5 ms·
> a completely screwed up sense of priorities This one, although I wouldn't choose quite that phrasing. Most people don't seem to care too much, so we're cond
by everforward 5y ago
> a completely screwed up sense of priorities
This one, although I wouldn't choose quite that phrasing. Most people don't seem to care too much, so we're condoning the behavior via democratic process. I wouldn't be surprised if a significant chunk of people support it in the name of stopping the terrorists. I don't agree with that, but such is democracy. Especially in a system where we effectively vote on a whole world view by electing representatives, instead of voting on laws ourselves. Joe Schmoe might be anti-surveillance state but even more pro-gun, so if his options are anti-surveillance and anti-gun or pro both, he picks the pro-gun one even though his views don't entirely align.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> wouldn't be surprised if a significant chunk of people support it in the name of stopping the terrorists Most people don't care. The vocal minority who do care have a habit of jumping the shark. That lets perfect be the enemy of the good and in the end no policy gets printed.
- parineum 5y ago> Joe Schmoe might be anti-surveillance state but even more pro-gun, so if his options are anti-surveillance and anti-gun or pro both, he picks the pro-gun one even though his views don't entirely align. The fact of the matter is that the duopoly of US politics are both pro-surveillance aside from a select few. It simply doesn't matter because there's nothing you can do about it.