4 ms·

Well, nothing is black or white. It's always a trade-off. Destroy the intrinsic property of the system to trade for broader access. Is it worth it? It makes me

Well, nothing is black or white. It's always a trade-off. Destroy the intrinsic property of the system to trade for broader access. Is it worth it? It makes me think of the Bitcoin scaling debate. Destroy the ease of running nodes for the ease of trading at low fees. Is it worth it? In this case, I don't think the suggestion is for people to 'care' more. At the same time we also have to recognize that we can't accommodate for everyone's situation without destroying the fundamentals of the system itself. It's a balancing act. Where the line should be drawn is probably very subjective.

ncallaway 6y ago
> It's always a trade-off I agree with that. I personally find the trade-off to be unacceptable. However, I can totally understand people that think the trade-off is worthwhile. I disagree, but very much understand and think a debate is merited. I strongly disagree with anyone who denies that the trade-off exists.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >I strongly disagree with anyone who denies that the trade-off exists. Well of course the trade-off exists. I never said it doesn't take effort to go out and caucus. It does. Having said that, there are many people with the time and means to attend a caucus (as you would define it), still don't attend a political caucus. Why is that? I'll tell you: because they don't care about caucusing and therefore the trade-off for them (as minuscule as it is) is too big. So you aren't making any profound argument. What you're missing is the other side of the equation - it isn't just about the relative effort to do something, but more importantly the level of care that people have for that something. That is if people don't care about attending a political rally, they won't attend a political rally even if you remove every barrier you perceive there to be. We see it in elections all the time. For all the talk about structural barriers to voting, black turn out was a record high for Obama because black communities really cared about voting for Obama. Black turnout was not as high for Hillary, because she didn't have the same level of support from the black population. When people care about something, they will find a way to engage.
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    > Having said that, there are many people with the time and means to attend a caucus (as you would define it), still don't attend a political caucus. Why is that? I'll tell you: because they don't care about caucusing and therefore the trade-off for them (as minuscule as it is) is too big. I'm going to copy and paste something I wrote earlier, because this response still doesn't address my actual concern: I actually don't mind the additional barrier that caucuses create that deter the people that don't care that much. If two people are equally able to attend a caucus, and the activation energy of the caucus filters out the one that doesn't care that much, that seems good to me. But I really very much do mind the additional barrier that caucuses create for the people that are not able to attend them due to their circumstances. If two people care equally, but one doesn't attend because they would lose their job or need to earn enough money for dinner—then I have a massive problem. --- To reiterate my point: I am genuinely unconcerned even slightly about those you address in this post. My concern is still entirely unaddressed, except for being dismissed as not a problem or shifted to the alternate concern about people who can attend but choose not to.
    - macspoofing 6y ago
      >If two people care equally, but one doesn't attend because they would lose their job or need to earn enough money for dinner—then I have a massive problem. Urgh. This is the same creative writing exercise that another poster here is engaging in. I'll tell you the same thing, I told him. You don't know that person. You don't know if that person exists. You don't know if that is actually a problem that affects even a tiny minority of would-be attendees. What you're doing is creating a caricature of working people and engaging in an imagination exercise of seeing how your caricatures would respond in hypothetical situations that don't actually exist ... because maybe you have no other connection to those working people? I don't know. I don't know how to argue that. You created a scenario that doesn't exist. The best I can do is just say that you did that.
      - ncallaway 6y ago
        Me: > I strongly disagree with anyone who denies that the trade-off exists. You: > I don't know how to argue that. You created a scenario that doesn't exist. I don't think I just made this problem up. https://www.kunr.org/post/what-rights-do-employees-have-caucus#stream/0 https://www.kunr.org/post/what-rights-do-employees-have-cauc... Anyway, I'm not going to debate whether such a person exists. If you think there exists no such person, we're not going to productively carry the conversation forward. If you think there exists such people, but it's a small enough set that the merits of a caucus outweigh the disenfranchisement of that set, we can discuss that. But if your argument is that flat out no such person exists, then we can stop discussing it.

ncallaway 6y ago

> It's always a trade-off I agree with that. I personally find the trade-off to be unacceptable. However, I can totally understand people that think the trade-off is worthwhile. I disagree, but very much understand and think a debate is merited. I strongly disagree with anyone who denies that the trade-off exists.

macspoofing 6y ago
>I strongly disagree with anyone who denies that the trade-off exists. Well of course the trade-off exists. I never said it doesn't take effort to go out and caucus. It does. Having said that, there are many people with the time and means to attend a caucus (as you would define it), still don't attend a political caucus. Why is that? I'll tell you: because they don't care about caucusing and therefore the trade-off for them (as minuscule as it is) is too big. So you aren't making any profound argument. What you're missing is the other side of the equation - it isn't just about the relative effort to do something, but more importantly the level of care that people have for that something. That is if people don't care about attending a political rally, they won't attend a political rally even if you remove every barrier you perceive there to be. We see it in elections all the time. For all the talk about structural barriers to voting, black turn out was a record high for Obama because black communities really cared about voting for Obama. Black turnout was not as high for Hillary, because she didn't have the same level of support from the black population. When people care about something, they will find a way to engage.
- ncallaway 6y ago
  > Having said that, there are many people with the time and means to attend a caucus (as you would define it), still don't attend a political caucus. Why is that? I'll tell you: because they don't care about caucusing and therefore the trade-off for them (as minuscule as it is) is too big. I'm going to copy and paste something I wrote earlier, because this response still doesn't address my actual concern: I actually don't mind the additional barrier that caucuses create that deter the people that don't care that much. If two people are equally able to attend a caucus, and the activation energy of the caucus filters out the one that doesn't care that much, that seems good to me. But I really very much do mind the additional barrier that caucuses create for the people that are not able to attend them due to their circumstances. If two people care equally, but one doesn't attend because they would lose their job or need to earn enough money for dinner—then I have a massive problem. --- To reiterate my point: I am genuinely unconcerned even slightly about those you address in this post. My concern is still entirely unaddressed, except for being dismissed as not a problem or shifted to the alternate concern about people who can attend but choose not to.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >If two people care equally, but one doesn't attend because they would lose their job or need to earn enough money for dinner—then I have a massive problem. Urgh. This is the same creative writing exercise that another poster here is engaging in. I'll tell you the same thing, I told him. You don't know that person. You don't know if that person exists. You don't know if that is actually a problem that affects even a tiny minority of would-be attendees. What you're doing is creating a caricature of working people and engaging in an imagination exercise of seeing how your caricatures would respond in hypothetical situations that don't actually exist ... because maybe you have no other connection to those working people? I don't know. I don't know how to argue that. You created a scenario that doesn't exist. The best I can do is just say that you did that.
    - ncallaway 6y ago
      Me: > I strongly disagree with anyone who denies that the trade-off exists. You: > I don't know how to argue that. You created a scenario that doesn't exist. I don't think I just made this problem up. https://www.kunr.org/post/what-rights-do-employees-have-caucus#stream/0 https://www.kunr.org/post/what-rights-do-employees-have-cauc... Anyway, I'm not going to debate whether such a person exists. If you think there exists no such person, we're not going to productively carry the conversation forward. If you think there exists such people, but it's a small enough set that the merits of a caucus outweigh the disenfranchisement of that set, we can discuss that. But if your argument is that flat out no such person exists, then we can stop discussing it.