6 ms·

America is more Brave New World than 1984; people can protest the government, but if that protest rarely overcomes the inertia of the status quo, does it even m

America is more Brave New World than 1984; people can protest the government, but if that protest rarely overcomes the inertia of the status quo, does it even matter?

ethanbond 4y ago
Yes of course it matters. Is it sufficient? Probably not. But it’s a substantial improvement over not being able to e.g. protest the government. Anyway, our government isn’t designed to be steered by protest but by voting, which despite all its flaws does shift inertia.
- krageon 4y ago
  > voting You cannot meaningfully vote in the US, you have two options that have similar fascist views of the rest of the world and are unlikely to change anything. That is a false choice, meant to lull the chooser into a false sense of agency.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    Yep it’s an imperfect system. It’s dramatically better than a lot of others that have existed through history (including today) though. It is simply wildly untrue to imply that the two major parties don’t hold opposing views on at least a few important topics or that voting doesn’t help determine which party holds the power to realize their worldview. There’s a lot of overlap and a lot of ineffectiveness but this does not make them the same.
    - krageon 4y ago
      I thought this was incredibly obvious, but when you are not inside the US it becomes a lot more clear that it's foreign policy or stance on human rights doesn't change. It doesn't matter who you have in charge. What US news reaches outside of the borders frankly also doesn't convince me it's the same clusterfuck year after year. It wasn't always like this - it's gotten a lot worse in the past twenty years that I've paid any attention to it.
- angryasian 4y ago
  > isn’t designed to be steered by protest but by voting Even voting within states are completely rigged with gerrymandering and popular vote means nothing in national elections.
  - yadaeno 4y ago
    This is a disingenuous pattern of argument. You point out a known problem and then throw the baby out with the bath water. In this case, its clear voting does have some effect because seats are constantly changing parties, and parties fiercely compete for votes. Other similar examples of this argument: "Everyone knows taxes go to corrupt corporations, they are completely useless get rid of them" "Everyone knows masks dont block 100% of airflow, theyre completely useless!"
    - WaxProlix 4y ago
      > seats are constantly changing parties, and parties fiercely compete for votes Possibly because those seats are worth money. I don't know that people competing for them means voting 'works' in any definitive fashion. Princeton recently released a study (this one[1], I think?) that basically says as much: voting does very little. 1 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
    - Fatnino 4y ago
      What seats are changing party? I live in California where my vote counts the least. Since I turned 18 every single election has sent a Democrat to Washington for both senate seats and my representative and president (though California doesn't have final say on that last one). Currently, of those 4 seats, 3 are in their high 70s or even 80s and the 4th was appointed by the governor. I'm in my 30s. My interests are either entirely not, or very very poorly represented in Washington. Tell me again how my never missing an election has made a difference?
      - 4y ago

America is more Brave New World than 1984; people can protest the government, but if that protest rarely overcomes the inertia of the status quo, does it even matter?

ethanbond 4y ago

Yes of course it matters. Is it sufficient? Probably not. But it’s a substantial improvement over not being able to e.g. protest the government. Anyway, our government isn’t designed to be steered by protest but by voting, which despite all its flaws does shift inertia.

krageon 4y ago
> voting You cannot meaningfully vote in the US, you have two options that have similar fascist views of the rest of the world and are unlikely to change anything. That is a false choice, meant to lull the chooser into a false sense of agency.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Yep it’s an imperfect system. It’s dramatically better than a lot of others that have existed through history (including today) though. It is simply wildly untrue to imply that the two major parties don’t hold opposing views on at least a few important topics or that voting doesn’t help determine which party holds the power to realize their worldview. There’s a lot of overlap and a lot of ineffectiveness but this does not make them the same.
  - krageon 4y ago
    I thought this was incredibly obvious, but when you are not inside the US it becomes a lot more clear that it's foreign policy or stance on human rights doesn't change. It doesn't matter who you have in charge. What US news reaches outside of the borders frankly also doesn't convince me it's the same clusterfuck year after year. It wasn't always like this - it's gotten a lot worse in the past twenty years that I've paid any attention to it.
angryasian 4y ago
> isn’t designed to be steered by protest but by voting Even voting within states are completely rigged with gerrymandering and popular vote means nothing in national elections.
- yadaeno 4y ago
  This is a disingenuous pattern of argument. You point out a known problem and then throw the baby out with the bath water. In this case, its clear voting does have some effect because seats are constantly changing parties, and parties fiercely compete for votes. Other similar examples of this argument: "Everyone knows taxes go to corrupt corporations, they are completely useless get rid of them" "Everyone knows masks dont block 100% of airflow, theyre completely useless!"
  - WaxProlix 4y ago
    > seats are constantly changing parties, and parties fiercely compete for votes Possibly because those seats are worth money. I don't know that people competing for them means voting 'works' in any definitive fashion. Princeton recently released a study (this one[1], I think?) that basically says as much: voting does very little. 1 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
  - Fatnino 4y ago
    What seats are changing party? I live in California where my vote counts the least. Since I turned 18 every single election has sent a Democrat to Washington for both senate seats and my representative and president (though California doesn't have final say on that last one). Currently, of those 4 seats, 3 are in their high 70s or even 80s and the 4th was appointed by the governor. I'm in my 30s. My interests are either entirely not, or very very poorly represented in Washington. Tell me again how my never missing an election has made a difference?
    - 4y ago