5 ms·

> No, not enough. The lack of 'both sides' is what got us here. lol, why are you going out of your way to reply to this? It's not in my comment, and it wasn't

> No, not enough. The lack of 'both sides' is what got us here. lol, why are you going out of your way to reply to this? It's not in my comment, and it wasn't in the comment when you logged in to reply. Did you copy and paste it from your rss feed or whatever specifically to be able to reply to it? That's really weird. Anyway. > They have felt alone, disenfranchised, and cut off by the coastal elite (both sides!) for decades. The problem is they have no education and have no idea how to think critically. In society we have made it such a bad thing to be 'stupid', combine that with studies showing being wrong can be similar to being physically hurt [0], well, now we have a population that has no education, is religious and rejects science, doesn't want to be called stupid or be wrong, so they rally around 'alternative facts' and a charlatan who they see as one of them. The only solution here is mandatory re-education and/or limiting who can vote, or hopefully waiting for the oldest and most stubborn conservatives to die out so alphas and gen-z can vote with a little more heart and brain. > So no, I'm not going to be done with 'both sides'. The Left thinks that if they just prosecute Trump and get him convicted these people will just go away and we can go back to business as usual, Trump's an especially bad candidate to be leader, the left just wants the Romney style republicans back. You know, not the science denying nazi wackos obsessed with guns and controlling women's bodies. The left isn't the problem here, and never has been. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/feb/28/why-being-wrong-really-hurts https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/feb/28/why-bei...

lolinder 2y ago
Thank you for laying bare the problem that I was attempting to describe. You've made my point better than I ever could.
- DEADMINCE 2y ago
  Likewise. Cheers.
kelseyfrog 2y ago
> The only solution here is mandatory re-education and/or limiting who can vote. History tells us that the Narodnik[1] plan failed. The real change in minds came when the rural masses migrated to cities with dense habitation and the calculus of labor doing industrial jobs proved fertile for new ideas. The only problem we have today is that large-scale rural->urban migration leaves huge swaths of the heartland emptied out which severely exacerbates our present problem because of the way senators are apportioned. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodniks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodniks
goatlover 2y ago
> The only solution here is mandatory re-education and/or limiting who can vote Sounds very authoritarian and not democratic at all. What makes you think they won't try to do the same thing? I certainly don't want any government to have the power to re-educate adults and limit who can vote because they're voting wrong. That's Orwellian.
- DEADMINCE 2y ago
  > Sounds very authoritarian and not democratic at all. It's what we already have, just extended a little. We already limit voting to citizens, and we have mandatory education for age groups and as a prerequisite to do certain professions. > I certainly don't want any government to have the power to re-educate adults and limit who can vote because they're voting wrong. That's Orwellian. Look at the situation we are in now, though. We have an extremely ignorant, outright science denying, not insignificant subset of the population, who due to our system of government can elect in people who share their beliefs, who then go on to be in real positions of power. What do you do when you have a slight majority of Trumps or MTGs as your representatives? More than likely, freedoms will erode and wars would likely increase. So, how can you avoid that, or worse problems caused by an ignorant voting block? If you want to keep this form of government (which I would argue we should not), I'm not sure what other solutions there are other than to have some sort of test for voting. Maybe moving the definition of what constitutes a citizen like in Starship Troopers could work.
  - 15155 2y ago
    And this, folks, is why we have a Second Amendment.
    - DEADMINCE 2y ago
      That isn't remotely true, and this perpetuation of a distortion of what the Second Amendment is actually meant to be for is part of the problem. The real reason you have a Second Amendment is to stop those pesky slaves from rising up and trying to obtain their freedom. [0] Here's the funny bit. If you were even half the patriot you consider yourself to be, you'd more than agree with the issues I outlined above. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/second-amendment-slavery-james-madison.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/second-amendment-...
zyklu5 2y ago
> The only solution here is mandatory re-education and/or limiting who can vote, or hopefully waiting for the oldest and most stubborn conservatives to die out so alphas and gen-z can vote with a little more heart and brain. Goodness.
- DEADMINCE 2y ago
  You disagree? What do you do in a situation where half the population won't take a vaccine during a pandemic because they think Bill Gates is going to track you with microchips? Honestly, what's the solution here other than to wait and hope the voting population normalizes and self-corrects?
  - achenet 2y ago
    You could try changing the toxic two party system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
    - DEADMINCE 2y ago
      I agree that would be a great help, but I don't see that happening when half the population is just going to be contrarian and obstructionist to something like that. Not least because it would mean they would have significantly less power if people had more options.
  - SirMaster 2y ago
    Are you suggesting the population came up with the idea and conclusion on their own that Gates tracking and microchips were real? Or did they listen to and trust someone who told them that? And if so why did they listen to and trust that person? How about the people who have the right, and science backed answers learn how to hear out and build trust with the population, so the population actually wants to listen and trust what they say? The population doesn't have to be smart, those who have the right answers just need to be caring and compassionate and build trust with the population. I'm sorry, but democrats seem to have no interest in even attempting to hear the right out and to work towards building any sort of trust with them.
HumblyTossed 2y ago
> Trump's an especially bad candidate to be leader, the left just wants the Romney style republicans back. Pretty much. The left wants people they can debate and negotiate with. Not a bunch of McConnell-style babies that absolutely refuse to negotiate on anything.

lolinder 2y ago

Thank you for laying bare the problem that I was attempting to describe. You've made my point better than I ever could.

DEADMINCE 2y ago
Likewise. Cheers.

kelseyfrog 2y ago

> The only solution here is mandatory re-education and/or limiting who can vote. History tells us that the Narodnik[1] plan failed. The real change in minds came when the rural masses migrated to cities with dense habitation and the calculus of labor doing industrial jobs proved fertile for new ideas. The only problem we have today is that large-scale rural->urban migration leaves huge swaths of the heartland emptied out which severely exacerbates our present problem because of the way senators are apportioned. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodniks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodniks

goatlover 2y ago

> The only solution here is mandatory re-education and/or limiting who can vote Sounds very authoritarian and not democratic at all. What makes you think they won't try to do the same thing? I certainly don't want any government to have the power to re-educate adults and limit who can vote because they're voting wrong. That's Orwellian.

DEADMINCE 2y ago
> Sounds very authoritarian and not democratic at all. It's what we already have, just extended a little. We already limit voting to citizens, and we have mandatory education for age groups and as a prerequisite to do certain professions. > I certainly don't want any government to have the power to re-educate adults and limit who can vote because they're voting wrong. That's Orwellian. Look at the situation we are in now, though. We have an extremely ignorant, outright science denying, not insignificant subset of the population, who due to our system of government can elect in people who share their beliefs, who then go on to be in real positions of power. What do you do when you have a slight majority of Trumps or MTGs as your representatives? More than likely, freedoms will erode and wars would likely increase. So, how can you avoid that, or worse problems caused by an ignorant voting block? If you want to keep this form of government (which I would argue we should not), I'm not sure what other solutions there are other than to have some sort of test for voting. Maybe moving the definition of what constitutes a citizen like in Starship Troopers could work.
- 15155 2y ago
  And this, folks, is why we have a Second Amendment.
  - DEADMINCE 2y ago
    That isn't remotely true, and this perpetuation of a distortion of what the Second Amendment is actually meant to be for is part of the problem. The real reason you have a Second Amendment is to stop those pesky slaves from rising up and trying to obtain their freedom. [0] Here's the funny bit. If you were even half the patriot you consider yourself to be, you'd more than agree with the issues I outlined above. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/second-amendment-slavery-james-madison.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/second-amendment-...

zyklu5 2y ago

> The only solution here is mandatory re-education and/or limiting who can vote, or hopefully waiting for the oldest and most stubborn conservatives to die out so alphas and gen-z can vote with a little more heart and brain. Goodness.

DEADMINCE 2y ago
You disagree? What do you do in a situation where half the population won't take a vaccine during a pandemic because they think Bill Gates is going to track you with microchips? Honestly, what's the solution here other than to wait and hope the voting population normalizes and self-corrects?
- achenet 2y ago
  You could try changing the toxic two party system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
  - DEADMINCE 2y ago
    I agree that would be a great help, but I don't see that happening when half the population is just going to be contrarian and obstructionist to something like that. Not least because it would mean they would have significantly less power if people had more options.
- SirMaster 2y ago
  Are you suggesting the population came up with the idea and conclusion on their own that Gates tracking and microchips were real? Or did they listen to and trust someone who told them that? And if so why did they listen to and trust that person? How about the people who have the right, and science backed answers learn how to hear out and build trust with the population, so the population actually wants to listen and trust what they say? The population doesn't have to be smart, those who have the right answers just need to be caring and compassionate and build trust with the population. I'm sorry, but democrats seem to have no interest in even attempting to hear the right out and to work towards building any sort of trust with them.

HumblyTossed 2y ago

> Trump's an especially bad candidate to be leader, the left just wants the Romney style republicans back. Pretty much. The left wants people they can debate and negotiate with. Not a bunch of McConnell-style babies that absolutely refuse to negotiate on anything.