8 ms·

As an educated black person in tech who grew up in America, I'll stick with voting democrat. I'd rather get lip service, be ignored, with some mostly superficia

As an educated black person in tech who grew up in America, I'll stick with voting democrat. I'd rather get lip service, be ignored, with some mostly superficial policy here and there than have policy that actively targets the community I grew up with and my family. I'm constantly told the conclusions of the article and how I'm much better off getting my taxes lowered, but there are just plainly obvious differences between living in a red or blue state. I grew up in a red state that is purple now and the back and forth major policy changes depending on the party in charge are palpable. Even with my increased salary and status at work that has me going to fewer of the places I grew up going to and being around a variety of people, I know voting Republican has a much greater chance of hurting cousins, aunts, childhood friends that maybe didn't get the chances I got in my immediate family. I also know no matter how well I do in life, I'm just one traffic stop away from death or disaster and I'd rather side with the party that at least occasionally tries to hold police accountable for their actions. I'll differentiate between democrats and third party candidates but I'll never cast a vote for anyone with R next to their name, unless there's some great switch like a massively racist candidate like Barry Goldwater.

N1H1L 5y ago
Same here. One party calls all post 1965 immigrants unwanted and the other doesn't. The choice is made for me
- arminiusreturns 5y ago
  These are called wedge issues and are a favorite tool of the oligarchs to control both parties. I've long advocated for a third party aiming to take away the supermajority and force others to the table (peoples party!), but one of the biggest hurdles is how to address those wedge issues with getting sucked into the black hole of conversation they create. Lesser of two evils is still evil, and its probably questionable if its actually lesser.
  - dc-programmer 5y ago
    I don’t think there is some grand conspiracy here. Social conservatives are motivated by their desire for cultural homogeneity and protecting existing hierarchies. This isn’t a wedge issue, it’s a central part of what it means to be conservative in the first place. The left is defined by opposition to this idea to varying degrees (ranging from reform to revolution). The specifics of what it means to preserve tradition and how it might be challenged are specific to the historical and geo-political context.
    - arminiusreturns 5y ago
      I do think there is a grand conspiracy and its provable, but thats a discussion for another time. You are talking about the people that make up the labels, but I'm talking about the people who really control the parties. Without going into too much of a rant this is one of the biggest problems, that people talk about the left and the right as if they really have big influence over policy, when things like the Princeton study and many more prove otherwise, so I dont think its helpful to talk about the labels that apply to the vast majority of the populace instead of the actual people with influence: the uber-wealthy. Rest assured, even the "left" wealthy are just as interested in protecting existing hierarchies as any oil barron, and it's naive and unsupported by evidence to think otherwise.
      - dc-programmer 5y ago
        I believe our democratic process gets corrupted by the influence of money (and the legalization of bribery by the courts). But there’s no evidence this is all part of some coordinated effort that persists over time. Even if there is some evil cabal out there, they clearly do not exert complete influence as evidence by all the populists officials elected in the last four years. Why would Google/Facebook et al hand pick officials that want to break them up? These people are bad for big business because they act on reckless impulse. Also maybe the status quo democrats aren’t leftists after all? And yes, I think these are useful “labels”. You’re implying the Illuminati or someone made up the left/right dichotomy to divide us but these have been used for over 200 years. Finally, I don’t think supporting resource extraction is intrinsic to one side. Lots of socialist countries export billions of dollars of oil a year. Equating anti fossil fuel sentiment with leftism is a very western way of viewing the issue. Honestly the only conspiracy I really see is the political nihilism evinced online. It’s like some people want the citizenry to just give up or something. It’s still possible to exert political power as a normal voter. Don’t like the two choices you were presented with? Well did you vote in the primary? No? Oh gee. People are taking this article to mean we are all living in a veil of ignorance while our puppeteers present us with a false dichotomy. I think an easier explanation is the US Government is a lumbering bureaucracy with lots of momentum and a few newly elected officials aren’t going to change anything. People overrate the influence of individuals and try to form narratives that don’t exist to explain the world in a way that makes sense. When really events and changes emerge dynamically from complex systems in a way that can’t be easily explained
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
notch656a 5y ago
You might find some of the writings of Thomas Sowell interesting. He is definitely not (R) but he goes over some of the issues with progressive politics in trapping both poor black and white through oppressive policies like minimum wage and also by trapping them into dependence on the state through transfer payments.
- halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
  OP never said Democrats are flawless, quite the contrary. They made the statement that even though Democrats are flawed, they are not as openly hostile and oppressive as Republicans are. So while your statement may be true, it’s not relevant to the point being made.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    What did I say about Democrats? I didn't make a comment about what party was more or less flawless.
- croon 5y ago
  https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  The same Thomas Sowell who compared Obama to Hitler because he paid for environmental disaster mitigation? The same Thomas Sowell who violently criticized Obama for advocating that children should be automatically covered by their parent's insurance? If you actually think that laissez faire economics and the removal of the minimum wage would be a net benefit for anyone except the top 2% of the country you're delusional, and so is Sowell.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    I'm not aware of any "violence" he perpetrated towards Obama unless you're using "violently" to describe political and economic speech, which of course is nonsense. The reference to 'Hitler' was only to describe a process where politicians rile up people who are not normally involved in politics. The BP oil spill was one of those opportunities. I don't think it's weird to make notes on the tactics of Hitler, or even compare those. And the process to 'accept' $20B from BP, without due process, under implied threat of the possibility regulatory impositions (which the President is in a good position to influence) was definitely an authoritarian move on Obama's part IMO. It's not the environmental mitigation that is questionable, but rather the process by which the funds were obtained and I think your representation here is intentionally misleading. >If you actually think that laissez faire economics and the removal of the minimum wage would be a net benefit for anyone except the top 2% of the country you're delusional, and so is Sowell. Oh definitely. The bottom 2% would be the biggest winners of eliminating minimum wage, because minimum wage essentially outlaws employing anyone who can generate less than minimum wage worth of value to an employer. But it's true, the top 2% would win too and so would everyone else. IMO it would be one of the most important tools to lift people out of poverty.
whodunnit 5y ago
There is something about hypocrisy that has always rubbed me the wrong way. There isn’t much worse than being a traitor to your own cause. Both parties are like this to an extent, but I feel the Republicans are more honest in their motivations and allegiances than the Democrats, even if I disagree with them.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  But they aren't. They have this vision of white-male-controlled America from the 40s and 50s that kept minorities and women in "their place". The wish to bring back dangerous biases against POC being less than whites, and males being the dominant deciders in all matters. It's so blatantly obvious with how their chosen messiahs like Desantis and Trump favor only policies that further empower white males and lessen the power of women, POC, and those who aren't gender normative. They aren't rooting for "middle America" they only filling them with fear about diversity and non traditional opinions being equally as valid as "christian" beliefs. Democrats are flawed, but the GOP has become a party of white supremacy which came to a head under the Trump presidency because they found one of their own who wasn't hiding behind the moderate "business forward Republican" persona of past republicans.
atc 5y ago
extraphlebotomy 5y ago

N1H1L 5y ago

Same here. One party calls all post 1965 immigrants unwanted and the other doesn't. The choice is made for me

arminiusreturns 5y ago
These are called wedge issues and are a favorite tool of the oligarchs to control both parties. I've long advocated for a third party aiming to take away the supermajority and force others to the table (peoples party!), but one of the biggest hurdles is how to address those wedge issues with getting sucked into the black hole of conversation they create. Lesser of two evils is still evil, and its probably questionable if its actually lesser.
- dc-programmer 5y ago
  I don’t think there is some grand conspiracy here. Social conservatives are motivated by their desire for cultural homogeneity and protecting existing hierarchies. This isn’t a wedge issue, it’s a central part of what it means to be conservative in the first place. The left is defined by opposition to this idea to varying degrees (ranging from reform to revolution). The specifics of what it means to preserve tradition and how it might be challenged are specific to the historical and geo-political context.
  - arminiusreturns 5y ago
    I do think there is a grand conspiracy and its provable, but thats a discussion for another time. You are talking about the people that make up the labels, but I'm talking about the people who really control the parties. Without going into too much of a rant this is one of the biggest problems, that people talk about the left and the right as if they really have big influence over policy, when things like the Princeton study and many more prove otherwise, so I dont think its helpful to talk about the labels that apply to the vast majority of the populace instead of the actual people with influence: the uber-wealthy. Rest assured, even the "left" wealthy are just as interested in protecting existing hierarchies as any oil barron, and it's naive and unsupported by evidence to think otherwise.
    - dc-programmer 5y ago
      I believe our democratic process gets corrupted by the influence of money (and the legalization of bribery by the courts). But there’s no evidence this is all part of some coordinated effort that persists over time. Even if there is some evil cabal out there, they clearly do not exert complete influence as evidence by all the populists officials elected in the last four years. Why would Google/Facebook et al hand pick officials that want to break them up? These people are bad for big business because they act on reckless impulse. Also maybe the status quo democrats aren’t leftists after all? And yes, I think these are useful “labels”. You’re implying the Illuminati or someone made up the left/right dichotomy to divide us but these have been used for over 200 years. Finally, I don’t think supporting resource extraction is intrinsic to one side. Lots of socialist countries export billions of dollars of oil a year. Equating anti fossil fuel sentiment with leftism is a very western way of viewing the issue. Honestly the only conspiracy I really see is the political nihilism evinced online. It’s like some people want the citizenry to just give up or something. It’s still possible to exert political power as a normal voter. Don’t like the two choices you were presented with? Well did you vote in the primary? No? Oh gee. People are taking this article to mean we are all living in a veil of ignorance while our puppeteers present us with a false dichotomy. I think an easier explanation is the US Government is a lumbering bureaucracy with lots of momentum and a few newly elected officials aren’t going to change anything. People overrate the influence of individuals and try to form narratives that don’t exist to explain the world in a way that makes sense. When really events and changes emerge dynamically from complex systems in a way that can’t be easily explained
MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago

notch656a 5y ago

You might find some of the writings of Thomas Sowell interesting. He is definitely not (R) but he goes over some of the issues with progressive politics in trapping both poor black and white through oppressive policies like minimum wage and also by trapping them into dependence on the state through transfer payments.

halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
OP never said Democrats are flawless, quite the contrary. They made the statement that even though Democrats are flawed, they are not as openly hostile and oppressive as Republicans are. So while your statement may be true, it’s not relevant to the point being made.
- notch656a 5y ago
  What did I say about Democrats? I didn't make a comment about what party was more or less flawless.
croon 5y ago
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell
sudosysgen 5y ago
The same Thomas Sowell who compared Obama to Hitler because he paid for environmental disaster mitigation? The same Thomas Sowell who violently criticized Obama for advocating that children should be automatically covered by their parent's insurance? If you actually think that laissez faire economics and the removal of the minimum wage would be a net benefit for anyone except the top 2% of the country you're delusional, and so is Sowell.
- notch656a 5y ago
  I'm not aware of any "violence" he perpetrated towards Obama unless you're using "violently" to describe political and economic speech, which of course is nonsense. The reference to 'Hitler' was only to describe a process where politicians rile up people who are not normally involved in politics. The BP oil spill was one of those opportunities. I don't think it's weird to make notes on the tactics of Hitler, or even compare those. And the process to 'accept' $20B from BP, without due process, under implied threat of the possibility regulatory impositions (which the President is in a good position to influence) was definitely an authoritarian move on Obama's part IMO. It's not the environmental mitigation that is questionable, but rather the process by which the funds were obtained and I think your representation here is intentionally misleading. >If you actually think that laissez faire economics and the removal of the minimum wage would be a net benefit for anyone except the top 2% of the country you're delusional, and so is Sowell. Oh definitely. The bottom 2% would be the biggest winners of eliminating minimum wage, because minimum wage essentially outlaws employing anyone who can generate less than minimum wage worth of value to an employer. But it's true, the top 2% would win too and so would everyone else. IMO it would be one of the most important tools to lift people out of poverty.

whodunnit 5y ago

There is something about hypocrisy that has always rubbed me the wrong way. There isn’t much worse than being a traitor to your own cause. Both parties are like this to an extent, but I feel the Republicans are more honest in their motivations and allegiances than the Democrats, even if I disagree with them.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
But they aren't. They have this vision of white-male-controlled America from the 40s and 50s that kept minorities and women in "their place". The wish to bring back dangerous biases against POC being less than whites, and males being the dominant deciders in all matters. It's so blatantly obvious with how their chosen messiahs like Desantis and Trump favor only policies that further empower white males and lessen the power of women, POC, and those who aren't gender normative. They aren't rooting for "middle America" they only filling them with fear about diversity and non traditional opinions being equally as valid as "christian" beliefs. Democrats are flawed, but the GOP has become a party of white supremacy which came to a head under the Trump presidency because they found one of their own who wasn't hiding behind the moderate "business forward Republican" persona of past republicans.

atc 5y ago

extraphlebotomy 5y ago