|
Does Voting Matter This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
91 | 28.44% |
| No |
|
133 | 41.56% |
| Jeb |
|
59 | 18.44% |
| Bernie |
|
37 | 11.56% |
| Total: | 320 votes | ||
|
Space Gopher posted:There's a near-perfect analogue that doesn't involve durian here: racially restrictive housing covenants, from the developments back in the 1960s or whatever that said "no Black people/Jews/etc may live here." Everyone acknowledges that they're a bad thing, but they're also a royal pain to get rid of, because they were deliberately constructed to stick with the property through almost any event. This still doesn't add up. It doesn't matter (very much) that housing covenants remain on the books because of the lack of enforcement, not the lack of impact. The covenants are depreciated, homeowners associations are no longer using them to enforce a racial caste system with the backing of the government. If an old Jim Crow law was technically still on the books but long since shot down in court and completely unenforced for decades, then it too wouldn't matter very much. An enforced 'black people can sometimes not eat durians' law is infinitely worse than an unenforced and long dead 'black people cannot own property' law; the former is a continuing propagation of a racial caste system, the latter is just a black mark on national history.
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 15:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
James Garfield posted:I mean, 91 percent of black people voted for the Democrat last year. I'm not sure how you continue this particular argument without either admitting that Democrats have done something to make them a good alternative for black people, or denying that black people have the agency to choose who to vote for. This is some circular logic here - just because black people vote for something doesn't mean it supports or alleviates their life. A policy does not become "black-positive" just because black people voted for it. To illustrate this, actually, I'll go back to 2020, when Joe Biden said that anyone who believes Tara Reid shouldn't vote for him. This might have come across as magnanimous, but it was actually one of the more insidious things he's ever done, because he knows a bunch of people fear Donald Trump and are willing to vote for whoever to get rid of him. So a bunch of people who probably do believe Tara Reid but think that can't eclipse Trump's sins are going to vote for Biden, which can just lead to him crowing that people believe him over Reid after all even though that's not the case. But also, there's already a fallacy in what you're saying, in that you say "91 percent of black people." No... 91 percent of black people who are voting voted for the Democrat. Now, last year's election had high turnout (for America) so that's a point in your favor, but it's still 2/3rds participation with black people at, according to this (if I'm reading it correctly, it's a little hard for me to follow) at 58%. Let's say that's over half and count as a representative sampling of black opinion. That still means you'd have to argue things like denial of M4A, refusal to raise minimum wage, or Biden's history with crime bills and school debt dischargement bills and the like are all pro-black policies. Polling-wise, they aren't. So why the discrepancy between polled position and candidate? Almost like there is no "black" alternative to vote for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 15:47
|
|
|
If the racial covenants weren't able to keep black people from buying the house altogether, but still imposed a ton of extra hassles on them to get the deed etc that would still be bad, and the defense that it didn't matter in the end because anyone who really wants to get the house would get it eventually with enough time and persistence wouldn't hold water.Probably Magic posted:
Yeah that too, there's black people who don't vote because they don't think it matters or because they think both candidates are the same, so according to this dumb gotcha they must be racist white supremacists who love Republican voter suppression laws (???)
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 15:55
|
|
|
Saying "look, black people vote!" as a way to prove voting (in contemporary America for higher office, astounding that I need to make this explicit, but) is meaningful is really stupid. The only thing it shows is that there is a perception amongst the people who vote that voting is meaningful. We already know that -- there are posts in this thread. Black votes "matter" in as much as white votes "matter" in as much as any votes "matter". If you're a black person living in America you can't vote for anyone to meaningfully address climate change, or provide you a good job with a good wage, or end the war on drugs, or anything except for whatever asinine culture war poo poo resonates with you. You get to pick between the party that will throw a parade for the hero cop that kills you or the party that uses your death to stage a kente cloth photo op. You don't get to vote for anyone who will actually do anything about a bloodthirsty, racist, militarized police force that is willing and able to murder you with impunity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 16:10
|
|
|
only two votes matter in America today: the vote to unionize your workplace and the vote for your shop steward
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/joshuaerlich/status/1434161550085042176?s=21 I don't know the specific judges in these appellate courts, but I do know that the Democrats helped vote for conservative judges time and time again while Trump was in office.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 17:12
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:This is some circular logic here - just because black people vote for something doesn't mean it supports or alleviates their life. A policy does not become "black-positive" just because black people voted for it. This is what I meant by "denying their agency". You're telling me that making a choice doesn't mean they agree with it. Also you're projecting your own opinions onto them. Probably Magic posted:That still means you'd have to argue things like denial of M4A, refusal to raise minimum wage, or Biden's history with crime bills and school debt dischargement bills and the like are all pro-black policies. Polling-wise, they aren't. So why the discrepancy between polled position and candidate? There are a few things here. First, I don't think it's true that polling says people care about Biden's votes on the 1976 higher education act and 1994 crime bill. Second, policy isn't the main way people decide how to vote. And people responding "agree" to a policy question on a poll doesn't mean they'll vote for a candidate that supports it. For example medicare for all polls keep finding half of Republicans support it, and more than half of Republicans supported Biden's covid relief bill but passing it didn't move his approval rating. There was a pretty simple test case last year. Biden had a primary opponent who supported medicare for all, raising the minimum wage, and didn't vote for the 1976 higher education act (he voted for the 1994 crime bill but it wasn't really made into an issue), and Biden easily won the black vote (but not 91% of it).
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 17:14
|
|
|
That's the long-form equivalent of "nuh-uh." You need to explain why people are voting against their expressed interests, not just say,"Oh, you don't know what black people think." I don't have to - there's polls on this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:This is what I meant by "denying their agency". You're telling me that making a choice doesn't mean they agree with it. Also you're projecting your own opinions onto them. But as we are often reminded in this thread, you have to vote to elect the Democrat because the Republican is worse (and for black people, significantly worse). It's not a choice, it's an ultimatum. It's hard to say that black people have very much agency in the matter, just as someone with a gun to their head doesn't have any agency. You can't have it both ways. If there's only one valid party to vote for, then there's no agency.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:This is what I meant by "denying their agency". You're telling me that making a choice doesn't mean they agree with it. Also you're projecting your own opinions onto them. I mean, voter participation in general was near 2/3 in 2020, so I think it’s apparent that the majority of people of all races believe that voting matters. “Voting doesn’t matter” is a minority contrarian position - which doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s wrong (although I think it is, personally). Theoretically somebody saying “voting doesn’t matter” is denying the agency of people across racial lines, so I don’t know if singling out black people strengthens the counterargument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 17:48
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:That's the long-form equivalent of "nuh-uh." You need to explain why people are voting against their expressed interests, not just say,"Oh, you don't know what black people think." I don't have to - there's polls on this stuff. Logic like this is why I refuse to engage in lesser evil voting anymore. When you vote for somebody a lot of people will make the assumption that you support all/most of their agenda which in turn gives that candidate a mandate once in office to do lovely things. So for example when people vote for a Democrat because they are less bad than the Republican but also don't vote for the 3rd party candidate because they don't see them as electorally viable, many will assume that this is a choice based in policy preferences rather than the harsh realities of the political process. Then when the elected Democrat starts trying to cut social security bad faith actors will point to the voting numbers and say "Hey! He won by a large margin and he said he'd do this so this is clearly what the people want!". It's very frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
Extremely same. There's this fallacy I see a lot that people assume politicians care if the votes for them were reluctant or not. They don't. They especially don't if they know you'll just vote for them again next election regardless of what happens. It turns into a very unaccountable system very quickly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:But as we are often reminded in this thread, you have to vote to elect the Democrat because the Republican is worse (and for black people, significantly worse). It's not a choice, it's an ultimatum. It's hard to say that black people have very much agency in the matter, just as someone with a gun to their head doesn't have any agency. I voted for Biden last year because Trump told white supremacists to stand by, now I'm being told that voting for Biden means I am lying about wanting Medicare For All and am actually an opponent of it. Well poo poo I don't want to be against Medicare For All, I guess I'd better not vote for him again then! The 2020 primary wasn't even about whether Medicare For All is good. The Democrats ran a massive fear campaign to convince people that endorsing Medicare For All would end with Trump winning. People were told only Biden can win and we have to nominate him no matter what And from what we're seeing in Buffalo this wasn't even a lie. When someone who is actually a threat to the system wins a primary, the Democrats break their own laws against third parties and start activating Republicans to vote to maintain the status quo. They're even threatening to abolish the office of Mayor if a socialist wins fair and square. They say it's because they didn't like the previous mayor but this is obviously a lie because (1) they only brought it up after he lost the primary and (2) they're backing his sore loser campaign
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:They're even threatening to abolish the office of Mayor if a socialist wins fair and square. They say it's because they didn't like the previous mayor but this is obviously a lie because (1) they only brought it up after he lost the primary and (2) they're backing his sore loser campaign Not only that, but the courts let the sore loser campaign even though he didn't get his paperwork submitted in time... y'know, the thing that the Dems kept using to sue the Green Party off of ballots last year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:I mean, voter participation in general was near 2/3 in 2020, so I think it’s apparent that the majority of people of all races believe that voting matters. “Voting doesn’t matter” is a minority contrarian position - which doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s wrong (although I think it is, personally). We've gone over this before but nobody is saying that voting doesn't matter in the most absolute sense. Just that what you have control over is extremely limited to the point where it's not worth putting much effort into it outside of very specific circumstances. Getting a candidate elected takes a lot of work. Why should I spend my time, money and energy getting Nina Turner (now sponsored by Goldman Sachs, lol) into an office where she will have near zero real ability to change anything when I can instead work for a mutual aid network, help my local union negotiate better pay, or do direct action to disrupt capitalism directly? readingatwork fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Sep 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 18:20
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Not only that, but the courts let the sore loser campaign even though he didn't get his paperwork submitted in time... y'know, the thing that the Dems kept using to sue the Green Party off of ballots last year. Aha but don't you want it to be easier for third parties to run? Gotcha! But actually yeah if because of this ruling third parties always have to be allowed on the ballot from now on regardless have how bad/late their paperwork is it'd be worth it but we all know that's not how it's going to go down because this happens constantly. The establishment choice gets a pass even when what they're doing is blatantly illegal while actual third parties get kicked off for trivialities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 18:32
|
|
|
Yeah, like Mike Gravel not being allowed on stage because of "the rules" but Mike Bloomberg, well, we can waive the rules for him, as a treat. Anyway, that's enough about Dem bullshit from me at least, the larger argument is about voting and Lesser Evils in general. But yeah, these institutions don't cling to legitimacy the best.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Logic like this is why I refuse to engage in lesser evil voting anymore. When you vote for somebody a lot of people will make the assumption that you support all/most of their agenda which in turn gives that candidate a mandate once in office to do lovely things. So for example when people vote for a Democrat because they are less bad than the Republican but also don't vote for the 3rd party candidate because they don't see them as electorally viable, many will assume that this is a choice based in policy preferences rather than the harsh realities of the political process. Then when the elected Democrat starts trying to cut social security bad faith actors will point to the voting numbers and say "Hey! He won by a large margin and he said he'd do this so this is clearly what the people want!". It's very frustrating. This was something I brought up a lot during the primaries. When you check the box next to someone's name, it implies acceptance of the Entire Package. There's no comment section on the bottom where you get to say "Well I like their policy on X, but not on Y." It's just one checkmark in the box, which means whether you personally like it or not, the paper trail is going to say You voted for the person who believed in X and Y, and that is going to be used as support for both.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Yeah, like Mike Gravel not being allowed on stage because of "the rules" but Mike Bloomberg, well, we can waive the rules for him, as a treat. Democrats trying to make Bloomberg the president for a hot minute was a real crack ping moment for me. Had he somehow won the primary I'd probably have voted for Trump purely as a matter of harm reduction. Him not being chased out of Democratic spaces with torches and pitchforks should be a huge red flag for people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Democrats trying to make Bloomberg the president for a hot minute was a real crack ping moment for me. Had he somehow won the primary I'd probably have voted for Trump purely as a matter of harm reduction. Him not being chased out of Democratic spaces with torches and pitchforks should be a huge red flag for people. He was never intended to be a serious candidate, he was there specifically for Biden to dunk on and look more "left" than he actually is. It was just part of the forced complicity act going on with everything in that primary. How else do you get a vice president who the media had been hyping as a future star for months but was polling fourth in her own state and dropped out before the primaries even start?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Theoretically somebody saying “voting doesn’t matter” is denying the agency of people across racial lines, so I don’t know if singling out black people strengthens the counterargument. Yeah it goes without saying that none of this is specific to black people. I just thought it was weird that the demographic group Probably Magic used as an example was one that gave 91% of the vote to one candidate. It's hard to imagine someone doing the reverse and saying that there's no candidate for like, white Southern Baptist jet ski dealers. Fister Roboto posted:But as we are often reminded in this thread, you have to vote to elect the Democrat because the Republican is worse (and for black people, significantly worse). It's not a choice, it's an ultimatum. It's hard to say that black people have very much agency in the matter, just as someone with a gun to their head doesn't have any agency. But the 8% of black people that voted for Trump had agency too? Nobody itt is yelling at them, voting for Trump was a legitimate option. I think he was a bad president, but that doesn't make it not an option. I didn't say anything about there being one legitimate choice, the point is that people got to choose and we can see what they chose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Yeah it goes without saying that none of this is specific to black people. I just thought it was weird that the demographic group Probably Magic used as an example was one that gave 91% of the vote to one candidate. A common refrain about the white working class is they "vote against their interests," though? Few people benefit from corporations giving themselves tax cuts and killing environmental policies, infrastructure policies, medicare policies, etc. That's kinda the point, that no one spare the rich have anyone to vote for in this country because the rich don't allow for representational candidates. I'm discussing that specific demographic group because that's the one you and Staluigi keep invoking, dude, I'm working within the confines of your argument. Don't act like I'm bringing them up out of nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
Yeah them breaking their own rules to let Bloomberg in the debates was bullshit but they obviously didn't want him to win, and while it was cynical to put him up there it was clearly so they could all have a Trumpy target to dunk on to burnish their own #Resistance cred. Not saying that this cynical manipulation was good, just pointing out if Bloomberg were their secret weapon they would never have let Elizabeth Warran bring up his misogyny and assault allegations, they would have shut that down just like they did for Biden's misogyny and sexual assaults (plural) E: watching them burn Bloomberg was p funny though, it's just galling that they did it in order to deflect from the fact that their own front runner was pretty much exactly the same as him
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:A common refrain about the white working class is they "vote against their interests," though? I disagree with that, it denies agency to Republican voters. I think they vote Republican because they want what Republicans are offering (which isn't necessarily policy). Also non college white voters are split like 60-40 (and that's assuming there are no college educated working class white voters and all non college white voters are the working class) so there are loads of white working class Democrats; if you make the kind of weird and paternalistic assumption that they all have the same interests, then tens of millions of them will be voting against their own interests no matter what. Probably Magic posted:I'm discussing that specific demographic group because that's the one you and Staluigi keep invoking, dude, I'm working within the confines of your argument. Don't act like I'm bringing them up out of nowhere. I'm not Staluigi, I haven't posted in this thread for a month. Your first post that I responded to opened with "It's debatable whether legislation would be different in states where black people are allowed to vote or not."
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:I disagree with that, it denies agency to Republican voters. I think they vote Republican because they want what Republicans are offering (which isn't necessarily policy). It is possible, and in fact extremely common, for people to vote for things they like (racism, military worship, etc) and that those same people are voting against their material interests (bad tax laws, cutting the social safety net, etc). Also I'm glad the bad racist hypothetical is now spawning a sub-debate. Cow Bell fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Sep 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 20:21
|
|
|
Saying, "It's paternalistic to say white middle class don't want to be crushed by the capital because they vote for it," is literally a JD Vance argument, lol.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
I don't think it's paternalistic to recognize that people frequently have side constraints that cause them to act outside of their long-term best interests, and that extends to voting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 20:33
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I don't think it's paternalistic to recognize that people frequently have side constraints that cause them to act outside of their long-term best interests, and that extends to voting. Yeah, there are a ton of people with the perspective of “I hate gay marriage and abortion, and I wish the rich paid more in taxes” (and I think most of those people end up voting Republican - possibly because Democrats do a lovely job of making the rich people pay more in taxes - but then, Republicans are terrible at enacting socially conservative social policy). It’s totally alien to D&D and SA in general because even the most economically “conservative” people here are still socially liberal. Like, it’s very convenient for my voting decisions that I can comfortably vote against a party with zero policies I like, even if the party I’m voting for only supports a few.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Saying, "It's paternalistic to say white middle class don't want to be crushed by the capital because they vote for it," is literally a JD Vance argument, lol. I really don't care about JD Vance much like Ohio Republican primary voters  but I looked at his campaign twitter and it's mostly Tucker Carlson "corporate cancel culture is destroying Real America"? If you have a problem with "paternalistic" I can use a different word, the point is you're complaining that Republican voters' interests (mostly racism) aren't what you think they should be (left wing economics). It doesn't seem like JD Vance is saying that, it would be a bad way to win a Republican primary oh poo poo I guess maybe he IS saying thatfool of sound posted:I don't think it's paternalistic to recognize that people frequently have side constraints that cause them to act outside of their long-term best interests, and that extends to voting. I would think differently about "why do they vote Republican when Republican economic policies don't benefit them?" than "why do they vote against their own ("long term" or whatever qualifier, if you want) interests?" It's just words, but I think the latter has a very different connotation. edit: Mellow Seas posted:Yeah, there are a ton of people with the perspective of “I hate gay marriage and abortion, and I wish the rich paid more in taxes” (and I think most of those people end up voting Republican - possibly because Democrats do a lovely job of making the rich people pay more in taxes - but then, Republicans are terrible at enacting socially conservative social policy). It’s totally alien to D&D and SA in general because even the most economically “conservative” people here are still socially liberal. beaten on this by a better post, but exactly. All issues aren't equally important either, like there are a fair amount of people who voted Romney in 2012 because of taxes but changed parties since then over social issues and also support normal Democratic economic policies now. James Garfield fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Sep 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 20:58
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:I think Herstory Begins Now was onto something. Yeah time to wrap this thread up. The last five pages have given us the definitive answer to the original question of the thread: Voting has to matter - if it doesn't, then we're all terrible racists. Remember a few simple things when you enter the voting booth these midterms, courtesy of the arguments brought to you in this thread: -If you don't vote, you must be some kind of terrible bigot -When you're voting, remember to vote blue. You wouldn't want to throw your vote away, or support the fascists, right? -Under absolutely no circumstances are you to consider past statements, campaigns, or voting records. Politicians need to have the ability to grow and change. Expecting politicians to adhere to things like "what they said" is tantamount to telepathy. Assume the politicians have your best interests in mind. -When these same people come up for reelection remember how important it is to vote for them because other wise someone else might win and they might be worse -If any of these seem disagreeable or are making you feel less inclined to vote, or that your vote doesn't matter, see point 1. You racist. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 12:45
|
|
|
Cow Bell posted:Yeah time to wrap this thread up. The last five pages have given us the definitive answer to the original question of the thread: So, this, but unironically, plus - and then get active in state, local, and party politics as well and primary the ones who are bad but better than a Republican.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 15:16
|
|
|
Honestly now that I'm starting to think about it local politics may also be a crapshoot (albeit less of one than national politics) considering how much influence land developers and businesses have to absolutely wreck any plans you may make. Oh you want to raise taxes to build public housing? Cute, now the factory that supplied a third of the jobs to the area is threatening to pull out of town and spend millions to nuke your career from orbit in the next election. Good luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 15:39
|
|
|
Cow Bell posted:Yeah time to wrap this thread up. The last five pages have given us the definitive answer to the original question of the thread: Ooo, ooo, I always wanted to get a sixer for doing this: lol (  )(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 15:55
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Honestly now that I'm starting to think about it local politics may also be a crapshoot (albeit less of one than national politics) considering how much influence land developers and businesses have to absolutely wreck any plans you may make. Yeah local politics is its own can of worms for sure. It's easier to get involved in some capacity and makes you feel like your time is being put to better use than getting involved with something at the federal level, but there's a lot of truly deranged poo poo that a lot of local voters just won't care about because it doesn't make national news.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 16:07
|
|
|
I don't think that the "does voting matter" question can really be answered universally even within the US system. The reality is that voter impacts on policy depends on the policy, specifically whether it affects the bottom lines of major corporations. Because the reality is that voting can make a difference, but does not have nearly the same impact as money. So let's take a look at an issue that definitely affects corporate profits: Wages have remained stagnant since the 70's while cost of living has skyrocketed. One would assume that workers, who outnumber basically everyone else combined, would be able to use their voting power to increase their wages to 20, maybe even 30 or 40 dollars an hour. Obviously, they don't have that power as evidenced by the fact that the federal minimum wage has gone largely untouched for decades. This is because high wages mean cutting into corporate profits, and corporate influence on the government is far more powerful than workers even though workers have a vastly more powerful influence at the polls. Meanwhile, let's look at lgbtq rights. While we're obviously not all the way there yet, legalizing gay marriage has been slowly spreading over the country state by state generally reflecting voter views, if a bit sluggish. Why have rights for gays improved but wages stagnated? Simple: it doesn't cost anything to let gay people marry. Sure, there may be a small industry of conversion therapy and rear end in a top hat churches, but that's a fart in the wind compared to all the money that corporations can make off of "championing" gay rights. Anyone who's been to a pride parade recently will notice that advertising has basically taken over the whole event. And every pride day corporate twitter accounts magically blooms a rainbow pattern -- in the US anyway. Anywhere that pride might conflict with their profit margin corporate logos are eerily bland. And this entire system results in the "culture war" that permeates our political system because both political parties attempt to draw your attention away from your wallet and towards profit-neutral issues. That's why there's been so much noise around abortion rights and dead silence over wages. Cpt_Obvious fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Sep 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
I agree with your larger point but I’d argue LGBT rights specifically isn’t the best example. For one thing, the question of gay marriage was decided in the courts, not at the ballot box. Second, I strongly suspect that the reason the system ultimately relented wasn’t because enough Democrats got elected (lol, Obama was against gay marriage until five seconds before the courts changed the law) but because a whole lot of gay people came out of the closet in the 80s/90s which made them real people to many, including the ultra rich. This built up over time and eventually caused a critical mass of the ruling classes to realize that their kids might be affected by lgbt bigotry as well as the poors. That corporations could profit off of gay identities as well probably didn’t hurt as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 19:23
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Honestly now that I'm starting to think about it local politics may also be a crapshoot (albeit less of one than national politics) considering how much influence land developers and businesses have to absolutely wreck any plans you may make. I raised this earlier as one of my frustrations with the system as it stands. I live in New Jersey. Jersey has a particularly powerful Democratic machine. The machine promotes from within, and most people work their way up for years in various posts before it is "their turn" to be selected for the party and put in power. The patronage system works and most people stay in line. People who attempt to circumvent the system are blasted and demonized. Outside of the actual party apparatus, New Jersey is also the only state in the union (that I am aware of) that utilizes the "Line Ballot". All the preapproved Democratic Party candidates are listed together on Line A. You need to physically flip the ballot over to discover that the Democratic candidate even has a challenger. People are often confused and think that if they vote outside of Line A, their vote will be wasted. Most people are not aware that there can be an in-party challenger, or that they can vote for each position individually, or what have you. Some people have argued that this kind of institutional leg up gives the candidate on the party line a built in 35 point advantage. All this needs to be overcome BEFORE you consider special interest groups. How are you supposed to get in "primary out the bad ones" when the whole system is entrenched against you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 22:53
|
|
|
Another fun thing to think about is how much of this incremental local change you can get away with before the CIA starts handing suitcases of cash to Nazis to have your communist city council members shot in the street.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2021 04:17
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Another fun thing to think about is how much of this incremental local change you can get away with before the CIA starts handing suitcases of cash to Nazis to have your communist city council members shot in the street. Chicago PD are already on the payroll.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2021 05:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
James Garfield posted:Yeah it goes without saying that none of this is specific to black people. I just thought it was weird that the demographic group Probably Magic used as an example was one that gave 91% of the vote to one candidate. You're basically using the same logic libertarians use with economics/markets, but for politics/voting. This is something I've frequently seen (ironically often from the same people who make fun of this same tendency in libertarians), and I think the motivation for it is fundamentally the same - it's an excuse for defending aspects of the status quo that you either like or don't want to question. "People generally make informed decisions and aren't influenced by advertisements/propaganda" obviously isn't true (and trying to tie "agency" into it is no less ridiculous than trying to do so in the context of arguing that, say, "advertising doesn't work"). Most people don't really have coherent political beliefs/ideology, largely because alternative perspectives have mostly been stamped out of mainstream political discourse. The closest thing you can really get to "peoples' true political opinions" is to ask them what they want in their lives. It's absurd to do polls about specific policies, because people aren't really equipped to know what the end result of those policies would be like in their day-to-day lives (and their opinions about those policies will generally be manipulated by what they hear in the media - MfA's polling results in spite of this are pretty astounding, but they aren't really relevant to whether the policy is actually good). Which policies/ideas will result in these outcomes is where your own beliefs/ideology come into play. For example, most people probably want "the ability to get quality healthcare at as low a cost as possible." The answer about how to achieve that outcome is something you can argue for yourself - public opinion should have no role in it. You only need to argue whether the policy/idea you support will actually accomplish the end goal that people have said they wanted. In the specific case being discussed here (voting), the only relevant question is "what do people (black people in this case) want in life and from politics?" How often people vote or don't vote has no bearing on an argument that doing so will or won't accomplish the answers to that question. Mellow Seas posted:Like, it’s very convenient for my voting decisions that I can comfortably vote against a party with zero policies I like, even if the party I’m voting for only supports a few. This part of this post is pretty revealing about one of the key differences in perspective in this thread and elsewhere. There's this underlying framing of "whether the party is doing good things" (with Democrats framed as "the party that does some good things, even if it's not as much as I want"). The viewpoint of many/most people who disagree about voting instead acknowledges that both (major) choices actively cause and advocate for harm. The Democrats are not neutral or an insufficient good. They actively murder people and fight against ideas and policies that would help people. The idea of pushing them to support most left-wing policies is no less ridiculous than pushing the Republicans to do so; even if they differ from the Republicans, they are still firmly and equally ideologically opposed to most significant left-wing goals. Both the Republican and Democratic Party have taken and will continue to take action to suppress and silence the left (often in very direct ways that involve killing people). I think the existence of two major parties leads people to assume there must be some sort of fundamental binary at work (where both options must be fundamentally in conflict with one another in most respects), instead of the reality where we're effectively a one-party state with two major factions. This is why people mockingly say "both parties bad" like it's somehow an axiomatically ridiculous statement, despite being something that isn't remotely unreasonable (and is, in fact, unquestionably true). Someone can still choose to vote for a political party that opposes their goals and kills thousands of people on the basis of thinking fewer people will be harmed, at least in the short-term, than would be by the alternative. I don't really fault someone for doing so (though I know other people do and I can't exactly say they're wrong). But people should at least understand that this is what they're doing, and that their actions are not leading to a better future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2021 20:54
|
|
