4 ms·

It sounds like you're making good choices for your mental health. It also seems like taking that approach to the extreme by checking out of politics entirely (e

It sounds like you're making good choices for your mental health. It also seems like taking that approach to the extreme by checking out of politics entirely (e.g. not voting, or uninformed voting) is a great way to delegate really important decisions about your life and things you find important to people who you may not trust to make those decisions. For instance, I don't believe the people who vote the most often in the US (wealthier, older individuals) are best suited to choosing legislators, executives, and laws. Those individuals tend to prefer: - fewer environmental protections (I like swimming and fishing in clean rivers and oceans) -lower education funding (I wish everyone who wanted to learn about fisheries, welding, nursing, biology, etc. could afford to do so) - subsidies for themselves at the expense of younger generations (second mortgage interest deductions, elimination of estate taxes, country club tax exemptions, California's 1978 Proposition 13) - legislation based on bad science or religious faith (no guaranteed paid sick leave, backdoor encryption bills, violent video game bans, book bans, corporal punishment support, for-profit prisons, abstinence-only sex education) Calling your legislators and telling them to support or oppose legislation or impeachment isn't for everyone, similarly reading story after story about incurious individuals legislating emerging technology might be unhealthy in general. That said, voting for and against candidates and issues at election time is really a very, very inexpensive way to attempt to make your life more into what you want it to be (for either the betterment or detriment to humanity).

lainga 7y ago
Thanks for your opinions. Please have a good participation in the political system.
daxfohl 7y ago
But I'm an older, wealthier individual, so.... Sarcasm aside though, seriously most of us know which party we identify with and can go to the polls with a reasonable idea who best represents our interests without reading a single news article. And if there's an exception or an event that is that overwhelmingly glaring and/or actionable, presumably we'll hear about it through other means. So to me (and I'd argue that to most people) it's not worth the mental health to even follow. One could go farther and say a passive following of the issues is actually worse because most (all?) news sites are just trying to get eyeballs rather than inform you.
- whytaka 7y ago
  Media misinformations issues aside and I mean no disrespect but this kind of reliance on intuition, uninformed biases, and your own (perhaps siloed) social circles is exactly what's wrong with politics - the non-diligent electorate.
  - daxfohl 7y ago
    To play devil's advocate: Is there a time when detailed research caused you to vote in a way that is counter to what you would have voted given your own innate instincts? If not, then? I'm going to guess that most people investigate issues to validate their pre-existing opinions, not to form them.
petra 7y ago
So you vote once every 4 years. Just spend some time before voting, learning the subject and decide. Shouldn't take very long.
- tylerritchie 7y ago
  I vote every year. Local and state politics tend to affect me more directly than national politics.
Jdjchnd 7y ago
Erm, as an oldish wealthyish liberal, with oldish wealthyish friends across the spectrum, I find the above classification disturbing. You sound like someone who means well, but please think before you start pigeonholing people.
- tylerritchie 7y ago
  I'm sorry you feel pigeonholed and disturbed. My "tend to prefer" statement seemed like a pretty accurate way to describe the increased proportion of more conservative individuals in older generations. I don't know how else to describe that difference. Younger individuals (who vote at a much lower rate than older individuals) are more progressive in aggregate than older individuals. That's not pejorative, those are as-measured demographics.
  - jiwfijwijfe 7y ago
    I'd guess it's more the "demographic X is not suited to vote because they tend to disagree with my interests", rather than any singular position you aligned with the demographic, that was viewed as disturbing. I agree. It's not even the innate prejudice that's the problem here. It's the devaluing of another person's experience and opinion. Pretty slippery slope you're arguing for.
    - tylerritchie 7y ago
      Oh, sure I can see how my comment can be read that way. I'd add some strikethroughs and edits to clarify, but that's not an option. My point wasn't trying to be "as soon as someone hits some age they should no longer be able to vote because Olds have no value and should be put out to sea on an ice floe". I meant to be pointing out that younger voting age individuals (in aggregate) are ceding the outcome of elections to people who (in aggregate) don't share their political beliefs. You can see the lack of engagement elsewhere in the replies to my parent comment. For instance "just pay attention every four years, problem solved", as if there's never a ballot measure or public office which would affect voters when there isn't a presidential election

lainga 7y ago

Thanks for your opinions. Please have a good participation in the political system.

daxfohl 7y ago

But I'm an older, wealthier individual, so.... Sarcasm aside though, seriously most of us know which party we identify with and can go to the polls with a reasonable idea who best represents our interests without reading a single news article. And if there's an exception or an event that is that overwhelmingly glaring and/or actionable, presumably we'll hear about it through other means. So to me (and I'd argue that to most people) it's not worth the mental health to even follow. One could go farther and say a passive following of the issues is actually worse because most (all?) news sites are just trying to get eyeballs rather than inform you.

whytaka 7y ago
Media misinformations issues aside and I mean no disrespect but this kind of reliance on intuition, uninformed biases, and your own (perhaps siloed) social circles is exactly what's wrong with politics - the non-diligent electorate.
- daxfohl 7y ago
  To play devil's advocate: Is there a time when detailed research caused you to vote in a way that is counter to what you would have voted given your own innate instincts? If not, then? I'm going to guess that most people investigate issues to validate their pre-existing opinions, not to form them.

petra 7y ago

So you vote once every 4 years. Just spend some time before voting, learning the subject and decide. Shouldn't take very long.

tylerritchie 7y ago
I vote every year. Local and state politics tend to affect me more directly than national politics.

Jdjchnd 7y ago

Erm, as an oldish wealthyish liberal, with oldish wealthyish friends across the spectrum, I find the above classification disturbing. You sound like someone who means well, but please think before you start pigeonholing people.

tylerritchie 7y ago
I'm sorry you feel pigeonholed and disturbed. My "tend to prefer" statement seemed like a pretty accurate way to describe the increased proportion of more conservative individuals in older generations. I don't know how else to describe that difference. Younger individuals (who vote at a much lower rate than older individuals) are more progressive in aggregate than older individuals. That's not pejorative, those are as-measured demographics.
- jiwfijwijfe 7y ago
  I'd guess it's more the "demographic X is not suited to vote because they tend to disagree with my interests", rather than any singular position you aligned with the demographic, that was viewed as disturbing. I agree. It's not even the innate prejudice that's the problem here. It's the devaluing of another person's experience and opinion. Pretty slippery slope you're arguing for.
  - tylerritchie 7y ago
    Oh, sure I can see how my comment can be read that way. I'd add some strikethroughs and edits to clarify, but that's not an option. My point wasn't trying to be "as soon as someone hits some age they should no longer be able to vote because Olds have no value and should be put out to sea on an ice floe". I meant to be pointing out that younger voting age individuals (in aggregate) are ceding the outcome of elections to people who (in aggregate) don't share their political beliefs. You can see the lack of engagement elsewhere in the replies to my parent comment. For instance "just pay attention every four years, problem solved", as if there's never a ballot measure or public office which would affect voters when there isn't a presidential election