to change something. Both reality changes and things happen. Precisely because that the debate is about nothing and is built on creating fake panic, there is no chance of any effect.
Example: One camp managed - in a false way in my opinion - to produce an irrational presentation of threat and danger.
As part of this misrepresentation, he created a clause that accuses the other camp of accusing him, the accuser, of creating a threat and danger.
what did we get
A vicious circle, within the framework of which every claim against the opposing camp strengthens, by actually making it, the opposing camp.
boom.
draw.
this is genius!
thank you
Now take any subject in dispute, and you will see that this is exactly how the mechanism of the debate around it works.
And it's shocking, because in the middle, at the heart of this aberrant exercise, a country is run and we are run.
And this situation, described here, is a terrible low that we have reached, and there is no sign that it is about to end.
And don't answer me.
I'm not getting into an argument.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us