5 ms·

>> "I don't understand the American (and it is American) obsession with having a free market in healthcare." I think part of it is the culture of believing you

>> "I don't understand the American (and it is American) obsession with having a free market in healthcare." I think part of it is the culture of believing you can be anything you want to be. It's the same reason the poor often vote against their interests in the US - they believe that soon they'll be rich and want low taxes and few regulations. That they are the exception.

refurb 10y ago
If you want those people to change how they vote you need to stop talking down to them. "Hey stupid! You're voting for people that hurt you." Or then again, maybe they just have a different opinion than you on what is important to them?
- gonvaled 10y ago
  Surely nobody can be tricked onto supporting positions contrary to his interests. That would be impossible, since people are rational, educated and perfectly informed. There is a minority of people who are actually completely out of touch with reality, so-called demagogues and populists, and to a less extent all politians: they are completely deluded in thinking that by repeating a point a thousand times they can mislead those perfectly informed masses.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  If someone continuously keeps getting tricked into voting against their own self-interests, with the belief that their vote will actually benefit them, then yes, they absolutely deserve contempt. As the saying goes: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." A large part of the American populace has been getting fooled repeatedly for decades.
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    If someone continuously keeps getting tricked into voting against their own self-interests It has not been established that they are voting against their own self-interests. You are just assuming you know what their interests are better than they do.
mindcrime 10y ago
It's the same reason the poor often vote against their interests Wow, into being condescending much? How about this... maybe, just maybe those people know what "their interests" are better than you or I. Have you considered that?
- iends 10y ago
  Not sure why this offends you so much, but drive an hour outside the Triangle and it is pretty easy to find people at or near poverty level who want the government to cut social programs and taxes even though they are the ones who mostly benefit.
  - chrisseaton 10y ago
    Nobody's arguing they aren't possibly voting for something that isn't in their immediate economic interests. But we can argue about their motivations. Someone's said that it's because one day they think they'll be rich, and suggested that this was foolish. An alternative explanation is that they're voting for it because they've considered the question very carefully and are voting for what they think is morally the right thing, even though it'll harm them. In which case it's far from foolish. I think the offence was taken in assuming the foolish explanation instead considering the one where people were making a sacrifice to do what they think is the right thing. We don't know unless we ask them, of course.
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    I'm not offended at all, just wondering why somebody would choose such a condescending tack. Again I ask, have we considered that maybe those poor people that you're referring to, know what is in their "best interests" better than we do. Perhaps they have perfectly rational reasons, maybe other than simple economic self interest, for voting against social programs and taxes. This whole mindset of "you're too stupid to know what's good for you, so just let us smart people be in control and make things OK" is something that is very condescending and is repugnant to many (most?) Americans. Which is one good reason it's hard for politicians pushing such policies to gain ground. It might be better to actually, you know, talk to those people and try to understand what their principles, goals, and motivations are, instead of assuming that they're stupid.

refurb 10y ago

If you want those people to change how they vote you need to stop talking down to them. "Hey stupid! You're voting for people that hurt you." Or then again, maybe they just have a different opinion than you on what is important to them?

gonvaled 10y ago
Surely nobody can be tricked onto supporting positions contrary to his interests. That would be impossible, since people are rational, educated and perfectly informed. There is a minority of people who are actually completely out of touch with reality, so-called demagogues and populists, and to a less extent all politians: they are completely deluded in thinking that by repeating a point a thousand times they can mislead those perfectly informed masses.
enraged_camel 10y ago
If someone continuously keeps getting tricked into voting against their own self-interests, with the belief that their vote will actually benefit them, then yes, they absolutely deserve contempt. As the saying goes: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." A large part of the American populace has been getting fooled repeatedly for decades.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  If someone continuously keeps getting tricked into voting against their own self-interests It has not been established that they are voting against their own self-interests. You are just assuming you know what their interests are better than they do.

mindcrime 10y ago

It's the same reason the poor often vote against their interests Wow, into being condescending much? How about this... maybe, just maybe those people know what "their interests" are better than you or I. Have you considered that?

iends 10y ago
Not sure why this offends you so much, but drive an hour outside the Triangle and it is pretty easy to find people at or near poverty level who want the government to cut social programs and taxes even though they are the ones who mostly benefit.
- chrisseaton 10y ago
  Nobody's arguing they aren't possibly voting for something that isn't in their immediate economic interests. But we can argue about their motivations. Someone's said that it's because one day they think they'll be rich, and suggested that this was foolish. An alternative explanation is that they're voting for it because they've considered the question very carefully and are voting for what they think is morally the right thing, even though it'll harm them. In which case it's far from foolish. I think the offence was taken in assuming the foolish explanation instead considering the one where people were making a sacrifice to do what they think is the right thing. We don't know unless we ask them, of course.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  I'm not offended at all, just wondering why somebody would choose such a condescending tack. Again I ask, have we considered that maybe those poor people that you're referring to, know what is in their "best interests" better than we do. Perhaps they have perfectly rational reasons, maybe other than simple economic self interest, for voting against social programs and taxes. This whole mindset of "you're too stupid to know what's good for you, so just let us smart people be in control and make things OK" is something that is very condescending and is repugnant to many (most?) Americans. Which is one good reason it's hard for politicians pushing such policies to gain ground. It might be better to actually, you know, talk to those people and try to understand what their principles, goals, and motivations are, instead of assuming that they're stupid.