4 ms·

> when someone asks "who did you vote for" I find it astonishing that anyone would ask this. The only time I've ever been asked this question has been by polls

> when someone asks "who did you vote for" I find it astonishing that anyone would ask this. The only time I've ever been asked this question has been by pollsters. In my social circle, anyway, the taboo on this question is very strong.

shw1n 2y ago
Thanks for reading! Yeah it seems there is less of a taboo among my friends, despite a strong tilt in one political direction. I suspect this is because most people assume everyone shares the same opinion in our state
- stretchwithme 2y ago
  Most people in the majority, you mean?
  - shw1n 2y ago
    yes, I believe so
- JohnFen 2y ago
  Well, in my group, there's no taboo on telling people your political opinions and voting behavior, only on asking (because it's nobody else's business unless you choose to make it so). So in practice, I know the political stances of most in my social circle.
voxl 2y ago
In my friend group it's clear as day: either you voted to kill and deport other people in the friend group or you didn't. Pretty obvious the group would like to know if you're secretly interested in their demise.
- skybrian 2y ago
  If you’re sure you already know what other people think, I guess there’s not much point in asking them their opinions? You’re not going to listen to their answers anyway. All you really want to know is what category to put them in.
  - voxl 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      > Voting for Donald Trump is unarguably an evil action in my book. I'm not sure why I'm bothering, but I'll bite. I didn't vote for the guy, don't like the guy, never have. Trying to understand _why_ people _did_ vote for him is much more important than declaring half the country (really like 30-35% of the country, more people didn't vote than did vote for a specific candidate) evil. If we need to assign blame, Biden should have dropped out long before he did so the democrats could have found their next Obama, or something. Or maybe, just maybe, people were desperate for a change and they were manipulated into a false sense of illogical hope. The question is, why did they need hope? What was so wrong, in their mind, that we all ended up here? Or, just declare them evil and hold a useless sense of moral superiority. This solves nothing, but I suppose it makes you feel better.
      - voxl 2y ago
        I said it was an evil action, I didn't call them evil. This is the standard essentialism fallacy of morality. Doing an evil thing does not make your inherently evil. Holding slaves in 1800s is evil, but I don't think the people are inherently evil. I have a pretty good understanding of why people didn't vote, the block I care about a lot more. The people that did vote for Trump specifically either are ride or die conservative, fell victim to misinformation, or are otherwise uneducated. Trying to say that Biden and the DNC is "too blame" for someone picking a president that is happy sending citizens to an El Salvador prison is something. I expect a bit more from the electorate myself, and think they should take some accountability for their own mistakes.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- doright 2y ago
  But I guess for prioritizing the happiness of the friend group, some amount of ignorance is needed if someone in the group is ultimately going to model the world on "they kill and deport or they don't" given enough information to make that declaration, and eventually a person on the other side is encountered? I understand that some things can be more important than just having fun though, down to personal values. "To be ignorant" sounds like a moral failing on its face, but I feel it is increasingly becoming required in some circumstances with the explosive amount of information available to subscribe to nowadays.
  - bongodongobob 2y ago
    Keeping selfish assholes as friends is not a priority of mine.
    - doright 2y ago
      I'm talking more about not bringing up politics to avoid giving too much information to people who will make up their own conclusions based on those facts and aren't amenable to change. And choosing not to bring up politics for the purpose of figuring out who out of the friend group is the selfish asshole.
- dcrazy 2y ago
  See, this is the problem. People don’t vote for individual policies, they vote for candidates.
  - manfre 2y ago
    correct, their vote says "I'm okay with everything this candidate says they'll do." You can't cherry pick policies from a candidate and pretend your vote is not culpable for all the harm it inflicts.
  - ARandomerDude 2y ago
    Not really. Some people love the candidates but I suspect a lot of us vote against the other side more than for a candidate.
- bakugo 2y ago
  The shamelessness with which some commenters openly display the exact aggressive tribal behavior discussed in the article should be studied.
unethical_ban 2y ago
On one hand, it feels like this question is a lot more relevant than ever. It's easier to ignore politics when each side doesn't see the other as an existential threat to their way of life. Like it would be easy not to ask someone's religion when there isn't a 35% chance they're going to say "extremist martyr". But I don't ask this question if I don't think I know the answer already, and I only ask it with people I think I can have a conversation with.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
ninetyninenine 2y ago
[flagged]
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > Are you really astonished by this? Yes, because it's literally not a thing that I see happen. It seems like a terribly intrusive question to ask, and I certainly wouldn't ever feel comfortable asking anyone. > What your "social group" does is outside the norm. Perhaps now, but myself and most of my social group are old enough that it absolutely was the norm when we were younger. I was unaware that this was a thing that had changed. > They are using ignorance to maintain tribal unity Certainly not, since most know each other's political stances through the ordinary course of interacting with each other over the years. > My guess is that your actually not astonished at all. You guess wrong, so your personal attack here is powerless. > pretending you're unaware of how abnormally impartial your group is I never claimed my social circle was impartial at all, let alone "abnormally impartial". You're reading things into my statements that aren't there.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - JohnFen 2y ago
      > Saying you're pretending is not a personal attack. Saying I'm pretending is the same thing as saying that I'm lying. But it doesn't really matter either way. Your claims about what's in my head are mistaken. You are, of course, free to think anything you like.
      - ninetyninenine 2y ago
        >Saying I'm pretending is the same thing as saying that I'm lying. But it doesn't really matter either way. Your claims about what's in my head are mistaken. You are, of course, free to think anything you like. Correct, I think you're lying. But that's an extreme way to put it. You're more humble bragging. Again, it wasn't an attack. Even if I say you're lying it's not an attack either. I'm just stating what I'm thinking.
stouset 2y ago
I just try and imagine people having this debate in 1932 Germany.
- YZF 2y ago
  It's a good point but the flip side is not every point in time is 1932 Germany. How do we keep a democracy where ideas we don't agree with can still be implemented if there's a majority (assuming minority rights are protected reasonably well) while at the same time ensuring we don't end up with democracy being used as a tool to get a totalitarian regime. For a more recent example we can look maybe at Türkiye. Preventing ideas that are still within the boundary of a democracy from being implemented is not democracy either. The US e.g. has a Supreme Court and a constitution. Presumably as long as that court is functional and the constitution is applied then all is good? Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with Germany's fall into fascism and whether there was some sort of watershed moment where it was clear that something was broken and could still have been remediated.
  - lovich 2y ago
    >The US e.g. has a Supreme Court and a constitution. Presumably as long as that court is functional and the constitution is applied then all is good? Have we got some news for you
  - seanw444 2y ago
    > Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with Germany's fall into fascism and whether there was some sort of watershed moment where it was clear that something was broken and could still have been remediated. Fascism is an easy sell when it's immediately preceded by the Weimar Republic.
jimt1234 2y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weAopdKILLw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weAopdKILLw
readthenotes1 2y ago
A friend lamented in 2016 "If I vote for X I'll lose my friends. If I vote for Y I'll upset my family." I reminded the voter of the secret ballot and the ability to just lie. "Tell them what you think they want to hear", was my advice
- porridgeraisin 2y ago
  https://youtu.be/DXY_8cJlGMc https://youtu.be/DXY_8cJlGMc
thinkingemote 2y ago
I sometimes grin and say "it's a secret ballot" and how they react to that can be revealing.
jajuuka 2y ago
It's not that shocking. It makes a really good short hand question to find out where someone is politically. You could spend ten hours discussing what the perfect immigration system looks like or you could ask who they voted for and get a baseline to go off of. The question only removes nuance if you stop right after.

shw1n 2y ago

Thanks for reading! Yeah it seems there is less of a taboo among my friends, despite a strong tilt in one political direction. I suspect this is because most people assume everyone shares the same opinion in our state

stretchwithme 2y ago
Most people in the majority, you mean?
- shw1n 2y ago
  yes, I believe so
JohnFen 2y ago
Well, in my group, there's no taboo on telling people your political opinions and voting behavior, only on asking (because it's nobody else's business unless you choose to make it so). So in practice, I know the political stances of most in my social circle.

voxl 2y ago

In my friend group it's clear as day: either you voted to kill and deport other people in the friend group or you didn't. Pretty obvious the group would like to know if you're secretly interested in their demise.

skybrian 2y ago
If you’re sure you already know what other people think, I guess there’s not much point in asking them their opinions? You’re not going to listen to their answers anyway. All you really want to know is what category to put them in.
- voxl 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    > Voting for Donald Trump is unarguably an evil action in my book. I'm not sure why I'm bothering, but I'll bite. I didn't vote for the guy, don't like the guy, never have. Trying to understand _why_ people _did_ vote for him is much more important than declaring half the country (really like 30-35% of the country, more people didn't vote than did vote for a specific candidate) evil. If we need to assign blame, Biden should have dropped out long before he did so the democrats could have found their next Obama, or something. Or maybe, just maybe, people were desperate for a change and they were manipulated into a false sense of illogical hope. The question is, why did they need hope? What was so wrong, in their mind, that we all ended up here? Or, just declare them evil and hold a useless sense of moral superiority. This solves nothing, but I suppose it makes you feel better.
    - voxl 2y ago
      I said it was an evil action, I didn't call them evil. This is the standard essentialism fallacy of morality. Doing an evil thing does not make your inherently evil. Holding slaves in 1800s is evil, but I don't think the people are inherently evil. I have a pretty good understanding of why people didn't vote, the block I care about a lot more. The people that did vote for Trump specifically either are ride or die conservative, fell victim to misinformation, or are otherwise uneducated. Trying to say that Biden and the DNC is "too blame" for someone picking a president that is happy sending citizens to an El Salvador prison is something. I expect a bit more from the electorate myself, and think they should take some accountability for their own mistakes.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
doright 2y ago
But I guess for prioritizing the happiness of the friend group, some amount of ignorance is needed if someone in the group is ultimately going to model the world on "they kill and deport or they don't" given enough information to make that declaration, and eventually a person on the other side is encountered? I understand that some things can be more important than just having fun though, down to personal values. "To be ignorant" sounds like a moral failing on its face, but I feel it is increasingly becoming required in some circumstances with the explosive amount of information available to subscribe to nowadays.
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  Keeping selfish assholes as friends is not a priority of mine.
  - doright 2y ago
    I'm talking more about not bringing up politics to avoid giving too much information to people who will make up their own conclusions based on those facts and aren't amenable to change. And choosing not to bring up politics for the purpose of figuring out who out of the friend group is the selfish asshole.
dcrazy 2y ago
See, this is the problem. People don’t vote for individual policies, they vote for candidates.
- manfre 2y ago
  correct, their vote says "I'm okay with everything this candidate says they'll do." You can't cherry pick policies from a candidate and pretend your vote is not culpable for all the harm it inflicts.
- ARandomerDude 2y ago
  Not really. Some people love the candidates but I suspect a lot of us vote against the other side more than for a candidate.
bakugo 2y ago
The shamelessness with which some commenters openly display the exact aggressive tribal behavior discussed in the article should be studied.

unethical_ban 2y ago

On one hand, it feels like this question is a lot more relevant than ever. It's easier to ignore politics when each side doesn't see the other as an existential threat to their way of life. Like it would be easy not to ask someone's religion when there isn't a 35% chance they're going to say "extremist martyr". But I don't ask this question if I don't think I know the answer already, and I only ask it with people I think I can have a conversation with.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

ninetyninenine 2y ago

[flagged]

JohnFen 2y ago
> Are you really astonished by this? Yes, because it's literally not a thing that I see happen. It seems like a terribly intrusive question to ask, and I certainly wouldn't ever feel comfortable asking anyone. > What your "social group" does is outside the norm. Perhaps now, but myself and most of my social group are old enough that it absolutely was the norm when we were younger. I was unaware that this was a thing that had changed. > They are using ignorance to maintain tribal unity Certainly not, since most know each other's political stances through the ordinary course of interacting with each other over the years. > My guess is that your actually not astonished at all. You guess wrong, so your personal attack here is powerless. > pretending you're unaware of how abnormally impartial your group is I never claimed my social circle was impartial at all, let alone "abnormally impartial". You're reading things into my statements that aren't there.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    > Saying you're pretending is not a personal attack. Saying I'm pretending is the same thing as saying that I'm lying. But it doesn't really matter either way. Your claims about what's in my head are mistaken. You are, of course, free to think anything you like.
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      >Saying I'm pretending is the same thing as saying that I'm lying. But it doesn't really matter either way. Your claims about what's in my head are mistaken. You are, of course, free to think anything you like. Correct, I think you're lying. But that's an extreme way to put it. You're more humble bragging. Again, it wasn't an attack. Even if I say you're lying it's not an attack either. I'm just stating what I'm thinking.

stouset 2y ago

I just try and imagine people having this debate in 1932 Germany.

YZF 2y ago
It's a good point but the flip side is not every point in time is 1932 Germany. How do we keep a democracy where ideas we don't agree with can still be implemented if there's a majority (assuming minority rights are protected reasonably well) while at the same time ensuring we don't end up with democracy being used as a tool to get a totalitarian regime. For a more recent example we can look maybe at Türkiye. Preventing ideas that are still within the boundary of a democracy from being implemented is not democracy either. The US e.g. has a Supreme Court and a constitution. Presumably as long as that court is functional and the constitution is applied then all is good? Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with Germany's fall into fascism and whether there was some sort of watershed moment where it was clear that something was broken and could still have been remediated.
- lovich 2y ago
  >The US e.g. has a Supreme Court and a constitution. Presumably as long as that court is functional and the constitution is applied then all is good? Have we got some news for you
- seanw444 2y ago
  > Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with Germany's fall into fascism and whether there was some sort of watershed moment where it was clear that something was broken and could still have been remediated. Fascism is an easy sell when it's immediately preceded by the Weimar Republic.

jimt1234 2y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weAopdKILLw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weAopdKILLw

readthenotes1 2y ago

A friend lamented in 2016 "If I vote for X I'll lose my friends. If I vote for Y I'll upset my family." I reminded the voter of the secret ballot and the ability to just lie. "Tell them what you think they want to hear", was my advice

porridgeraisin 2y ago
https://youtu.be/DXY_8cJlGMc https://youtu.be/DXY_8cJlGMc

thinkingemote 2y ago

I sometimes grin and say "it's a secret ballot" and how they react to that can be revealing.

jajuuka 2y ago

It's not that shocking. It makes a really good short hand question to find out where someone is politically. You could spend ten hours discussing what the perfect immigration system looks like or you could ask who they voted for and get a baseline to go off of. The question only removes nuance if you stop right after.