Welcome to Emulationworld

Forum Index | FAQ | New User | Login | Search

Make a New PostPrevious ThreadView All ThreadsNext Thread*Show in Threaded Mode


SubjectWeird stances on politics Reply to this message
Posted byHalcyon
Posted on10/25/04 01:55 PM



I've been reading political crap on a bunch of forums or comments to news stories and all that and there is always a lot of yelling. It occurred to me that a lot of people have an everything-or-nothing stance on the person they're going to vote for. The citizen takes the preferred political guy and starts defending everything about them, even if they don't agree with them they'll just make up an excuse, just because they want them to win.

So it becomes a competition between its citizens instead of its politicians. Really what people should be demanding of their future potential presidential candidates is changes on the policies they don't like.

People argue it's really a decision between the democrat and republican party, and it's one or the other but they're both bad, you're just choosing the one that "sucks less." OK, whatever. Why do people simply accept the politician's sucky plans for issues along with the good ones? Why don't supporters of the politician go "OK, we like what you're doing here, but if you just change these other things then you'll be even better."

Instead supporters are defending the politician's stupid decisions and then they have to live with them later, just so they can stand up to their friends and go "You're voting for the wrong guy, vote for my guy, he's perfect already! No, you're wrong, this decision isn't bad, or well, the other guy's doing that so who cares if one or two things are bad?"

I mean wtf? Shouldn't you be demanding perfection from your leader? Too many people are letting politicians in general get away with a lot of stupid decisions. And the voters aren't doing their job, they're not voicing their concern and instead just dealing with it or whatever.

A lot of Bush people are going to protest Kerry's bad decisions and vice versa, but still, it would send a more powerful message if the people who supported Bush didn't support his bad decisions and the people who supported Kerry didn't support his bad decisions.

I guess people are just too afraid to swallow their pride and speak out against their preference, and admit there may be a downside to a personal choice they made. Well that's selling out. You're not standing up for your beliefs, instead you're standing up for someone else's beliefs and putting some of yours aside.




SubjectThat's a good argument new Reply to this message
Posted byChachiSqrPants
Posted on10/25/04 02:06 PM



for being really well versed in local politics. Even in a flawed representative democracy system, you can put people in office who have the potential to be better politicians, and hopefully continue that to the next level.

CSP


SubjectRe: Weird stances on politics new Reply to this message
Posted bywildcat
Posted on10/25/04 04:31 PM



> I've been reading political crap on a bunch of forums or comments to news
> stories and all that and there is always a lot of yelling.

Heh. Just discovered Fark, eh? :^P

> It occurred to me that a lot of people have an everything-or-nothing stance on
> the person they're going to vote for. The citizen takes the preferred political
> guy and starts defending everything about them, even if they don't agree with
> them they'll just make up an excuse, just because they want them to win.
>
> So it becomes a competition between its citizens instead of its politicians.
> Really what people should be demanding of their future potential presidential
> candidates is changes on the policies they don't like.
>
> People argue it's really a decision between the democrat and republican party,
> and it's one or the other but they're both bad, you're just choosing the one
> that "sucks less." OK, whatever. Why do people simply accept the politician's
> sucky plans for issues along with the good ones? Why don't supporters of the
> politician go "OK, we like what you're doing here, but if you just change these
> other things then you'll be even better."
>
> Instead supporters are defending the politician's stupid decisions and then they
> have to live with them later, just so they can stand up to their friends and go
> "You're voting for the wrong guy, vote for my guy, he's perfect already! No,
> you're wrong, this decision isn't bad, or well, the other guy's doing that so
> who cares if one or two things are bad?"
>
> I mean wtf? Shouldn't you be demanding perfection from your leader? Too many
> people are letting politicians in general get away with a lot of stupid
> decisions. And the voters aren't doing their job, they're not voicing their
> concern and instead just dealing with it or whatever.
>
> A lot of Bush people are going to protest Kerry's bad decisions and vice versa,
> but still, it would send a more powerful message if the people who supported
> Bush didn't support his bad decisions and the people who supported Kerry didn't
> support his bad decisions.
>
> I guess people are just too afraid to swallow their pride and speak out against
> their preference, and admit there may be a downside to a personal choice they
> made. Well that's selling out. You're not standing up for your beliefs,
> instead you're standing up for someone else's beliefs and putting some of yours
> aside.

I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but people really hate to be wrong. Combine that with the almost infinite capacity for humans to rationalize their decisions (good or bad), and you'll get people sticking to their most blinkered decisions, even if they lead to oblivion.




SubjectPeople do hate being wrong... new Reply to this message
Posted byHalcyon
Posted on10/25/04 06:12 PM



> I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but people really hate to be wrong.

That's right, but then they shouldn't support decisions politicians make that are wrong. They should oppose them from the start, then they would save themselves from having egg on their face later. They can still support the politician they want, but support them for their good causes, not the bad ones. How can they be wrong in that case? If they accuse the politician they support of making a bad decision, that doesn't make the person wrong, it makes the politician wrong and the person more right, if anything.

> Combine that with the almost infinite capacity for humans to rationalize their
> decisions (good or bad), and you'll get people sticking to their most blinkered
> decisions, even if they lead to oblivion.

Yeah, but then they're still wrong, they're just not admitting it... I guess the difference doesn't matter to them? How shallow. Everyone knows the emperor has no clothes.


SubjectLobbying new Reply to this message
Posted byHalcyon
Posted on10/25/04 06:19 PM



> That's a good argument for being really well versed in local politics. Even in
> a flawed representative democracy system, you can put people in office who have
> the potential to be better politicians, and hopefully continue that to the next
> level.

But then you have a problem if they succumb to corporate lobbying. People can still be corrupted... you have to find really scrupulous people. Lobbying should probably be eliminated, the only way to do that is to make campaign donations illegal, even if you make them anonymous they'll probably have donations that are "understood" to be representing a certain entity... Like that'll happen though.




Subjectthe voters arent doing their job? new Reply to this message
Posted bydean
Posted on10/25/04 07:03 PM



are you kidding? they dont even know who to vote for! their knowledge doesnt extend much beyond the two mainstream parties. because you vote for a person, you have to vote for all of their personality... if our media showed more candidates, more different viewpoints that were not as nheavily influenced by what makes money / sells cnadidates, i guarantee you that we'd have "better voting decisions" but in all honesty, when you have no choice but to vote for two (or a third, hopeless candidate) i can''t expect you to vote rationally at all.

our system is all or nothing for two or three sets of opinions. people decide who they like best, and defend all their ideas - they try as best they can to get their favourite to win, in other words. why doesnt this work? notr because people aren't objective, more because peopel feel that their onny hope to affect the political world is through manipulation of their peers.

lo que sucede sucede


SubjectRe: the voters arent doing their job? new Reply to this message
Posted byHalcyon
Posted on10/25/04 08:04 PM



> our system is all or nothing for two or three sets of opinions. people decide
> who they like best, and defend all their ideas - they try as best they can to
> get their favourite to win, in other words.

Heheh. I just don't know why it doesn't occur to people to think more clearly after they see how this method works out... They just turn around later and complain about the consequences of the policies that they were once defending and supporting. I don't understand their affinity to just settling on the best that's available instead of demanding better.

> why doesnt this work? notr because
> people aren't objective, more because peopel feel that their onny hope to affect
> the political world is through manipulation of their peers.

I don't get that, it should be through the manipulation of the politicians... not their peers. People aren't really doing anything to change the things they dislike about politicians, and you can't just change people's minds to make them happy, it doesn't work unless they want to change, and if they did, they would have!

It's weird because most voters are above 18 and should have some sense. It seems irrational and illogical if all of this is really the case.

Jon Stewart made a lot of sense when he said reporters should be asking the hard hitting questions, and citizens should be doing the same and not accept the stupid excuses and PR that politicians use to cover up their mistakes and impose any personal agenda on the citizens.




SubjectRe: People do hate being wrong... new Reply to this message
Posted bywildcat
Posted on10/26/04 00:05 AM



> > I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but people really hate to be wrong.
>
> That's right, but then they shouldn't support decisions politicians make that
> are wrong. They should oppose them from the start, then they would save
> themselves from having egg on their face later. They can still support the
> politician they want, but support them for their good causes, not the bad ones.
> How can they be wrong in that case? If they accuse the politician they support
> of making a bad decision, that doesn't make the person wrong, it makes the
> politician wrong and the person more right, if anything.
>
> > Combine that with the almost infinite capacity for humans to rationalize their
> > decisions (good or bad), and you'll get people sticking to their most blinkered
> > decisions, even if they lead to oblivion.
>
> Yeah, but then they're still wrong, they're just not admitting it... I guess
> the difference doesn't matter to them?

It appears you didn't quite catch what I meant (which wouldn't surprise me, since I didn't quite write what I wanted to say). Even admitting that their politician of choice might make some bad decisions from time to time would be tantamount to admitting that they're wrong (which, we've already established, people hate to be). As long as they don't have to go back on their decision, then they're not wrong to their own minds. Whether or not they're wrong for real is immaterial to them. If this means they have to support the bad decisions they make, then so be it. With shit being as polarized as it seems to be today, I think people would rather walk off a cliff than admit the other side (who eat babies and fuck chickens) might, in some minute way, be right about something.

Of course, being a semi-anonymous persona behind a keyboard and monitor might have something to do with people acting the way they do, too (not that I would know *cough*).

> How shallow. Everyone knows the emperor has no clothes.

You're trying to apply rational thought processes to the irrational. My advice is to not.




SubjectThe Internet has made us all partisan wackos new Reply to this message
Posted bywildcat
Posted on10/27/04 05:22 PM



And I'm'a kill anyone who says otherwise.




SubjectHeha just read that too -nt- new Reply to this message
Posted byHalcyon
Posted on10/27/04 06:49 PM








Previous ThreadView All ThreadsNext Thread*Show in Threaded Mode