44 ms·

Are these less informed people numerous enough to cause a problem to others, perhaps by voting badly? How would you know? Are you one of them? How would you kn

Are these less informed people numerous enough to cause a problem to others, perhaps by voting badly? How would you know? Are you one of them? How would you know? If you are, then aren't any opinions you share on the internet just making things worse? I ask these questions because I keep seeing the news exaggerating some bogeyman and people believing that it's more significant than it really is. For example, you expressed concern for democracy in your post here, which seems like a pretty big danger! Is that really at risk for Australia or are you misinformed about the significance of this particular bogeyman? I also see people complaining about misinformation while never identifying themselves as victims of it. Why aren't the victims complaining? Because part of being a victim of misinformation includes not knowing that you are. So maybe it's yourself, in which case, better to address that problem before trying to "correct" others. Also, this idea of there being a huge underclass of misinformed people damaging democracy is divisive. It classifies people into good (always ourselves) and bad (always someone else), giving moral justification to the self-declared "good" people to correct the "bad" people.

konjin 6y ago
>Are these less informed people numerous enough to cause a problem to others, perhaps by voting badly? Yes. >How would you know? By the simple fact the Federal government is ignoring their constitutional responsibility to enact a quarantine for international travelers and letting the states deal with it (poorly). So far the virus has escaped a dozen times through badly run quarantines and none of the lessons are shared between states, because each state has to build the experience for itself. >I ask these questions because I keep seeing the news exaggerating some bogeyman and people believing that it's more significant than it really is. You ask these questions because its a weaselly way to get around the HN rules of not insulting people while implying exactly the same thing. In short are you looking for a job with News Corp? Because this is exactly the type of content they want google and FB to support.
- exporectomy 6y ago
  > the Federal government is ignoring their constitutional responsibility to enact a quarantine for international travelers I assume your claim is true even though a quick Google doesn't show how. So doesn't Australia have any process to compel the government to comply with the constitution? It's entirely up to the whim of voters? Then it's fair enough that they don't comply since it's optional. Democracy is the general population choosing the government, not a self-declared group of "right" people. So far, your claim about less informed people is essentially just "other people voted for a government I don't like so they must have been less informed than me".
  - konjin 6y ago
    > So doesn't Australia have any process to compel the government to comply with the constitution? Australia has the most volatile politics of any English speaking country. The two ways for a government to be forced to follow the constitution is for the Queen to fire them, or for a military coup. Both were considered during the last time the government was in deadlock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional... >So far, your claim about less informed people is essentially just "other people voted for a government I don't like so they must have been less informed than me". My claim is that an Australian government is acting outside the constitution and responsible for the deaths of thousands. Not sure what you're trying to do with your strawman argument.
    - exporectomy 6y ago
      OK, so the constitution's optional. No problem violating it then. If you don't like what the government did, I don't mind you sharing your opinion. But how does it logically connect with my comment that you replied to? I thought you were giving an example showing that voters are not well informed and I pointed out that it's not objectively wrong, just different from what you want.
      - konjin 6y ago
        No thats literally part of the constitution. The prime minister can get fired by the queen legally and its happened iniving memory.

konjin 6y ago

>Are these less informed people numerous enough to cause a problem to others, perhaps by voting badly? Yes. >How would you know? By the simple fact the Federal government is ignoring their constitutional responsibility to enact a quarantine for international travelers and letting the states deal with it (poorly). So far the virus has escaped a dozen times through badly run quarantines and none of the lessons are shared between states, because each state has to build the experience for itself. >I ask these questions because I keep seeing the news exaggerating some bogeyman and people believing that it's more significant than it really is. You ask these questions because its a weaselly way to get around the HN rules of not insulting people while implying exactly the same thing. In short are you looking for a job with News Corp? Because this is exactly the type of content they want google and FB to support.

exporectomy 6y ago
> the Federal government is ignoring their constitutional responsibility to enact a quarantine for international travelers I assume your claim is true even though a quick Google doesn't show how. So doesn't Australia have any process to compel the government to comply with the constitution? It's entirely up to the whim of voters? Then it's fair enough that they don't comply since it's optional. Democracy is the general population choosing the government, not a self-declared group of "right" people. So far, your claim about less informed people is essentially just "other people voted for a government I don't like so they must have been less informed than me".
- konjin 6y ago
  > So doesn't Australia have any process to compel the government to comply with the constitution? Australia has the most volatile politics of any English speaking country. The two ways for a government to be forced to follow the constitution is for the Queen to fire them, or for a military coup. Both were considered during the last time the government was in deadlock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional... >So far, your claim about less informed people is essentially just "other people voted for a government I don't like so they must have been less informed than me". My claim is that an Australian government is acting outside the constitution and responsible for the deaths of thousands. Not sure what you're trying to do with your strawman argument.
  - exporectomy 6y ago
    OK, so the constitution's optional. No problem violating it then. If you don't like what the government did, I don't mind you sharing your opinion. But how does it logically connect with my comment that you replied to? I thought you were giving an example showing that voters are not well informed and I pointed out that it's not objectively wrong, just different from what you want.
    - konjin 6y ago
      No thats literally part of the constitution. The prime minister can get fired by the queen legally and its happened iniving memory.