2 ms·

To sum up: People are not smart enough to participate in policy? Because of that, their economic struggle is necessary?

giantg2 6y ago
No, that's not what I'm saying. Can you effectively participate in a game if you don't understand the rules and objective? I don't think so. You wouldn't drop someone into a car, a job, or really anything important without some knowledge or training. If we did, we would expect poor outcomes. I think we are seeing that now. For example, people don't know the basic differences of statute, code, and case law, or how they work. They can't define or explain basic legal principles. I'm many cases, they don't even know what rights they have. How can you demand your rights and proper treatment if you don't know them, nor how to effectively communicate about the law? I'm also saying that populism has some issues with what percentage does it take to pass something, thus alienating a very large minority (like 51/49). That populist policies can trample the rights of others. I had no input on the economic struggle as that was not even defined, so I find it odd that you would try to link my statement to that. I had asked what kind of "unnecessary struggle" the parent meant. I guess here you are saying it is economic. Can you elaborate on what is unnecessary? If it is unnecessary then there must be some obvious solution - can you define that too?
- ddingus 6y ago
  You are saying exactly that, and frankly I reject it across the board. I would continue with your other very debatable observations, but we have no real basis to do that in a way that makes sense, and I am not inclined to attempt to improve it at this time. Should we somehow discuss struggle, necessary can enter again in that context. Nothing personal.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    "You are saying exactly that" I said what I said, not what you are saying. There is a lot of context and nuance that you simply want to misrepresent my statements and label people as stupid. You still didnt define what you mean by struggle. How can we communicate, if you're not communicating? You have to at least define the problem and explain what you are talking about rather than assuming I'm a mind reader. Nothing personal, but I'm starting to think you are a troll.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      Your arguments boil down to people being either uninformed, or of insufficient capacity, to participate in "the game" We could simplify that to: they don't know how it works. If you want to take a minute and get better clarity on our lack of a basis for the other discussion, I'm good with that. There is what you said, in the literal sense, and there's what it means. All I can communicate to you is how I take that meaning. As for troll, and any other personal judgments, I tend to avoid those. Finally, the way I see it is simple: people can participate, and should have a voice in the democracy. There should be few limits on that, in fact the minimum possible, none ideally. They would also benefit significantly, in light of the very strong influence of money on policy and politics right now, with improved ability to work together, understand one another better, find solidarity, and make that participation more than symbolic. They are more than capable of sharing their life stories, policy preferences, needs, and other things same as anyone else.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        "...in light of the very strong influence of money on policy and politics right now..." This is an example of what I'm talking about. The reason the money is influential is because some people are naive and listen to the advertising/campaigning, which often misrepresents facts or only tells one side. "There should be few limits on that..." I'm not discussing limits, other than a basic citizenship test which all non-birthright citizens already take. The majority of this should be handled in schools. There's really no reason not to have the test. "They are more than capable of sharing their life stories, policy preferences, needs, and other things same as anyone else." Not if they are being manipulated because they don't understand the system or investigate claims. Then you end up with policies built off of lies and misrepresentation. If you want an example, look at the PA ballot question from a few years ago about retirement age for judges. They manipulated people by rewording the question. The integrity of the system and the strength of the country is dependent upon knowledge citizens in a democracy. To make this clearer to you, here's another example. Why is consensual sex with a minor a crime? It's because the minor is consider to be incapable of comprehending the totality of the situation and giving informed consent. The same can be true of electing people. How can you give your informed consent for a person to represent you on issues if you don't even understand the basics of it? This undermines the general public's right to be governed by a fair and effective system.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Can you effectively participate in a game if you don't understand the rules and objective? I don't think so. You wouldn't drop someone into a car, a job, or really anything important without some knowledge or training. If we did, we would expect poor outcomes. I think we are seeing that now. For example, people don't know the basic differences of statute, code, and case law, or how they work. They can't define or explain basic legal principles. I'm many cases, they don't even know what rights they have. How can you demand your rights and proper treatment if you don't know them, nor how to effectively communicate about the law? I'm also saying that populism has some issues with what percentage does it take to pass something, thus alienating a very large minority (like 51/49). That populist policies can trample the rights of others. I had no input on the economic struggle as that was not even defined, so I find it odd that you would try to link my statement to that. I had asked what kind of "unnecessary struggle" the parent meant. I guess here you are saying it is economic. Can you elaborate on what is unnecessary? If it is unnecessary then there must be some obvious solution - can you define that too?

ddingus 6y ago
You are saying exactly that, and frankly I reject it across the board. I would continue with your other very debatable observations, but we have no real basis to do that in a way that makes sense, and I am not inclined to attempt to improve it at this time. Should we somehow discuss struggle, necessary can enter again in that context. Nothing personal.
- giantg2 6y ago
  "You are saying exactly that" I said what I said, not what you are saying. There is a lot of context and nuance that you simply want to misrepresent my statements and label people as stupid. You still didnt define what you mean by struggle. How can we communicate, if you're not communicating? You have to at least define the problem and explain what you are talking about rather than assuming I'm a mind reader. Nothing personal, but I'm starting to think you are a troll.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    Your arguments boil down to people being either uninformed, or of insufficient capacity, to participate in "the game" We could simplify that to: they don't know how it works. If you want to take a minute and get better clarity on our lack of a basis for the other discussion, I'm good with that. There is what you said, in the literal sense, and there's what it means. All I can communicate to you is how I take that meaning. As for troll, and any other personal judgments, I tend to avoid those. Finally, the way I see it is simple: people can participate, and should have a voice in the democracy. There should be few limits on that, in fact the minimum possible, none ideally. They would also benefit significantly, in light of the very strong influence of money on policy and politics right now, with improved ability to work together, understand one another better, find solidarity, and make that participation more than symbolic. They are more than capable of sharing their life stories, policy preferences, needs, and other things same as anyone else.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      "...in light of the very strong influence of money on policy and politics right now..." This is an example of what I'm talking about. The reason the money is influential is because some people are naive and listen to the advertising/campaigning, which often misrepresents facts or only tells one side. "There should be few limits on that..." I'm not discussing limits, other than a basic citizenship test which all non-birthright citizens already take. The majority of this should be handled in schools. There's really no reason not to have the test. "They are more than capable of sharing their life stories, policy preferences, needs, and other things same as anyone else." Not if they are being manipulated because they don't understand the system or investigate claims. Then you end up with policies built off of lies and misrepresentation. If you want an example, look at the PA ballot question from a few years ago about retirement age for judges. They manipulated people by rewording the question. The integrity of the system and the strength of the country is dependent upon knowledge citizens in a democracy. To make this clearer to you, here's another example. Why is consensual sex with a minor a crime? It's because the minor is consider to be incapable of comprehending the totality of the situation and giving informed consent. The same can be true of electing people. How can you give your informed consent for a person to represent you on issues if you don't even understand the basics of it? This undermines the general public's right to be governed by a fair and effective system.