5 ms·

>Tired analogy that doesn't actually make any point. It does, but it seems you've missed. Let me make it clear as day. If there's a country with 3 people on

by jdasdf 3y ago

>Tired analogy that doesn't actually make any point. It does, but it seems you've missed. Let me make it clear as day. If there's a country with 3 people on it, where 2 of those people want to oppress the third, there is nothing that the third can do to prevent that oppression. That is a perfectly legitimate outcome of a voting system, and one that occurs often. >This applies to approximately 0% of people in the US. Yes there is a small proportion of people who are so poor they can never move away from where they're born. Most of these people happen to live in urban areas, not rural. On the contrary. If you've ever been affected by a law or regulation you're against, you've directly suffered from this in regards to that topic. Indeed, the whole idea of "red states" and "blue states" that is common in US politics kind of shows it happening at a large scale. For example I've recently seen news about parts of eastern Oregon wanting to secede and join Idaho, and the primary reason for that is that you have a minority (rural eastern Oregonians) who are permanently disenfranchised with effectively zero agency over the laws and regulations that rule over them, as a result of them being a minority in Oregon. This is the problem. >If democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner wouldn't you want more power in the state and elected officials, so they could protect the sheep? On the contrary, for it is that power that is being used to oppress.

Izkata 3y ago
> Indeed, the whole idea of "red states" and "blue states" that is common in US politics kind of shows it happening at a large scale. > For example I've recently seen news about parts of eastern Oregon wanting to secede and join Idaho, and the primary reason for that is that you have a minority (rural eastern Oregonians) who are permanently disenfranchised with effectively zero agency over the laws and regulations that rule over them, as a result of them being a minority in Oregon. Northern California is the same, with this proposal to solve it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_st...
irrational 3y ago
> For example I've recently seen news about parts of eastern Oregon wanting to secede and join Idaho, and the primary reason for that is that you have a minority (rural eastern Oregonians) who are permanently disenfranchised with effectively zero agency over the laws and regulations that rule over them, as a result of them being a minority in Oregon. This goes both ways. In Utah, the urban liberals feel like they are disenfranchised because the majority suburban/rural population of the state consistently votes conservative. Anytime you have a majority (whether that is majority liberal urban in Oregon or majority conservative rural in Utah) you will have a minority that feel disenfranchised.
dfxm12 3y ago
This is an interesting allegory, but it's doesn't seem to mesh with reality. After all, in US voting, n is much larger than 3, and 66% represents a super majority... Can you put into concrete terms? How many times has Philadelphia and Pittsburgh bullied their way into something that the rest of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania was so against? I think you'll find that what usually happens is the rest of the commonwealth gets its way, regardless of what the big cities want (because they have the numbers in the state legislatures).
- jdasdf 3y ago
  I mean I gave an example in Oregon but you seem to have skipped it. If you'd like a more concrete example, how about we look at the effects that these minority/majority impacts have had on the delegates sent to the presidential college? Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_election_results_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden... As you can see you have several states that have always voted for the same party for decades. For example, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, south Dakota, Utah and Wyoming... Have voted for the republican candidate every single year since 1964. How many Democrats live in those states? These are literally millions of people who by virtue of being a minority have had exactly zero agency in who will rule over them. On a more local level, how many regulations are voted on by people in cities, but will inevitably affect rural people? Or heck, any people who did not want those regulations? For people being oppressed, who have no actual way to prevent their oppression, does it really matter if the oppression is being done by a dictator or a vote?
  - dfxm12 3y ago
    I mean I gave an example in Oregon but you seem to have skipped it. That's not an example of what you're saying. It appears to be in ongoing discussions. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ On a more local level, how many regulations are voted on by people in cities, but will inevitably affect rural people? Or heck, any people who did not want those regulations? What level are you talking about? I mean, what locality spans city and rural areas? These are great hypothetical situations, but you gotta put real examples behind them to show that there is some conspiracy about oppressing people living in rural areas. Even at a state level, due to the nature of districting, urban areas don't have any more representation in state legislatures. As you can see you have several states that have always voted for the same party for decades. You're now changing your argument from urban-rural to D-R?
EatingWithForks 3y ago
> For example I've recently seen news about parts of eastern Oregon wanting to secede and join Idaho, and the primary reason for that is that you have a minority (rural eastern Oregonians) who are permanently disenfranchised with effectively zero agency over the laws and regulations that rule over them, as a result of them being a minority in Oregon. Isn't this also the case of blue cities in red states? I believe e.g. there's a big hullabaloo in Virginia at the moment where the bluer school district close to DC is resisting anti-transgender top-down demands from the state. If we want to argue about rural people being disenfranchised, by number, way more people in cities are disenfranchised simply because cities are more populated.
- jdasdf 3y ago
  >Isn't this also the case of blue cities in red states? I believe e.g. there's a big hullabaloo in Virginia at the moment where the bluer school district close to DC is resisting anti-transgender top-down demands from the state. If we want to argue about rural people being disenfranchised, by number, way more people in cities are disenfranchised simply because cities are more populated. Absolutely, and my point isn't about a "rural vs urban divide" at all. It is a general argument and principle that can be applied to every action of government. It doesn't matter if oppression is done by a dictator or by a Majority. The problem is too much state power.
  - EatingWithForks 3y ago
    I don't know, let me know if this is slippery sloping or something, but I don't see why the issue is the state has too much power. You will always have a disenfranchised political minority unable to force the majority to follow whatever political position they want. There's conservatives in my city who feel disenfranchised about crime; does the city have too much power, then? What if I feel disenfranchised about no one believing me in an Among Us game?
    - jdasdf 3y ago
      You're missing the point. Being enfranchised in driving the state is only important if the state has a significant impact in your life. The lower the impact (read, the power) of the state, the lower the need to be enfranchised. For your example: If the state didn't have law enforcing powers, the states policy on crime wouldn't matter much. You could just hire your own private police to protect your interests.
pc86 3y ago
Being subject to a law or regulation you're against is not oppression, and you're not suffering. It can be, but that's not true by definition. Having to do something you don't want to do, or not being allowed to do whatever you want, is not oppression.
- jdasdf 3y ago
  Define oppression then. Because I fail to see any conceptual difference here.
  - warkdarrior 3y ago
    By your definition (as far as I can tell), all laws are oppression. Is there any law to which there won't be any opposition by some person out there? No, certainly not. So we must have laws and the debate must be whether particular laws are too restrictive or not.

by jdasdf 3y ago

Izkata 3y ago

> Indeed, the whole idea of "red states" and "blue states" that is common in US politics kind of shows it happening at a large scale. > For example I've recently seen news about parts of eastern Oregon wanting to secede and join Idaho, and the primary reason for that is that you have a minority (rural eastern Oregonians) who are permanently disenfranchised with effectively zero agency over the laws and regulations that rule over them, as a result of them being a minority in Oregon. Northern California is the same, with this proposal to solve it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_st...

irrational 3y ago

> For example I've recently seen news about parts of eastern Oregon wanting to secede and join Idaho, and the primary reason for that is that you have a minority (rural eastern Oregonians) who are permanently disenfranchised with effectively zero agency over the laws and regulations that rule over them, as a result of them being a minority in Oregon. This goes both ways. In Utah, the urban liberals feel like they are disenfranchised because the majority suburban/rural population of the state consistently votes conservative. Anytime you have a majority (whether that is majority liberal urban in Oregon or majority conservative rural in Utah) you will have a minority that feel disenfranchised.

dfxm12 3y ago

This is an interesting allegory, but it's doesn't seem to mesh with reality. After all, in US voting, n is much larger than 3, and 66% represents a super majority... Can you put into concrete terms? How many times has Philadelphia and Pittsburgh bullied their way into something that the rest of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania was so against? I think you'll find that what usually happens is the rest of the commonwealth gets its way, regardless of what the big cities want (because they have the numbers in the state legislatures).

jdasdf 3y ago
I mean I gave an example in Oregon but you seem to have skipped it. If you'd like a more concrete example, how about we look at the effects that these minority/majority impacts have had on the delegates sent to the presidential college? Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_election_results_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden... As you can see you have several states that have always voted for the same party for decades. For example, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, south Dakota, Utah and Wyoming... Have voted for the republican candidate every single year since 1964. How many Democrats live in those states? These are literally millions of people who by virtue of being a minority have had exactly zero agency in who will rule over them. On a more local level, how many regulations are voted on by people in cities, but will inevitably affect rural people? Or heck, any people who did not want those regulations? For people being oppressed, who have no actual way to prevent their oppression, does it really matter if the oppression is being done by a dictator or a vote?
- dfxm12 3y ago
  I mean I gave an example in Oregon but you seem to have skipped it. That's not an example of what you're saying. It appears to be in ongoing discussions. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ On a more local level, how many regulations are voted on by people in cities, but will inevitably affect rural people? Or heck, any people who did not want those regulations? What level are you talking about? I mean, what locality spans city and rural areas? These are great hypothetical situations, but you gotta put real examples behind them to show that there is some conspiracy about oppressing people living in rural areas. Even at a state level, due to the nature of districting, urban areas don't have any more representation in state legislatures. As you can see you have several states that have always voted for the same party for decades. You're now changing your argument from urban-rural to D-R?

EatingWithForks 3y ago

> For example I've recently seen news about parts of eastern Oregon wanting to secede and join Idaho, and the primary reason for that is that you have a minority (rural eastern Oregonians) who are permanently disenfranchised with effectively zero agency over the laws and regulations that rule over them, as a result of them being a minority in Oregon. Isn't this also the case of blue cities in red states? I believe e.g. there's a big hullabaloo in Virginia at the moment where the bluer school district close to DC is resisting anti-transgender top-down demands from the state. If we want to argue about rural people being disenfranchised, by number, way more people in cities are disenfranchised simply because cities are more populated.

jdasdf 3y ago
>Isn't this also the case of blue cities in red states? I believe e.g. there's a big hullabaloo in Virginia at the moment where the bluer school district close to DC is resisting anti-transgender top-down demands from the state. If we want to argue about rural people being disenfranchised, by number, way more people in cities are disenfranchised simply because cities are more populated. Absolutely, and my point isn't about a "rural vs urban divide" at all. It is a general argument and principle that can be applied to every action of government. It doesn't matter if oppression is done by a dictator or by a Majority. The problem is too much state power.
- EatingWithForks 3y ago
  I don't know, let me know if this is slippery sloping or something, but I don't see why the issue is the state has too much power. You will always have a disenfranchised political minority unable to force the majority to follow whatever political position they want. There's conservatives in my city who feel disenfranchised about crime; does the city have too much power, then? What if I feel disenfranchised about no one believing me in an Among Us game?
  - jdasdf 3y ago
    You're missing the point. Being enfranchised in driving the state is only important if the state has a significant impact in your life. The lower the impact (read, the power) of the state, the lower the need to be enfranchised. For your example: If the state didn't have law enforcing powers, the states policy on crime wouldn't matter much. You could just hire your own private police to protect your interests.

pc86 3y ago

Being subject to a law or regulation you're against is not oppression, and you're not suffering. It can be, but that's not true by definition. Having to do something you don't want to do, or not being allowed to do whatever you want, is not oppression.

jdasdf 3y ago
Define oppression then. Because I fail to see any conceptual difference here.
- warkdarrior 3y ago
  By your definition (as far as I can tell), all laws are oppression. Is there any law to which there won't be any opposition by some person out there? No, certainly not. So we must have laws and the debate must be whether particular laws are too restrictive or not.