@Obscurequokka That’s incorrect. Sometimes you’re 100% right and you have to fight for it.
Take a real life example: In Spain, during the debate for marriage equality, everybody was pretty much on board with the idea. Only conservatives had a condition: “Let’s not call it marriage. Let’s call it union, or something. Everything else will be the same, except the name.”
Most people thought: “If that’s what it takes to get a unanimous vote, why not? It’s a cheap price to pay.”
But there was a gay rights activist who said: “No. No compromises. If they give it a different name, they will still think it is a different thing.” And he was right. The law passed untouched and nobody, ever since, has cared about it. Gay people can get married and divorced, and nobody gives it a second thought.
Now, take the debate about universal healthcare in the US. The Democrats always start it from an already compromised position, the Republicans stand firm on whatever they want and make the Democrats move right and right until they get an agreement, which then proceed to sell to the public as a great achievement. But what do they accomplish every time? Nothing. Keeping a bullshit system that only works for the rich.
Sometimes you’re 100% right and you have to fight for it.
@josemanuel
Fair.
The concept you are describing sounds a lot like the Overton window.
I am conflicted on the issue. I get it, it’s the hardliners that make the moderates more palatable.
I just wish we as a society were less combative and more open to discussion, which probably is a naïve ideal in itself.
