Open debate and winning elections

At the Facebook Integral Left discussion group we've been commenting on the open letter against cancel culture. As Stephanie noted in her original post: "It's sparked A LOT of conversation online, but from what I can tell, seems to just be entrenching people further into their tribes." Just like the "open debate" in that thread.

Her other statement in the comments is also relevant here: "And under circumstances of a fractured and polluted information ecosystem, it may be harder for sunlight to disinfect."

Hence I in my blog have taken the tactics of not so much engaging in intellectual open debate, which does not affect voting behavior of the majority one bit but just provides masturbation for entrenched intellectuals. I'd rather have some impact on voters, and as Twitler and Repugnantans well know, dirty tactics get votes. I want votes, not self-satisfied masturbation. If that puts me into cancel culture I don't give a shit. We have to win elections to enact policies that address social injustice, so whatever that takes.

I'd add that intellectual open debate is just preaching to an already progressive choir whose votes we already have. If we want to reach outside that to blue collar Americans, who for the most part don't trust the elites, other tactics are necessary. Again, Repugnantans know this and it's time we learn from them.

The ideal of The Enlightenment, reasoned, open debate, which in itself leads to the 'truth,' is itself a purity delusion. Hence the reactionary votes against the elites, who are accurately perceived as living in their own high castle divorced from the realities of working people. Winning elections has always been about framing wars that use so-called 'dirty' (literally of the earth) tactics to that pure, abstract world.