4 ms·

Talk to people, try to understand their reasoning. Explain to them what will happen if (x) happens. Dont do what we Americans did in the last election and call

Talk to people, try to understand their reasoning. Explain to them what will happen if (x) happens. Dont do what we Americans did in the last election and call anyone on the right homophobes, racists, xenophobe etc. That just pushes them further to the other side. Be understanding, but present the facts and hope they understand you.

beagle3 9y ago
I hate to post non constructive criticism, but ... unless you do that in a coordinated effort with thousands of others, that's just wasting your time. The reach of any one person without an amplifier of sorts (traditional media, facebook popularity, etc), is essentially zero; Even in the extremely unlikely case that you've changed the minds of 1,000 people you talked to (because to change 1,000 people's mind and vote, you need to speak to 20,000), it's still a rounding error. It will make you feel good that you tried while you're at it, yes. It will also demonstrate how powerless you are if the results go against your wishes (or falsely make you think you contributed if they go your way). It's the same as fighting the centralization of the web, the big brothering of facebook/nsa, etc - you have to mobilize people to act, many of them. And sadly, it's very rarely possible or within one's power.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Is it then a paradox that the first step towards organizing would be to talk to people?
  - beagle3 9y ago
    It's not the same people op mentioned talking to, though; op laid an outline to possibly changing the mind of one person who disagrees with you. But to make a dent, you have to address the masses (and to do that, you have to coordinate with the masses on your side).
- Profragile 9y ago
  This. Voting is essentially always "setup" i.e. the people who make maximum use of the power usually bet on both sides, albeit slightly differently. Since they know it's either one or the other, it doesn't really matter to them who really wins. They have necessary control of the situation no matter what happens. If you don't frame your life in a way that whoever wins matters to you very less, you are doing something wrong. If that is already the case, your vote doesn't count at all. It's one vote. The chance of your vote actually affecting the outcome of the election is so small that you might as well buy a lottery ticket instead. If however, you have the power to convince a large enough group of people to sway the election to one side or another, you should sell some of that influence to whoever is offering more money or favors to you.
  - noobermin 9y ago
    >If you don't frame your life in a way that whoever wins matters to you very less, you are doing something wrong. The answer is it does matter, and that you have such little influence is a failure of the system. I'm not talking about one vote, it's that some individuals have more influence over politicians due to their campaign donations. That is unacceptable. The answer once again is get money out of politics.
    - beagle3 9y ago
      Chicken and egg. Incumbents, the only people capable of taking money out of politics (short of some kind of revolution) enjoy the status quo too much to change it. You can only take money out of politics after you've taken money out of politics
    - Profragile 9y ago
      So do you agree that unless the money is out of politics, participating in voting is futile?
      - noobermin 9y ago
        I view your question as "do you agree that since you can't cure cancer, you shouldn't take painkillers or symptom treatments." No, I don't agree. It's just that instead of casting it as the state of being that you are powerless, it is instead that you should fight back.
noobermin 9y ago
Schumer said "for every blue collar dem we lose we'll gain middle class suburban whites." That didn't work out, R's turned out for their candidate, as they always do. The answer is not to suppress the leftist vote and care about the working class' concerns.

beagle3 9y ago

I hate to post non constructive criticism, but ... unless you do that in a coordinated effort with thousands of others, that's just wasting your time. The reach of any one person without an amplifier of sorts (traditional media, facebook popularity, etc), is essentially zero; Even in the extremely unlikely case that you've changed the minds of 1,000 people you talked to (because to change 1,000 people's mind and vote, you need to speak to 20,000), it's still a rounding error. It will make you feel good that you tried while you're at it, yes. It will also demonstrate how powerless you are if the results go against your wishes (or falsely make you think you contributed if they go your way). It's the same as fighting the centralization of the web, the big brothering of facebook/nsa, etc - you have to mobilize people to act, many of them. And sadly, it's very rarely possible or within one's power.

maxerickson 9y ago
Is it then a paradox that the first step towards organizing would be to talk to people?
- beagle3 9y ago
  It's not the same people op mentioned talking to, though; op laid an outline to possibly changing the mind of one person who disagrees with you. But to make a dent, you have to address the masses (and to do that, you have to coordinate with the masses on your side).
Profragile 9y ago
This. Voting is essentially always "setup" i.e. the people who make maximum use of the power usually bet on both sides, albeit slightly differently. Since they know it's either one or the other, it doesn't really matter to them who really wins. They have necessary control of the situation no matter what happens. If you don't frame your life in a way that whoever wins matters to you very less, you are doing something wrong. If that is already the case, your vote doesn't count at all. It's one vote. The chance of your vote actually affecting the outcome of the election is so small that you might as well buy a lottery ticket instead. If however, you have the power to convince a large enough group of people to sway the election to one side or another, you should sell some of that influence to whoever is offering more money or favors to you.
- noobermin 9y ago
  >If you don't frame your life in a way that whoever wins matters to you very less, you are doing something wrong. The answer is it does matter, and that you have such little influence is a failure of the system. I'm not talking about one vote, it's that some individuals have more influence over politicians due to their campaign donations. That is unacceptable. The answer once again is get money out of politics.
  - beagle3 9y ago
    Chicken and egg. Incumbents, the only people capable of taking money out of politics (short of some kind of revolution) enjoy the status quo too much to change it. You can only take money out of politics after you've taken money out of politics
  - Profragile 9y ago
    So do you agree that unless the money is out of politics, participating in voting is futile?
    - noobermin 9y ago
      I view your question as "do you agree that since you can't cure cancer, you shouldn't take painkillers or symptom treatments." No, I don't agree. It's just that instead of casting it as the state of being that you are powerless, it is instead that you should fight back.

noobermin 9y ago

Schumer said "for every blue collar dem we lose we'll gain middle class suburban whites." That didn't work out, R's turned out for their candidate, as they always do. The answer is not to suppress the leftist vote and care about the working class' concerns.