2 ms·
> I don't see issues, I see "issues". That's convenient, but there's not much support for it. For example, abuse, exclusion, widespread discrimination against
by mmooss 2y ago
> I don't see issues, I see "issues".
That's convenient, but there's not much support for it. For example, abuse, exclusion, widespread discrimination against minorities and women is well-established. It's just a lazy argument - called reactionaryism - to deny it all without offering a better solution.
I think most reactionaries know they are wrong, and know that analysis and solutions on the left are probably accurate and optimal, and then choose to let people die or suffer rather than do any hard work or stand for anything. Look at Kennedy denying measles as significant.
- matrix87 2y agoYou can't really use statistics to determine for me what's an issue to me. It's pretty subjective. That's not reactionaryism, that's me as a voter doing a cost benefit analysis. Which frankly is the only rational way to vote Frankly I think this insistence that people vote against their own self interest more reactionary than the alternative. Like insisting that people reject sense for nonsense. Religion essentially
- mmooss 2y agoI didn't use statistics or suggest using them. > that's me as a voter doing a cost benefit analysis. Which frankly is the only rational way to vote Great. As I said, abuse, exclusion, widespread discrimination against minorities and women is well-established, for example. Those are very high costs.