4 ms·

Good thing your in-laws in some small town in Oklahoma isn't representative of Trump supporters or any group for that matter. Another very good thing is that we

Good thing your in-laws in some small town in Oklahoma isn't representative of Trump supporters or any group for that matter. Another very good thing is that we don't make policy decisions based on the anecdotes of random people on the internet.

tracer4201 6y ago
Why the personal attack? And if you feel like my example doesn't even matter, why respond at all?
- mydongle 6y ago
  Nothing personal. But your post seems to be a wishy-washy way of justifying or pushing to take away the right to vote from people you disagree with. If you only want to take away your in-law's rights, you go ahead and tell them not to vote. But your in-laws are people who live in this world too. Why do you think they have less of a say in what goes on? The real world implication of your post is that we start having IQ or some kind of political intelligence test to qualify to vote. It is really easy to think this way when you are the one who has the power to decide who gets to vote or who doesn't. And then you eventually find that some groups of humans are more affected by your policy than others. That's a rabbit hole I think you don't want to go down into.
  - tracer4201 6y ago
    I have personal opinions of my in-laws having the right to vote. I didn’t anywhere make a claim about taking away the voting rights of the larger population. The real world implication of my post is that people who live in very sparse rural areas have the ability to influence elections where their vote matters more than mine. I think in today’s polarized environment, this is becoming very dangerous. You keep responding in bad faith with personal attacks. Hopefully mods can sort out your problem. Good luck to you.
    - mydongle 6y ago
      I'm sorry you feel personally attacked, since that's not the aim/goal of my post. It is just my observation that what you've been saying is basically a dogwhistle at disenfranchising those who need representation the most, whether you intended it or not. It's possibly a subconscious thing for you. It is true that rural votes are weighted in their favor, but if that were not the case, then this country would be controlled by a handful of states. Do you honestly think that California should make the call for how a person in Kansas should live? Do you really think laws made by and voted for by people in New York are the best laws for the people of Wisconsin? Should all our presidents have been decided by the will of 4 or 5 states out of the 50 states that make up the country? If you have a complaint about how votes/representation is decided, you could make a case to adapt the system more fairly. Stripping the disenfranchised of their voting rights is talk from the 1950s, and should be done away with just like slavery.
      - tracer4201 6y ago
        > what you've been saying is basically a dogwhistle at disenfranchising those who need representation the most, whether you intended it or not. It's possibly a subconscious thing for you. So I did read your post but I stopped reading at that sentence. You keep posting personal attacks when I've clearly stated that's not what I'm saying. There's a specific rule on HN about taking things in bad faith. You keep breaking that rule. I won't engage with you further (for reals this time). Feel free to keep writing if it helps you feel better.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

tracer4201 6y ago

Why the personal attack? And if you feel like my example doesn't even matter, why respond at all?

mydongle 6y ago
Nothing personal. But your post seems to be a wishy-washy way of justifying or pushing to take away the right to vote from people you disagree with. If you only want to take away your in-law's rights, you go ahead and tell them not to vote. But your in-laws are people who live in this world too. Why do you think they have less of a say in what goes on? The real world implication of your post is that we start having IQ or some kind of political intelligence test to qualify to vote. It is really easy to think this way when you are the one who has the power to decide who gets to vote or who doesn't. And then you eventually find that some groups of humans are more affected by your policy than others. That's a rabbit hole I think you don't want to go down into.
- tracer4201 6y ago
  I have personal opinions of my in-laws having the right to vote. I didn’t anywhere make a claim about taking away the voting rights of the larger population. The real world implication of my post is that people who live in very sparse rural areas have the ability to influence elections where their vote matters more than mine. I think in today’s polarized environment, this is becoming very dangerous. You keep responding in bad faith with personal attacks. Hopefully mods can sort out your problem. Good luck to you.
  - mydongle 6y ago
    I'm sorry you feel personally attacked, since that's not the aim/goal of my post. It is just my observation that what you've been saying is basically a dogwhistle at disenfranchising those who need representation the most, whether you intended it or not. It's possibly a subconscious thing for you. It is true that rural votes are weighted in their favor, but if that were not the case, then this country would be controlled by a handful of states. Do you honestly think that California should make the call for how a person in Kansas should live? Do you really think laws made by and voted for by people in New York are the best laws for the people of Wisconsin? Should all our presidents have been decided by the will of 4 or 5 states out of the 50 states that make up the country? If you have a complaint about how votes/representation is decided, you could make a case to adapt the system more fairly. Stripping the disenfranchised of their voting rights is talk from the 1950s, and should be done away with just like slavery.
    - tracer4201 6y ago
      > what you've been saying is basically a dogwhistle at disenfranchising those who need representation the most, whether you intended it or not. It's possibly a subconscious thing for you. So I did read your post but I stopped reading at that sentence. You keep posting personal attacks when I've clearly stated that's not what I'm saying. There's a specific rule on HN about taking things in bad faith. You keep breaking that rule. I won't engage with you further (for reals this time). Feel free to keep writing if it helps you feel better.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]