|
Bar Ran Dun posted:There is a very significant age divide in the party on Israel. They should because it is a large and untapped market. They don't because, in general, it's considered better from an internal perspective to try to change other voters to your teams side. The problem with that is that polarization of political norms continues apace and it is no longer a thing you can really do, but instead of expanding to get votes from people outside of that paradigm or to try and bring disaffiliating or none voters into the party the same people keep trying to poach other voters over and over again. We keep returning to the Hilary campaign strategy about "every rust belt voter we lose will mean two in the suburbs" because that seems to be the overarching strategy of various different consultants.
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2024 09:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 17:11 |
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:They don’t think like this. They may not, but it is foolish of them not to do so. But this is the thing, if it doesn't matter how things look because the overpaid consultants will just come up with something with the right "vibes" any way, then why should there be an expectation to engage in the Civic religion at all?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2024 21:19
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Because that’s how it is changed. If one opts out, then the folks that do not opt out control the direction of the group. Changing the group is accomplished by becoming more involved in participation in it. Is it? Because engaging in this sort of thing does not seem to be how it is changed. Can you think of an example that has delivered any categorical break in the prior body politik from the left, the equivalent of the death of the Keynesian consensus or realignment to Neoliberalism under Thatcher and Reagan, that was achieved via the ballot box? The fact is I have experience of this process and I also have experiuence of being frozen out and the entirety of my political ideals being utterly shafted by the political structues of a country/party. I've experienced it on both levels and your argument that "well, you have to be part of it to make it happen" does not actually hold true compared to my lived experience. One withdraws from supporting people in certain circumstances because one wishes to support others. I cannot vote for the Labour party any more because the love of my life is Trans and they are calling for her to be put on a different ward because of it. If they changed that I would vote for them again, but to what level do we have to go before it's okay to say "I will vote for you in these circumstances but not THOSE"? Main Paineframe posted:There's no evidence that the pro-Palestine movement is a large and untapped market, and lots of historical evidence that it isn't. That might be in the process of changing right now in 2024, but we shouldn't really act shocked that politicians aren't all rushing to upend their entire party platforms for the sake of a political movement that barely even existed six months ago. I'm quoting in general and not just about the Pro-Palestinian movements that exist in various places, I am talking about none voters in general. This is not the case in every nation, or is this solely a US discussion?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2024 22:18
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Those things were a reaction to the widespread influence of social democracy which had wins achieved by the ballot box. It had wins because it was backed by fear of violence and by the collapse of teh older order due to violence. The ballot box was not the sole means by which those things were achieved and, lets put it bluntly, they were only achieved for a period of about 35 years. In that same period of time, a period that I and I imagine most of the people in this thread have lived through, the sole consensus has been Neoliberalism and there is no effective democratic means to challenge that in a large number of nations. To appeal to patience and to hope is to pray for a better world when the world itself is deeply hosed. It is understandable but it's "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions", the entire ideal is one that I think has increasingly less validity as things worsen. Because you get to make sure that the Hegemon has a better leader? The conditions in the UK and a lot of other places are based on the USA's follies over the last several decades, and now we all have to live with the mistakes of being part of a dying empire.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2024 09:27
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You repeatedly insisting that democratic government is a religion does not actually make it so. The idea of an American Civic religion I thought was fairly uncontroversial, and in this instance I am comparing Marx's words towards religion towards faith in democracy to deliver based on hope alone.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2024 12:01
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:No, a potentially dying Republic that could become an empire. Empires have a single authority, they are authoritarian. We have some characteristics of imperialism, we exert control in the world over other countries to our advantage. But we don’t have that unitary single authority. This is the root of why voting for President is different when compared to elections in a European Parliament. If our vote go wrong we could slip into actual being an Empire and that’s happened in the past to other republics and democracies. I would wholeheartedly disagree. I would say that the USA is an Empire/Imperial state in the same way that the end of the Roman Republic was still Imperial in its goals and actions. The US has continually acting as an extractive power in central and southern Americas alongside imperial wars over the past 3 decades. There is a difference between who is in charge of said empire, but the underlying assumption of imperial power and control is not changed based on who is in charge of the legislature. How would you define American Hegemony without it being an empire?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2024 09:24
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I am probably going to eat a probe for this but it feels like the people who were never going to vote for the Democrats and Joe Biden never want to acknowledge anything good a Democratic President does because that would mean having to acknowledge that progress can be made under the Democratic Party. All one has to do is look at BIF or the IRA and see that it's like 70% of the Green New Deal. Or the fact that they are doing loan forgiveness, or insulin price cost reductions, or having the government negotiate certain drug prices via Medicare and Medicaid. I am not saying that any of this means that is was enough or is a panacea but it's progress. I'm going to respond to this here because I assume this is how it is supposed to work? Are we allowed to do this, I've got no loving clue but don't want to get another probation for responding to stuff in the wrong thread. The thing is that anything good done by the democrats is, almost inherently, not enough to actually change anything of worth or note. It will effect people positively, it may even make certain peoples lives better in ways that are important and necessary. But the chief problem is that it is not enough to actually improve things for a large portion of people. There is a lot to complain about when it comes to the idea that we need, in this time when we are being told that democracy and the rule of law are on the edge of slipping away if Republicans get into office, that we can decrease the price of some drugs for people and, after four years, maybe have a trial for a former president. 70% of something that is already not enough is not good enough. Once again we have an increasingly large amount of people who are unable to live and increasing profits for gigantic corporations. It means that there is precious little need or desire to look at the "semi-good" things and treat them as anything other than sticking plasters for grievous wounds. And once again this is all asked to be burdened upon the people least able to bear it because that's how our systems are set up. The agency of the Israeli government is in part based on the fact that the US keeps providing both weapons and preventing UN resolutions being passed. The fact that you think that this is some sort of weird "I'm so smart" idea instead of an actual belief people hold is also telling because it implies that there is no way that people can actually have a difference of opinion and instead are merely pretending they are, The good done does not stop the bad done and the bad done, in this instance, is litterally so bad it's the worst crime we, as people, can commit. That is why people are perhaps a little terse.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2024 22:56
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:You don’t live here though. They still matter in part as I still have to live in a world very much shaped by the United States. But what part of what I said is only specific to the USA? It's using examples from the US but the generalities are common across a great number of places.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2024 00:09
|
|
|
The problem is that Democracy as a system for deciding things is increasingly resistant to change and to the thing that makes it useful in terms of taking in different ideas, making them more suited for the majority, and then spitting them back out. When things become increasingly zero sum you end up in a situation where people go "Well if I can't get this officially, I will look elsewhere".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2024 20:14
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Right our elections and especially the presidential election are unique because the consequences are global and we should be more engaged and participate in them more because the consequences are higher for everyone. See this is the thing, I am unsure as to how choosing who helms the empire changes the underlying assumptions of Imperialism. It may be different in terms of what is done, but the involvement of the USA in various places does not change because the structures are still there. Like a waterwheel, the empire continues to turn regardless of who is in charge of it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2024 08:11
|
|
|
Kalit posted:That’s the problem with only looking at the big picture when it comes to policies. It makes it so easy to broad brush and pretend like nothing matters because X will still occur. Especially when it’s as mammoth of an issue like your example of imperialism. That would be impossible for any single president to completely solve for a variety of issues. This is the thing you seem to believe that this makes it necessary to vote for a lesser evil because nothing can be done about those big issues by any singular individual. The overarching problem must be fixed by doing things outside of the current structure, as much as possible. I think that looking at things holistically as a whole instead of zooming in to such an extent that you miss the other things being done by a candidate/structure. Fundamentally this is a large divide and I am unsure can be bridged.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2024 14:15
|
|
|
Kalit posted:What current country has done enough for you to be satisfied with the 10000 foot view? I cannot think of a single one. Does that have any relevance whatsoever? Is there any national party that I would vote for at the moment in my own nation depends on the candidate and what they are aiming to do. If they are talking about destroying those structures in some way then I may well vote or support them. But again, I have to turn this around and ask if you are as cross with people not being directly supportive of policies as much as you are at politicians ignoring demands/ out and out lying to people. One day is never, but we still work on it. In the same way that someone will never be perfect but we can work towards it. Ultimately if the structure makes it easier to kill someone than feed them, something more is required than interest rates changes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2024 14:54
|
|
|
Kalit posted:The reason I brought up that example is because you're taking your ball and going home. You seem to be refusing to participate in something that's concretely meaningful to a lot of people because you want to hold out hope in something that literally has never been achieved in the entire world. You can still work on an idealistic future while doing something as simple as voting. One doesn't negate the other. Again, I ask you if you are this concerned about powerful people doing worse things than a single, far less powerful, person doing something other than expressing support for the structure. It may be concretely meaningful to many people, that is their decision and I am okay with that. But is me going "No, and I will work against this structure" not also okay? Is it that moral qualms should be a matter of popular vote? But the thing is one does undercut the other in practical terms. Again if I were to vote Labour or Tory at the next election I would be supporting transphobes who want to make things worse of working people whilst giving out money to the wealthy. Why then is the onus on me to change my own behaviour instead of those with more power?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2024 16:24
|
|
|
Kalit posted:
Hesitant but you still would? See, this, ultimately, is where we are having difficulties. Because ythere are lines which you will not cross, but do you think others can have the same and them be at different places than you and it still be valid?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2024 18:01
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Yeah I’m gunna get that other thread started and it’ll deal with some of that. Works just been too busy. Thank you! And sorry for wittering, if you could provide a link when it's done that'd be grand!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2024 19:45
|
|
|
Kalit posted:It's unlikely, but it could be possible. For an easy example of a similar situation, if Obama would have been a lot different in some of his views (supported medicare for all, ending overseas wars, etc), I probably would have voted for him in 2008 and 2012. And that's acknowledging that he was still against gay marriage, which I've always been deeply in support of. This is the thing though, if you accept that it does exist then it's just an argument about degree and becomes a purely personal line of preference. This is the thing though, the vote doesn't matter as anything other than a show of support and what it can practically do. Which is not a lot. You can make a level of compromise about it, but it still exists.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2024 22:36
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Votes are how people win elections. Sure, and is that not an indication of support for what they do? Is this some sort of weird thing that the vote is for winning elections but it doesn't mean a show of support for what people do?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2024 22:42
|
|
|
Timmy Age 6 posted:It could, for example, be indicative of the fact that I support increased funding for climate resilience and scientific research, and one candidate is more likely to do that while another will slash the funding and end programs that I depend on. That doesn't mean I care about TikTok being divested, which is another thing that could be endorsed by the same candidate. But if we treat these things as a continuum as opposed to a hard line you can perhaps see why people would choose differently from yourself. Or if you elected someone based on one thing and were actively lied to about it, would you still vote/be required to vote for them?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2024 00:25
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Okay…once again, I’m not 100% sure of your point. TBH, it would help me understand your points/questions if you used more specific terms instead of referring to things like “it”. Because when you say “if it does exist” and “it still exists” I can’t be 100% certain what you’re referring to. The point is that there is an agreement that there are reasons why people should not vote at all, you simply define where the line is different from others. If this is the case, then it simply becomes a matter of preference and degree, not one of fundamental disagreement with the idea of withholding/none voting. Essentially the latter bit is attempting to say the following "One individual vote does almost nothing, but is simply a show of support for the candidate overall not for a particular part of the platform of said candidate and that level of compromise is up for interpretation by each person." James Garfield posted:It isn't useful to try to psychoanalyze someone's vote. There are too many things like conservatives voting for a socialist to protest Hillary Clinton to infer someone's entire political beliefs from checking one box. But this is the thing it's still showing, in practicable terms, support for a candidate. If I'm voting for Boe Jlogs because of his robust environmental record and not his "slaughter everyone born on May 7th" policy, I am still lending support to the latter through the vote. That doesn't mean that there is no level of compromise, merely that it is drawn in different places for different people. But this is the thing that the entire debate and purpose of this thread hinges on. The idea that you "need to vote" is a fairly major part of it. It may not be from folks in this thread in particular but we've all seen on this forum when people are told that not voting for X is, in effect, voting for Y.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2024 08:36
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Eh... I don't know if I quite agree with your framing. It technically is a matter of preference and degree. But when the preference/degree is literally impossible to ever meet (e.g. never voting for someone who isn't going to actively dismantle the US's imperialistic tendencies), that's when I think it's not where the line is being drawn. That's when I think it reaches the whole "take your ball and go home" selfishness. But it's not selfish. It's just different. Selfishness is doing bad things and then demanding that others ignore it because you can also do good things, but you probably won't do as many good things as bad things because, once again, our systems of rule make it stupidly easy to kill and maim and despoil and not to improve stuff. If you believe the structure itself is rotten, why support it? Ultimately I just wanted to see what other people think and it seems that this will become a more detail orientated conversation from now on, which is not one I am probably best equipped to answer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2024 14:47
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Can someone offer a single, coherent, reality based argument that not voting for Biden is better than voting for Biden? You don't want to show support for someone assisting/actively doing a genocide. Again to use a home grown example the Labour Party in my country are becoming increasingly transphobic, rolling back any promise made about improving things and actively saying that they would keep current government procedures in place. I don't want to support them doing this so I will not vote for thm. Why is the US presidential election any different other than scope? Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 07:49 on May 8, 2024 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2024 07:46
|
|
|
In regards to point one, about the candidate not knowing why, "oh well". I'm sorry that they can't count on my vote due to supporting genocide, but I happen to have a red line there. If they want to change their mind then they can count on it. If it's a democracy and I'm supposed to have freedom of conscience to choose, I can just not vote. Either Biden or Trump will, and the machinery of empire will keep killing people and you expect people to reconcile themselves to that and do their civic duty. If you were in a foreign nation, and I was helping to kill you, and your families and friends and anyone you have ever loved because "well, this needs to happen because we've got an agreement about night vision goggles with the nation that is doing the killing and you can't just ask us to change our minds" do you think you'd regard me as mentally well? Your saying it'll take time, well this is the starting point then, isn't it. "You can't just do this", well tough. People can and have stopped voting for people for far more stupid reasons. And because you have reconciled yourself to doing genocide because it's the best of a bad situation, then I ask you to look at yourself and consider what you have just laid out. If you are okay with that then continue, if not then maybe there are other options. There is always compromise, but to what level of compromise do you want to reach?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2024 13:39
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:Actually I am incapable of understanding the argument. You got one side holding steady/advancing civil rights (albeit slowly) and the other setting up the pieces to rapidly take them away and the conclusion is "Meh, it's all the same." I don't understand that! That makes absolutely no sense to me! And I'm sorry I'm bringing up those issues. "No voters" seems to be very proud of their ethics and moral principles. But when someone points out that their decision either does nothing or potentially hurts people, they just keep talking about their ethics and their feelings and their moral principles like that somehow protects them from real world consequences. No you don't? You have one side saying, out of the corner of their mouth about civil rights whilst doing very little positive to change things. You have another side that are howling bigots, but who we are expected to treat as if they are worthy opponents and capitulate to if they win electorally, regardless of if they win a mandate from the majority of citizens. Now, ultimately, this is the overarching problem with electoralism. It is that we need to accept the wins of fascist whilst they do not do the same back and, instead of this being treated as a threat to things, is instead treated as normal. If you are not proud of your ethics or moral principles, what are you proud of? Do you think that ethics should be discarded or put to one side before making any choice, or just ones that effect people a long way away and not you. Judge not, lest you be judged.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2024 20:26
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I am quite proud of mine, for what it's worth, even if you clearly hold them, and me, and the causes and morals I value, in open contempt. Would they also be put to one side if it meant voting for the lesser evil? At what point would you object? Sometimes people will draw that line elsewhere to you. You have to either live with that or convince them otherwise, and in this instance I do not believe that many people here are good at the latter, myself included. So instead we lay out the positions, and ask people to live with their choices and lack of choices. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 23:35 on May 9, 2024 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2024 23:22
|
|
|
If both potential voting options that have a chance of winning were going to ban trans healthcare and institute forced conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ people, but one was going to also create a local factory that will add jobs to your locality, would you still vote for that one? But your not going to find common ground in this instance, so it doesn't go anywhere. Instead just state it and move on if you can.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2024 23:57
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Let's also assume that you get the only vote, or the only one that matters, and if you do nothing, abstain, the first person wins. You get the deciding vote. Would you, in that situation, in that environment, really refuse to vote for the second person, if those were really your only two choices? That's what your morality tells you would be the right course of action? Yes. Fairly easily. The options both kill the people I love alongside thousands of others elsewhere. I would most likely be dead as well at that point to be honest too. But then I think actively working to undermine a genocidal state becomes, at that point, a more important imperative than voting for it's continuation with a "better" genocidary, who really wants to change it and believes in their heart of hearts that the killing must stop for some people, in charge. The Ninth Layer posted:What distinguishes your genuine moral objection to participating in an event from simple indifference to participating? If you believe that casting a vote has a material influence on the outcome of the election,, that you are then morally culpable for any and all outcomes your influence may have caused (or prevented from causing), and that the most moral action is to abstain from expressing any actionable preference at all, what then separates you from someone who spends election day Tuesday golfing or playing Call of Duty or napping? Why not just do other things with your time instead of posting about elections or caring about votes? The election will still happen either way. What differences is there between your nuanced support of a flawed politician from someone who just wants other people to die half a world away? Nothing unless you tell the politicians themselves. If we are morally culpable for not doing something, they you are morally culpable for doing it. Your belief that these things are set in stone and immutable are not, actually, based in anything. There is not any physical law that means an election will happen in November, it's a structure built by people and maintained by folks just like yourself, who believe that it is inevitable and the best thing to do is to try and direct it vaguely in the right direction. Instead of the, potentially, better options of changing the system itself. Will my vote matter in November, not unless the UK also has an election then and even then it won't matter, unless the Green Party/ An independent is running a none TERF in my locality. But then we can have a little look and see what can be done. Alongside that though you think that if you could get more people on your side that you could get more things done and stop painting the right colour on bombs is fundamentally based on the idea that politicans listen to you and would stop if they were told so. The fact that Eisenhower talked about the MIC 63 years ago is kind of a mark against that. I would also critique the idea that "the direction I am pulling politics in". Because, well, look at the world. Look around and see if it going the way you want it using the ossified systems that are straining at the seams because of their contradictions, and then unable to change because good people keep propping them up to keep bad people in charge. To quote James Baldwin "You've always told me it takes time, it's taken my fathers time, my mothers times, my uncles time, my brother and my sisters time, my nieces and my nephews time. How much more time do you want, for your 'progress'" Essentially, if you want to vote, please do so. If you don't want to vote for good reasons that is okay too. But I am going to be honest, I was closer to "I will vote for X to make the world better" and then I began reading why people were going to vote in threads like this and I kind of ended up thinking that I might be better off not voting. The more I read of people trying to convince me that I should vote, the less likely I am to do so, because the arguments come across very poorly. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 07:55 on May 10, 2024 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2024 07:24
|
|
|
It is not a question of will, it's a question if organisation and opposition if necessary. Because, looking at the people being supported by people claiming to do both, it seems as if there is a direct conflict between those goals. You cannot serve God and Mammon, and eventually you have to look at the system you are supporting and decide to go with either supporting it or working against it. I don't think the system is fixable in it's current form. For the UK or the USA. If you think either are and want to work with it and I agree with most of what your saying I would help, but the threshold is going to be higher than "is not a bad a genocidairy".
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2024 10:26
|
|
|
It's a quote about how you can't serve two different goals that are directly opposed to each other. If you are working on making the system more fair and equitable there is always going to be a level that you would go up to that other people may not and a level that other people would that you cannot. If it's an expression of preference, not saying "I agree with everything they do" then why is it treated as the latter? If a Trump voter were to say that they don't agree with any of Trumps policy but are voting for tax cuts and a better economy, would that, to you, not be an endorsement? Because every vote cast helps to uphold that system, and i think saying "well you tell me how to change it" is going a bit far into the weeds dont you think? Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 11:13 on May 10, 2024 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2024 10:58
|
|
|
If you consider yourself anti fascist and your only choice to vote for is between two fascist parties, would you still vote for one of them? And if they are serious and they see economics as not relating to social policy, would you still look for those hidden reasons? Going out and voting also doesn't get you closer to a better system. As has been proven by the last, what, 40+ years of governance? I'm not going to be able to convince you, most likely anyway, I'm just trying to see what you believe and explain what I believe. Again, I used to be closer to your good self, but now i am more about having to have something approaching stuff you won't vote for. I keep bringing up the miserable treatment of ethnic, gender and social minorities in my nation and how neither party wants to work to make life better, so why vote for the continuation of that? Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 11:48 on May 10, 2024 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2024 11:43
|
|
|
Because you seem to not believe that anything other than what is directly in front of you isn't relevant, and posing a hypothetical in the hope that you can realise why some people react the way they do? You suggested that you didn't understand why some people would not vote for certain things, or what could possibly make people not want to vote between two similar bad things. I am trying to provide an idea as to why. But you don't seem to be able to understand it. If we were in person and discussing it may be easier, as I am not the best at written info. But you'd interrogate strangers in the Internet about why they are not choosing or choosing something? It's meant to make you think about your position, why you think things and where do they come from. If you want to believe that, that's fine. But both positions are hypothetical, but homelessness, food poverty and economic decline are all writ large where I am, and they are worse than they were. What power? The voting ensures that the beatings will continue until all are dead, just as much as not voting does, so why engage with it?
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2024 13:36
|
|
|
Have the systems improved? That's what I am saying there. Some things have improved, some things have gone backwards and gotten worse, but the systems that rule people have gotten worse. The US is still beholden to money and vast tracts of empty land have more sway than human beings. I'm not saying that things aren't better in some areas, definetly not, but what I am saying is that the structures of rule are generally bad and getting worse. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 13:53 on May 10, 2024 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2024 13:41
|
|
|
Timmy Age 6 posted:A lot of the systemic issues are artifacts handed down to us from the 1780s. And there are a whole lot of US citizens who don't actually see them as problems! That's a big issue and if you retreat behind a "systems bad front" and don't engage with that, whether by voting or conversations and outreach and ideally all of the above, everything only gets worse. Are you implying I am planning mass murder because I think the various different government structures are getting worse?
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2024 14:40
|
|
|
Until fairly recently gay people being able to have rights and women being allowed to vote were minority opinions. They were changed through legislative and none legislative means, and I would personally say that the latter produces better and more consistent results than the former. The Ninth Layer posted:If you really don't want to vote then just don't vote lol. Feel free to use your valuable time and vast political influence however you want. If you really think voting is evil and have a better alternative in mind, I think you're gonna need a much more convincing argument than "people caring about a popular thing makes me cringe." That's fine. My preferred candidate would not be myself, but would probably have a similar outlook. There is always a level of compromise with any political candidate, but the level of it matters a great deal. It is somewhat funny that this is the exact opposite answer given by Eletrination earlier on the in the thread but from the exact same viewpoint. Just a fun thing to note. That's fair, if you believe and feel okay with that then that's okay. Just folks are probably going to disagree with you the same way you are going to disagree with me. If it feels like it makes a difference, if you feel like it will make history then why are people continually telling us that there is no option when it comes to genocide in Gaza. That this is just the way things are. For you it's very important. For other people, it's a waterwheel turning and it makes not a blind bit of difference which paddle goes in. Already trying. I don't think voting is evil, but I want folks to understand and tell me why they think voting is an active good. And it's interesting and important seeing what people think. But it's not "cringe" it's just something that needs examining. Eletriarnation posted:I guess that makes sense, but I don't think I'm really getting a nuanced picture of what you think from considering a vague hypothetical. If you truly think the Democrats are fascists and as bad as the Republicans, you should just state that directly and we can discuss that concept without obfuscation. If you don't think that, then posting a what-if about "your only choice to vote for is between two fascist parties" is likely to mislead me to believing that you do think that and then I end up unintentionally strawmanning you. Fair enough. Put it this way: There are only two parties that you can vote between and they are both authoritarian groups. Both are going to kill a lot of people and specifically target both ethnic and sexual minorities. They are both going to continue committing war crimes and calling for the arrest and detention of dissidents, even expanding the security state in various measures. Your choice between them is that one does occasionally run very locally specific things that some people benefit from, and the other doesn't. If you vote for the first you are, directly, helping to institute a worse system in general and in specific against people you know and, in some cases, even love. But your voting for a lesser evil right. Do you see how no one in those groups could trust you, because you've supported the people trying to harm them? And what happens if the locally specific thing also does not get done? Do you see why betting on the thing you think will happen, whilst propping up a system that does manifestly terrible things. Eletriarnation posted:I'm interrogating strangers on the Internet because by posting here we've all self-selected as people who want to discuss this topic in a reasoned, detailed manner. I think that's interesting and it inherently makes me think more about my position and why I think things. I don't need to consider what I would say to a hypothetical stranger who is voting for a manifestly terrible president for incoherent reasons in order to get that. Fair enough. Eletriarnation posted:I don't know what you mean by the bit in bold here. Saying "my vote does nothing, so I will just not vote" is a self-fulfilling prophecy, so if you feel better using that as an excuse to wallow in despair then best of luck to you I guess. I happen to believe that in a society where much (if not most) of the power to steer the ship is held by elected officials, it's well worth my time to take a few minutes out of shitposting once or twice a year and do the most basic thing I can to help decide who those officials are. For the bolded part do you believe you have it now, or do you want that to be the case? Again, I did use to vote, and still will if the right candidate comes along and I want to show support. But it's time better spent elsewhere. There is more good to be done than holding up a rotting building.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2024 17:33
|
|
|
1) You don't see how a minority person would perhaps feel somewhat let down if you vote for someone who is going to take away their rights because "the other side would be worse"? Do you think that a person would not have the right to feel that way? 2) I was actually talking about my polity. Not the USA. I was using, once again, a somewhat obscured hypothetical to help you to see things differently. The fact that you went straight to the Democrats in this instance, as if I was arguing about them specifically is somewhat telling. 3) If those margins are so thin, despite overwhelming support from so many people, why are they so thin and why is the system allowed to continue as is? Do you not think it would be better to change things so that voting mattered more, instead of keeping with the same system over and over? 4) If your not sure, then how does your one source actually overrule those of the very wealthy? You can only select people who can work with other people with power, you are not selecting the candidate based on their ability or their beliefs merely if they are "less bad" than the other people. This means that there is no incentive to try to do any better, because you will always vote for them, no matter what. 5) Once again, I don't think it's really relevant to the thread.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2024 19:56
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:1) They have the right to feel however they want, but I would think that they are wrong because, as I've said time and time again, my not voting or voting differently would not have improved the outcome. You keep acting like if I just think the right thoughts while not voting that will somehow undermine the system, but this is completely divorced from reality. 1) "They can feel how they want but they are wrong for doing so" is the idea of someone who fundamentally doesn't regard people as having a legitimate complaint. But the vote would still make their life worse by voting in favour of disenfranchisement. 2) Why? Your the one who guessed wrong and decided I had to mean you and not either a hypothetical or the reference to my own polity. 3) They do in many places and in terms of raw voting numbers. But that doesn't matter because power in the US is divided amongst a a huge number of nigh on empty states who wield disproportionate power despite their actual voters being numerically smaller. The democratic party, as a collective entity, does not want to change this even if individual parts of it would. The system is not the default though? It's a constructed thing, as we've already expressed. Have it so that it's a one person one vote system that is not divided by state lines or "electors" but based on people voting for something overall. Alongside that have a voting system shifted to STV or another voting permutation. If you think this is all there is, and seem to believe that the best that can be done is "vote" then I am unsure you are taking thins seriously. 4) But you can't. Because money helps to buy access and support and just time to not have to be at work. I would love to run in a political party, but I lack the time or funds to do it because just working takes up a lot of time and energy. 5) Why? You keep cycling back to this because you seem to want to go "uhhh you got a better system" and then either immediately attack it as unworkable or, as we have seen already in this thread, claim I want to commit mass murder. I, personally, think widespread work stoppages and the introduction of a single transferable vote system linked in with various different labour groups organising a collective state, alongside the collectivization of land and property, would be a good start. I don't think voting is a bad way of organising a system. I just regard it as flawed in the current one because you only get a choice between unpalatable options. volts5000 posted:You said that your feeling about Joe Biden doesn't compel you to vote for him. But what do you think would happen to you, or to society at large, if you did vote for him? Like, so what if he gets one more vote. What is the ultimate consequence if you spend 15 minutes to mark his name on a ballot? Excuse me for interrupting, but does voting exist in a state of quantum uncertainty as both the only way to get your voice heard, but also completely meaningless and only means one more vote and what does it matter? Alongside that I am probably not going to respond for a few days as I am going to have a bit of time away with my Fiancee. Please do keep safe everyone. Thank you! Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 22:23 on May 10, 2024 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2024 22:03
|
|
|
1) Your voting for someone whose making peoples life worse because you think it's still better than the alternative. Your still doing harm, you just don't care because you've categorised it as "less harm" to get around thinking about the harm still being done. You invoke powerlessness with one hand and the ability to change things with the other and refuse to examine yourself because to do so would be to make you culpable for everything done in your name. 2) Because you pulled it out of thin air and instead of treating what I actually wrote you then mischaracterized it as an attack on democrats? 3) Do you? The same party that won't consider, overall, changing the make up of the Supreme Court would love to change that part of the US constitution? Chunks of the democratic party don't want it changed but you would still vote for them. 4) Which is not a lot because richer people can buy more time and speaking room and would you look at that they tend to win more because of all that support, and then they don't want to change things because they made it up the greasy pole, your just not trying hard enough. 5) Gave you an answer, and now, instead of reading it you instead go "uhhh that's not prevented by voting". It kind of is, parallel structures thrive in times of weakness of central governance and become more likely to change things when the system does not provide for people. Your vote helps to make sure that those do not develop or, if they do, that they are something that can be either co-opted or crushed by extant power structures. This is basic stuff mate. Considering this is your attempt at persuading, I can see why you think you'd be good at being a politician.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2024 22:54
|
|
|
I do apologise I must have confused you with another respondent. I still disagree with yourself, but I understand your PoV. Sorry again.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2024 23:01
|
|
|
1) Is this the root of the problem? Do you fundamentally see politics as zero-sum and every single political choice as making life worse for someone? Do you believe that, say, providing food and housing will make life worse for people? I've also already said that, multiple times that your not always going to agree with people. But sometimes the level of harm done is going to make people less likely to trust you when you say you understand and think of them as equal partners in politics? If you vote for someone who continues to do harm to a specific minority group because "least bad option" it's quite likely that members of that group will find anything you say backing them to be somewhat hollow. That was the sole point here. 5) Can you not grasp how supporting a system by engaging with is helps to prevent the growth of different systems? I even keep saying "yes, if you really do want to vote you can do so" all that people should be allowed to do is not vote if they don't want to as well. Or heck, spoil the ballot. My parents don't vote for police commissioners because they see it as something that should not be an elected office, and have written letters in protest about it. Voting supports the structures that exist. If you don't believe that it's fine, but if you don't then what are you voting for, if not for supporting the structure that exists now and choosing who runs it? Then why are you talking to me? I'm not even an American. I keep having to point this out, again and again and again. My contribution is going "I'm not sure this is the case and am going to speak a little bit". It's D&D after all and if folks just talk to themselves, it's not good. At the start of this conversation I didn't consider myself morally different? I was mainly going "People should be allowed to express their displeasure with the political structure that currently exists by none interaction, as long as they are doing other stuff in parallel to improve the political situation for people alongside that". But seeing the amount of people going "I would vote for someone doing a genocide and be okay about it because it's the least bad option" is making me feel as if I might actually have a completely different moral framework. And when it is active harm to a minority group? I don't expect every bit of legislation that is passed to have no negative consequences, but trying to do the best for the greatest number whilst bearing in mind the harm can be done is the goal, not to just go "well it'll always cause harm, let 'er rip" seems a bit odd. None participation in unjust structures not changing anything does not seem to be borne out by things like boycotts, strikes, denial of service etc. I fundamentally just disagree that "ALWAYS vote for the lesser evil" is a statement that is always true. It's a level of compromise that, once again, if you are okay to make that is a point of fundamental disagreement. There is always going to be compromise, but at some point I don't think it's good, either morally or politically, to do so. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 07:25 on May 11, 2024 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2024 07:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 17:11 |
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:We agree that other political actions are absolutely effective. Refusing to vote, however, does not do anything to effect change. It achieves not showing support for an unjust system. If your saying "we have two choices and you have to vote for one of them even if they are both doing crimes against humanity, no matter what". That does not seem like a politically useful thing because it means you can be counted upon to vote for anyone, no matter how bad they are, as long as they are one micron different from their opponent. If that is the case then there is no reason to appeal to you. On top of the other problem with it that, fundamentally, voting does not seem to have much of an effect when we look at what people want vs what is delivered politically. But this is the thing, past a certain point "bearing in mind the harm" outweighs any good done. That is literally the point I am making and drawing a line at a set point differently from yourselves. Just different mark you, not "better" just at a different point to where you might. If you want to keep voting then that is fine. But please do just bear in mind that some people will disagree with you and have legitimate reasons for that. It doesn't make you bad or them bad, just different approaches to an ethical problem. And I would say none participation in electoralism can still lead to change, but it is better done via direct action.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2024 08:04
|
|