Why do people in the US vote? - Page 29

On March 03 2012 02:31 NebuLoSa wrote:


No. I never said I think it's a good thing not to vote. I certainly think it's a right you should take use of (?)..

What i mean with that post was that I'm really surprised an American (guess i am extremely prejudiced) has got that much insight into how the society as a whole works.

And why would you think my post was about him/her not voting? Read it again. Do you really think anyone would use those words about the action someone performs when not voting? No. Of course not.

On March 03 2012 02:49 Papulatus wrote:


How could anyone take a post seriously from someone who has such blind and unfounded prejudice against Americans?

On March 03 2012 02:35 NebuLoSa wrote:


I might've read this wrong because my english is pretty bad but doesn't he mean that the voice of poor, uneducated etc etc is worth less than the ones of educated and rich people? If he is I'd just to say that's a retarded view on people and society. There are other aspects than those that has to do with education to this. For example -- don't you think that someone who's been living on the streets for a long time, without a job etc. has got some important insight into how some areas of the society works? Do you really think that that person isn't worth as much (because that's really what it means if you say that their vote isn't worth as much) as someone with a higher education? I'm sorry but I just feel sad when I hear people saying things like that. Really sad.

On March 03 2012 02:24 Manit0u wrote:


This guy is mixing stuff so bad. There are basically 2 major ways of building social order: Democracy and Autocracy (this are the extremes, there's many things inbetween shifting more towards one or the other). Now, what the guy in the video proposes --- not voting, not giving a shit --- is a critical point for Democracy, where it ultimately fails and changes into Autocracy (most likely, it's a point where revolution happens). Critical point for Autocracy is the opposite, when people stop being docile, become aware of what's going on and start participating, that's when Autocracy crumbles.

One of the things in Democracy this guy also forgets about is failsafes built in the sytem, namely: separation of powers (usually into executive, judiciary and legislature). This way, none of the branches can gather all of the state's power in a single hand and they all have to compete with each other over citizen's favor to sway the balance of power where it's needed.

I suggest you first read some on the matter before blindly trusting some guy on YouTube who's mixing facts with fiction and generally confusing things (mixing autocracy and democracy way too much there, and this ridiculous obsession with guns, of course the government is controlling the military but it doesn't mean shit as it's a double-edged sword as history has taught us).

On March 03 2012 03:06 NebuLoSa wrote:


That's a question you'll have to answer yourself. But then, on the other hand, is the US so special? Is it worse to have prejudices about America, the greatest nation of the Earth, than other countries and people? Because you surely are completely un-prejucided. Right?

Edit: What I'm telling you is that with your, obviously distorted, view on who you can consider having a serious agenda, you can't listen to anyone. Everyone and their opinion is to be taken with a laugh. Because everyone does have prejudices and there's really no denying in that. The thing is - are prejudices against the US separated from other prejudices just because it's your own nation? I think not, you might. And I can assure you that the prejudices I have aren't exactly unique. And not completely without a basis either.

On March 03 2012 03:13 Mjolnir wrote:


I don't think he was intending to suggest that the poor and uneducated shouldn't have a voice; I think he was suggesting that there are people who have vastly different levels of education and knowledge on a subject and thus would make certain people more inclined to make better decisions. The latter is certainly fewer in number than the former (the former being those who are indifferent or uneducated with regard to the matters at hand).

I get your point about how a homeless person would have a different view on how some aspects of society work - but having worked with many homeless people in my time, I would have to argue that most of them (the "bums" he was referring to) don't have a clue about the ramifications of voting, what the issues are, nor do they even give a shit. I'm not trying to belittle and shit on homeless people - I've been arrested advocating for their rights - but the fact of the matter is, I wouldn't want them to be deciding policy for me. The quote we're discussing alludes to the fact that not only would this group of people be apt to make weak decisions, those decisions could also be easily bought with "food" or "promises". It's not hard to coerce the disenfranchised - history is full of examples.

On the flip side, I would like someone with education, a knowledge of how things work in society, empathy, and understanding to put their word in; so long as they're conscious of how that word affects others. That was the idea of the philosopher king - where I think the quoted text was leaning. Some people are in a position to make better decisions - period. Just like a government official hasn't got a clue what it's like to be homeless, a homeless person doesn't have a clue what it's like dealing with Israel and Iran; but I think the former can improve the life of the latter by implementing reasonable, sound decisions. I doubt the latter could make as many good decisions on a wide variety of subjects.

That isn't the same as saying the poor and uneducated have no voice. They do; it's just not an educated voice - and that matters a lot in this discussion.

On March 03 2012 03:18 Mauldo wrote:


He's not saying that your opinion is completely disregarded because it's prejudiced against America per se, he was saying that it should be disregarded because it's so completely and blindly prejudiced in the first place. Which you're agreeing to. And, for the record, I agree with his point. Whenever any kind of anti-European post is posted on TL it's descended upon as usual American, anti-world bullshit, but Europeans can shit on America and we have to take it or we're just blind Americans who can't see the hypocrisy in our own statements. Completely unfair double standard. I fight enough daily to combat extremism and other idiocy in my fellow Arkansans, I shouldn't have to come on to TL and take it from the very Europeans I defend regularly.

On March 03 2012 03:23 NebuLoSa wrote:


I see what you're saying and you're saying alot of smart things. However I wonder, isn't there a dilemma here when you consider people educated or uneducated - i mean, it's not always that black and white.

For example, why would a mathematician like the future me, lol, have any better insight in what is right for a society and what is not than someone who haven't received higher education. I mean, sure, there are certain fields that are more important than others being most social sciences (i think this is the right word) but there are also alot (definitely more than the aforementioned) of fields that certainly does not make someone 'better' at politics. So I wonder if you with this view, consider people uneducated or educated or if you consider for example an engineer or a physicist or whatever, uneducated? Would be interesting to know.

And also, I'm sure alot of homeless people and people with no education don't give a shit about politics but I've seen the same in the "higher levels" too - people with fortunes not caring a single bit because they have almost everything they want. And I think it'd be really hard and weird to consider these, obviously educated, people as knowing more about politics than someone who has not received higher education. Basically, what im trying to say is that while you might be correct in the fact that people with more interest and knowledge might receive a "louder voice" , education really isn't the way to measurize this. I hope you understand what I mean.

On March 03 2012 03:35 synapse wrote:
Sadly, it's the people that think they know something about politics but actually don't that are most eager to vote :T

On March 03 2012 01:34 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igbBItLemsM

Voting is overrated.