The last few years have been a mess, and I've repeatedly struggled to clarify my thoughts. So now I'm trying to actual tackle that by starting a Substack.
My first post, "I'm Not Political" addresses the need for those who have disengaged to step up in what is a critical moment in history.
That's where I'll be posting articles relating to primarily US and Canadian politics, though this will naturally intersect with culture and technology. So if you are interested in that type of thing and/or enjoy my first post, subscribing via email will get you alerted to anything new that goes up.
Welcome to Elle, fellas. If we have to be here, at least we get to do it together.
My first post, "I'm Not Political" addresses the need for those who have disengaged to step up in what is a critical moment in history.
That's where I'll be posting articles relating to primarily US and Canadian politics, though this will naturally intersect with culture and technology. So if you are interested in that type of thing and/or enjoy my first post, subscribing via email will get you alerted to anything new that goes up.
Welcome to Elle, fellas. If we have to be here, at least we get to do it together.
Recently Spotted:
travo (5m)
I don't think that's so easy to argue on foreign policy. Killing 50k Afghans with violence (Republican strategy) is not necessarily better than putting millions of them at risk of famine (Democrat strategy), for example.
And my point wasn't so much that such a party exists, merely that if you are voting on those issues, you also have to accept that you are not voting for the furtherance of those other causes, just as someone not voting must accept that by not voting, people may lose the rights you mentioned, even though they aren't voting for America to continue in its present direction on more bipartisan issues.
Additionally, the democrats are not better on all of those issues by a large margin. In fact, they impemented many of the reforms that crushed labour and created the American prison state themselves. Definitely better on the majority of them as far as I'm aware, though.
P.S. If I was American, maybe I'd vote, it's hard to say. And your strategy seems to me a pragmatic one, but I do think you're underestimating the responsibility someone who votes in America holds for giving their consent to terrible things, just as many people who don't vote underestimate the responsibility they hold for not stopping terrible things.
I could go into further detail on policy, but I'm just so, so sick of this "both parties are the same it doesn't matter" garbage attitude from so many people. It has never been more stark a contrast, and if the impulse is to retreat into "Biden voted for tough on crime 30 years ago!" in response to everything I detailed already, I don't know what to tell you.
Right there with you. But again I am surrrounded by republicans they think the same of democrats but their information is based on bullshit and based on fear of others.
Of course it isn't. Just as voting for women's rights doesn't absolve you of voting to starve Afghanis. Your position is not consistent, and, if anything, it seems to me like you're the one trying to take a position of moral absolution.
Politics does not work on the scale of election issues. That the democrats have created the problem is absolutely relevent, especially when they have zero intention of fixing it.
And I never said both parties are the same or that it doesn't matter, actually, so I don't see how that grandstanding is relevant.
No, it isn't consistent if you only apply moral responsibility for some things, yet not others.
Additionally, If you vote for harm reduction, you are not responsible solely for the reduction in harm, you are also responsible for the perpetuation of harm itself.
It's nice to see an argument go in circles that, for once, I'm not taking part in.
By Foolz' logic, there is no morally right option, so not voting is just as valid as voting for this or the other. While I agree that there is no ideal option, I don't agree that not voting is then the best option. Politics are too complex to be covered in elections, so they tend to focus on a couple of issues at hand, that, at that specific point in time, seem most relevant to the voting masses. It is better to make a bad decission and to correct further down the lign, than to not decide anything at all.
As for Yoda: you're screwed by the heavily partisan nature of the US's politics. Politicians seem to have given up listening to the other side long ago, creating a bigger and bigger gap between themselves and society that now seems insurmountable. We see this happening all over the world, where voters are turning to the extremes, resulting in stronger divisions within society. Sure, republicans act the most repulsive because they objectively have less people who vote for them and thus try to change the rules in their advantage. But that doesn't absolve the democrats. In the end you're fighting a fight you can't win. At one point the republicans will win an election again, and the longer it takes, the more extreme their party will have become.
Setting aside the above reasons for not voting here is a pracitcal one.
In Australia, we have preferential voting.
So you can choose to rank the top five party's you prefer, in order.
My problem is, let's say I fully support both the leading left-wing and leading right-wing parties as the 1 and 2 choice. I am then FORCED to vote for three additional parties in the boxes 3 through 5. In Australia, there is probably 1 other party I could support (kind of -- the greens) and from there I'd be forced to vote for pseudo facist/ or greenie ratbag parties that exist only to maintain good inflation of their egos and bank accounts. I have no choice. So I won't and don't.
The other alternative, if you don't want if to vote for parties is to vote in a similar manner for 12 people, none of whom I have any idea who they are (unlike in California we don't get voter guides). So I'm supposed to figure out, out of 50 people, the 12 least power-hungry/ dillusional high school debate team candidates and vote for them. And I've never heard of any of them even though every one of them is apparently a member of my local electorate.
That's your interpretation of my position Supreme, not my own.
This is somewhat to the side of my point, but my position would be the opposite. The other side should not be listened to. As evidenced by the recent Supreme Court leak, and so many other things, the right operates entirely in bad faith. Listening to the other side, and journalists pushing the need to work together as a story, is part of how we've gotten here. The polarization is asymmetric. Democrats have slowly slightly drifted left as American society has moved left. Republicans have gone into a fascist tailspin. Democrats just elected Joe Biden, the epitome of business-as-usual, and even if you went to the most progressive members of congress, they want universal healthcare and childcare. Republicans want to overturn elections and their healthcare plan is none.
You're probably right in that, as trends go, Republicans will likely win power without really moderating. But it's nihilistic to simply go "I guess fascism is inevitable!" and give up. Republicans are acting this way in large part because it has been working electorally.