I love how there’s a group of people on this forum that seems so high on whatever that they think having discussions like this hurts “The cause” or some shit and automatically want people to shut up. Do we have bosses here who decides what political discussion can and can’t be had?
Like we get it you don’t like this posting or have this or that person on ignore, thanks for the useless information. Not even sure why some of you clowns come into threads where you have the original poster on ignore and know you won’t even want to participate in the discussion.
I will grant that 10% fewer people voting could result in worse governance than what we already have. That is a separate question from what I was asking though.
I didn’t see a vote from you in the poll I made, so I’m curious what your answer would be to my question:
What level of non-participation in an election would make the election illegitimate to you?
That’s why I don’t have any posts in this thread, and simply made a (seemingly) harmless like and moved on with my life, to check back later and he’s calling out people for likes they made to a post.
I mean that’s terrible posting, and he invites trolls. If you can’t see how that kind of posting doesn’t invite people to mud sling, i dunno what to tell you.
He’s a disruptive, divisive poster that’s bad for the forum but i can only state that so many times before I go blue in the face.
Okay but what happened before his post? Let’s see, a few posters who have a hard on for telling everyone how stupid sabo or his threads are came in here to do that, seems like some stupid ass trolling to what is a sincere thread. Then we have other brain geniuses like boredsocial who has sabo on super duper ignore which we know because he constantly loves to remind people that by posting in threads sabo makes or posts in
Just seems like a few people on this forum are sooo scared of seeing certain discussions go on for some reason and it’s pretty lame
In defense of this post I felt gaslit when I made it, and that’s a pretty huge trigger for me. I felt gaslit by the first post and responding with an emoji was just chefs kiss.
You are going deep into the tank to defend an objectively terrible poster solely because he happens to align more closely to you politically.
Sabo’s posts consists almost exclusively of new and, admittedly sometimes creative, ways of calling people even a fraction right of him mean names or in trying to bait the same people. This entire thread is obviously the latter. He has zero intention of ever having a good faith discussion on this topic.
There are a few posters on this board who seem to genuinely believe that someone disagreeing with them = bad faith. It’s an odd way to claim superiority without constructively engaging, but I understand the allure.
Those posters also tend to insist that their opinions are objectively true. And if you disagree with their opinion…well that just might be bad faith too!
Can’t we see how bad a poster sabo is? Just ITT, he forced a poster(who apparently has no agency) to repeatedly brag about not reading the OP, brag about having OP on ignore, and toss in an ad hominem or two.
Then after cassette pointed out what he was doing, sabo forced that poster to double down with a “You’re goddam right I ordered the code red”-type post, followed up by a fuck you.
But let’s get back on topic. I posed this question to you a couple of times, and I’m curious what your answer is:
I don’t know what the number is to be honest. I can see an argument for 50% plus one. But really I think a better model may be making voting legally mandatory as it is in several countries.
I agree with you that interpersonal communication is multi-faceted. And specific to this forum, and the group that comprises it, there’s an ethos where posters will tell each other to fuck off at the drop of a hat, or whatever. I don’t personally see the point of it, and times are stressful so maybe it’s a necessary release valve.
IMO, when a member of the community starts a thread or makes a post, we all have a choice:
Engage with the content
Choose not to engage
Troll
Tell the poster some version of this: that their post (on an obscure corner of the internet) is the reason why all the bad things that have happened, or ever will happen have occurred. And that they should STFU and be more like me, and make posts that will cause all the things I like to happen through some sort of quantum butterfly effect where: I post–>(a lot of proprietary magic that I can’t explain)—>Biden wins and he is pushed to the exact distance left that I think is best.
As E-40 says E’erybody got choices. Personally, I choose to do #1 & #2. I avoid #3 because I’m not gonna troll members of a community that I appreciate being a part of, and I don’t do #4 because I don’t see any credible logic behind it.
Back on topic, I’m curious as to your opinion on this question(no rush, I know you’re taking a break):
What percentage level of non-participation in an election would make that election illegitimate to you?
The downside is you obviously get a lot of low information voters but I still feel like that is better than the alternative. You would think it might incentive engagement as well.
I already voted as well. In fact, you may think I’m some sort of wizard, but I’m participating in this thread while simultaneously encouraging my friends to vote!
What do you find compelling about this topic that makes it worthwhile discussing?
I am trying to facilitate at chat here. Part of good facilitating is not taking sides… or at least making it clear when you have your “facilitate” hat on, and when you have your “partisan” hat on. If you are looking for a leader, you’ll need to keep on looking.
However, in the interest of good facilitation, I’m going to ask everyone ITT not to gratuitously attempt to make everything only about the personal, and try to “both sides” every damn thing into “team” based fuax-“rigorous debate” and the associated mud slinging. Note: I am not accusing @-Forumula72 of doing any of the above.
Instead of asking: “what’s the plan?”… realize that this is something people do IRL, That there is in fact history and contemporary practice, and actual theory behind it all. Instead ask: “what have people done IRL?”
In September 2008 the Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign, together with Abahlali baseMjondolo, the Landless People’s Movement and the Rural Network (Abahlali baseplasini) formed the Poor People’s Alliance. The poor people’s alliance refused electoral politics under the banner 'No Land! No House! No Vote! It has been reported that “Nearly 75% of South Africans aged 20-29 did not vote in the 2011 local government elections” and that “South Africans in that age group were more likely to have taken part in (sic) violent street protests against the local ANC than to have voted for the ruling party”.
In economics there’s a view that people shouldn’t vote because the probability of one person’s vote affecting the outcome is vanishingly small, and there is some positive opportunity cost of voting.
Last time I was in Mexico around election time, the day of and prior to the election there’s no alcohol served(unless you wink wink nudge nudge do shots with the waitstaff in the kitchen where nobody can see you). Kind of defeats the purpose of having the day off, so we should avoid that rule.
I’m in Australia where there is mandatory voting. I think for the most part, here at least, it is a net positive (considering you can spoil ballots and still be counted as having voted). I think the issue comes where you have a system, like the US, where there are only two parties to vote for and thus you have a lot of people (particularly on the left imo) who are forced to vote for a party they don’t feel represents their interests at all. I consider this to be idiosyncratic with the concept of democracy. If I was in America, as a fairly left-leaning person, I would feel pretty depressed about the prospect of voting (especially in an election where the alternative party wasn’t Trumpian) and my vote being relevant to my beliefs and goals for the country. I have never and would never vote for either of the two larger parties in Australia as they are by and large corporatist shill parties.
