5 ms·

> In whichever way campaigning influenced the outcome, the vote was the vote and the vote followed the laws of California and the United States. While that mig

> In whichever way campaigning influenced the outcome, the vote was the vote and the vote followed the laws of California and the United States. While that might be technically true in the absolutist way, bad things are still bad, even if it followed all the technicalities. If we play "the vote was the vote and the vote followed the laws" and it ends up making it mandatory for everyone to cut off their thumbs, do you really think the population would just go "oh well" and grab some pruners?

sokoloff 4y ago
No, I’d expect that people would wake up, seek and gain a stay of the law, and repeal it in the next ballot measure cycle. (For the right price, I’d literally bet my own thumb on that being the outcome.)
SllX 4y ago
We’re talking about the difference between W2s and 1099s, so I feel pretty good that my vote isn’t up there with literal bodily mutilation so you can put away the straw man; and if I thought AB5’s supporters and the “No” vote had the moral high ground, I wouldn’t have voted the way I did. I would in fact have voted the complete opposite of what I did, so keep that in mind. Do you want to try a different line of argument for why my vote should be nullified? There’s no “because someone on Hacker News thought it was bad“ exception in our democracy, so I’m kind of looking for something more here.
- oneplane 4y ago
  Since you're ignoring the thought experiment, let's see what remains in your reply. It sounds like you are reasoning that harm is fine when it morally shouldn't be, regardless of the technical (legislative, executive, judicial) track you're on. I believe that is bad.
  - SllX 4y ago
    You didn’t have a thought experiment, just a straw man. I thought I was clear on that point. Overwriting substantial portions of a law that took effect in 2020 with another law passed in 2020 isn’t “harmful” and doesn’t rank with your hypothetical anti-thumbs bill. > It sounds like you are reasoning that harm is fine when it morally shouldn't be That is exactly what I did not say, that is what you are attempting to reduce my argument to because you believe your position was morally superior and you don’t want to concede the legitimacy of my vote having voted for the losing position. I’m okay with you thinking your position was morally superior—it’s not, never was and we clearly disagree but I was done persuading people the moment the polls closed on November 3rd 2020—but having lost, you don’t have carte blanche to deny the election’s result nor its legitimacy. The “No” voters have exactly the same voting rights as the “Yes” voters, and they were outnumbered by a difference of 2,930,605 votes, nor are either the “Yes” voters or “No” voters morally superior people to each other for having held their positions and voted the way they did. So lacking carte blanche and moral superiority, why under the laws of California and the United States should my vote and the other 9,958,424 people who voted “Yes” on Prop 22 in 2020 be nullified when we have deemed ballot propositions for good or for ill to be a legitimate form of lawmaking in the State of California?
    - oneplane 4y ago
      Nobody here is talking about nullifying votes (well except you), and your bad faith argumentation leaves no more room for actual conversation.
      - SllX 4y ago
        Context! This was the question that was posed by the parent: >>> At what point does blatant advertising/propaganda meaningfully undermine human agency? I don’t know about you, but that’s the kind of question you ask when you want to question the legitimacy of something, e.g. a vote. There was a lot of controversy around the amount of money spent by the “Yes on 22” campaign that the “No on 22” camp hasn’t stopped complaining about since the election, and behave as if money, not the votes cast by the literal millions of people who cast them with a nearly 3 million vote differential, was the only deciding factor, so it’s not an unreasonable read given context. This was the question I counterposed: >> so do you want to tell me why my vote should be nullified other than you disagree with the outcome? You’re not the parent, but you are the one that picked up the mantle, quoting the end of my argument. This is the question through which all of my comments have been framed. We don’t have to continue, but keep the context in mind if you do, because as I just said, I’m not looking to persuade anyone on Proposition 22 and haven’t been for over two years, nor do entirely hypothetical anti-thumb bills interest me. Prop 22 already passed and it wasn’t even close, nor was the issue anywhere near mass bodily mutilation; but if somebody would like to explain to me why my vote should be nullified other than because they disagree with the outcome, that’s what I’m here for and I said so from the start. Cheers!

sokoloff 4y ago

No, I’d expect that people would wake up, seek and gain a stay of the law, and repeal it in the next ballot measure cycle. (For the right price, I’d literally bet my own thumb on that being the outcome.)

SllX 4y ago

We’re talking about the difference between W2s and 1099s, so I feel pretty good that my vote isn’t up there with literal bodily mutilation so you can put away the straw man; and if I thought AB5’s supporters and the “No” vote had the moral high ground, I wouldn’t have voted the way I did. I would in fact have voted the complete opposite of what I did, so keep that in mind. Do you want to try a different line of argument for why my vote should be nullified? There’s no “because someone on Hacker News thought it was bad“ exception in our democracy, so I’m kind of looking for something more here.

oneplane 4y ago
Since you're ignoring the thought experiment, let's see what remains in your reply. It sounds like you are reasoning that harm is fine when it morally shouldn't be, regardless of the technical (legislative, executive, judicial) track you're on. I believe that is bad.
- SllX 4y ago
  You didn’t have a thought experiment, just a straw man. I thought I was clear on that point. Overwriting substantial portions of a law that took effect in 2020 with another law passed in 2020 isn’t “harmful” and doesn’t rank with your hypothetical anti-thumbs bill. > It sounds like you are reasoning that harm is fine when it morally shouldn't be That is exactly what I did not say, that is what you are attempting to reduce my argument to because you believe your position was morally superior and you don’t want to concede the legitimacy of my vote having voted for the losing position. I’m okay with you thinking your position was morally superior—it’s not, never was and we clearly disagree but I was done persuading people the moment the polls closed on November 3rd 2020—but having lost, you don’t have carte blanche to deny the election’s result nor its legitimacy. The “No” voters have exactly the same voting rights as the “Yes” voters, and they were outnumbered by a difference of 2,930,605 votes, nor are either the “Yes” voters or “No” voters morally superior people to each other for having held their positions and voted the way they did. So lacking carte blanche and moral superiority, why under the laws of California and the United States should my vote and the other 9,958,424 people who voted “Yes” on Prop 22 in 2020 be nullified when we have deemed ballot propositions for good or for ill to be a legitimate form of lawmaking in the State of California?
  - oneplane 4y ago
    Nobody here is talking about nullifying votes (well except you), and your bad faith argumentation leaves no more room for actual conversation.
    - SllX 4y ago
      Context! This was the question that was posed by the parent: >>> At what point does blatant advertising/propaganda meaningfully undermine human agency? I don’t know about you, but that’s the kind of question you ask when you want to question the legitimacy of something, e.g. a vote. There was a lot of controversy around the amount of money spent by the “Yes on 22” campaign that the “No on 22” camp hasn’t stopped complaining about since the election, and behave as if money, not the votes cast by the literal millions of people who cast them with a nearly 3 million vote differential, was the only deciding factor, so it’s not an unreasonable read given context. This was the question I counterposed: >> so do you want to tell me why my vote should be nullified other than you disagree with the outcome? You’re not the parent, but you are the one that picked up the mantle, quoting the end of my argument. This is the question through which all of my comments have been framed. We don’t have to continue, but keep the context in mind if you do, because as I just said, I’m not looking to persuade anyone on Proposition 22 and haven’t been for over two years, nor do entirely hypothetical anti-thumb bills interest me. Prop 22 already passed and it wasn’t even close, nor was the issue anywhere near mass bodily mutilation; but if somebody would like to explain to me why my vote should be nullified other than because they disagree with the outcome, that’s what I’m here for and I said so from the start. Cheers!