Arrrgh!! We are totally doomed.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Phonelobster:

Please quote me where I said that people shouldn't try to make things better for themselves because utopia is impossible.

I am wracking my brains here about why you think I said that. I said utopia is impossible. I don't see anyone disputing that.

I don't see where I said that people should just stop trying.

But since I am forced to defend myself against things I did not say, Phonelobster, I want to see your explaination about your claims that you are Princess Anastasia. Because claiming to be exiled russian royalty is nothing short of fraudulant.

[Username17]

Please quote me where I said that people shouldn't try to make things better for themselves because utopia is impossible.

You didn't say that. Noone thinks you did.

But here's what you also didn't say:

I said utopia is impossible. I don't see anyone disputing that.

Nope. You didn't say that. You said:

It might be wiser to fix the social injustice before you institute any form of gun control.

In short, never. Social injustice will never be fixed,

Utopia is an absolute, and even "Utopianism" is a movement to make things more like that ideal. Only four year olds and religious zealots believe that actual Utopia is even possible.

But Social Justice is a continuum. It's something that you have more or less of. If you say that social injustice will never be fixed, that means that things will never get any better at all.

Justice and mercy are things which you can have more or less of. Utopia comes only in absolutes. You said that you couldn't have Social Justice, which means that you said that things are permanently fixed all the way over at distopia.

To put things in an analogy that you can understand without a grasp of political theory: imagine that social justice is water in a glass. Utopia is the state when the glass is completely filled. Distopia is the state when the glass is completely empty. You meant that the glass can never be completely full (which noone here is disputing). You actually said that you couldn't have any water - which is absurd.

Now calm down.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

I concur with Frank.

Stating that utopia is impossible, therefore a proven effective policy like gun control should await the end of time for enactment is part of what got my goat.

But the thing which really got me was the bit that Frank left out, the bit where you say WHY utopia, or apparently any social justice, is impossible.

because there will always be people who want more than anyone else. and they tend to gravitate toward politics, and make the rules anyhow.

You know, the "all politicians are greedy bastards anyway" bit.

The bit people often use just after "I don't vote because" or "I voted for an evil bastard who pork barrelled me because" or "I don't bother reading the news or knowing anything about society because", etc...

Its a classic piece of childish psychology, someone does something they know is bad (don't participate meaningfully in democracy, vote for or support a man or policy they know is the worse of two evils) and they refuse to blame themselves. So they blame something else, they blame the system or the people they themselves put in control of it and say "well, I am powerless and all the choices are by definition wrong so I cannot be held responsible."

Well I don't let that stand without dispute.

I want to see your explaination about your claims that you are Princess Anastasia.

I can only imagine you refer to the bit where I point out I'm not really a liberal and that among other things I was raised by card carrying communists?

Which is odd since Anastasia was deposed by rather than being a communist. But, you know, whatever.

Well, what can I say, its true. I used to toddle along with my little friends in the background of the Newcastle Communist party meetings when I was little, that stuff was real you know, branches in every major city accross most of the planet buddy.

[RandomCasualty]

1122765571[/unixtime]]

Its a classic piece of childish psychology, someone does something they know is bad (don't participate meaningfully in democracy, vote for or support a man or policy they know is the worse of two evils) and they refuse to blame themselves. So they blame something else, they blame the system or the people they themselves put in control of it and say "well, I am powerless and all the choices are by definition wrong so I cannot be held responsible."

Honestly it's true.

You cannot hold someone responsible for the choices of their government. That's the very reason we shouldn't torture prisoners of war. It wasn't the soldiers who declared war on us, it was the government, and the soldiers, like most citizens are just doing what they're told.

Having a corrupt government isn't any one person's fault. One person cannot change the world.

The claim of political powerlessness is not one to be trivialized. One vote just doesn't mean that much and even if you spent all your time crusading for some political cause it probably still wouldn't make a difference. There are not too many cases where anyone can say that a single common person's choice could have changed the government. While it may sound lame to say "my vote wouldn't have mattered", it is inevitably true.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

1122742833[/unixtime]] You meant that the glass can never be completely full (which noone here is disputing). You actually said that you couldn't have any water - which is absurd.

I'm going to disagree that's what I said, but at least you explained it to me without being condescending. I do appreciate that, and will concede that perhaps I should have stated what I stated in a clearer fashion.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

1122769631[/unixtime]]
The claim of political powerlessness is not one to be trivialized. One vote just doesn't mean that much and even if you spent all your time crusading for some political cause it probably still wouldn't make a difference. There are not too many cases where anyone can say that a single common person's choice could have changed the government. While it may sound lame to say "my vote wouldn't have mattered", it is inevitably true.

Thank you, at least you get what I was trying to say here.

[Maj]

No one's bothered to keep an eye on the Washington state gubernatorial election, have they?

We only just recently (June 6th, 2005) had our governor officially declared - after three recounts and a lawsuit. If I recall correctly, the difference between the two candidates' vote count was never greater than 200.

Yeah, sure - a large majority of elections seem to be such sweeps that your vote doesn't seem to matter, but after this election, you won't hear me repeating the mantra of the apathetic: "My vote doesn't count."

[PhoneLobster]

While it may sound lame to say "my vote wouldn't have mattered", it is inevitably true.

Precisely how many people need to chant that mantra together before it makes them into one gigantic ass?

1? 1000? 10,000? A million? A majority?

One person can't make a difference (well, MAYBE), but a voting block doesn't exist without persons voting, and a political movement doesn't exist without people.

[Ramnza]

I have to agree with PhoneLobster. If enough people began to claim that their votes didn't make a difference, eventually you'd have a substantial number of voters that didn't believe they could make a difference.

[Josh_Kablack]

1122773732[/unixtime]] you won't hear me repeating the mantra of the apathetic: "My vote doesn't count."

And here in PGH, Mayor Murphy won re-election last time around by only about 600 votes.

This means that there are roughly 601 people in the city who I owe some serious hurt.

[RandomCasualty]

1122777070[/unixtime]]

While it may sound lame to say "my vote wouldn't have mattered", it is inevitably true.

Precisely how many people need to chant that mantra together before it makes them into one gigantic ass?

1? 1000? 10,000? A million? A majority?

One person can't make a difference (well, MAYBE), but a voting block doesn't exist without persons voting, and a political movement doesn't exist without people.

That's all true. If everyone has that opinion, then it is bad for democracy in general, but it doesn't actually change the validity of the opinion.

On an individual scale, the opinion that your vote doesn't matter is in fact very correct. You, the individual, won't change the outcome of the election by voting unless the difference in votes is 1 or 0. In any election that involves more than some low population town, the chances of any one vote making the difference is so low as to be classified as an impossibility.

It is a case when widespread realization of the truth can be dangerous. If everyone was oblivious to the fact their votes didn't matter you'd actually have a democracy that worked better.

[PhoneLobster]

On an individual scale, the opinion that your vote doesn't matter is in fact very correct. You, the individual, won't change the outcome of the election by voting unless the difference in votes is 1 or 0.

The problem here is this odd illusion that the individual is independent of society, that he his actions have no influence over others and he cannot contribute to something in part.

An election victory by a margin of one hundred? Every individual who voted for the winning party contributed 1/100th of their victory margin, and every voter contribute 1/total votes for that side to their party and 1/total voting population toward doing diddly about managing society.

This is an RPG board, so put it this way, its like saying no individual XP point ever counts. Which is dumb.

[Boulie_98]

The main problem I see with democracies is that after every vote everyone puts their own spin on what 'the people' actually just said. Especially with the yes/no type of votes, like the european constitution one. Yes? People love Europe. No? People want to get rid of the Euro. Yes? People love the current government. No? People hate the Turks. Yes? People are liberals (in the traditional sense). No? People are commies. Yes? The people like the football player on tv who endorsed it. No? The people hate the politician who endorsed it. Yes? People were duped by 'the man' into voting against their interest. No? People believed the opposition's vile lies. Yes? People were confused by the buttons on the vote machine. No? Teenagers had a way too low voting turnout.

From now on, all all votes should have a 'And why?' section, in which people have to select their prime (and perhaps secondary) reason to vote as they do. That way at least it'll be harder for spin doctors to spin their spin and doctor their doctor.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

1122773732[/unixtime]]No one's bothered to keep an eye on the Washington state gubernatorial election, have they?

We only just recently (June 6th, 2005) had our governor officially declared - after three recounts and a lawsuit. If I recall correctly, the difference between the two candidates' vote count was never greater than 200.

Yeah, sure - a large majority of elections seem to be such sweeps that your vote doesn't seem to matter, but after this election, you won't hear me repeating the mantra of the apathetic: "My vote doesn't count."

You live in Washington, you probably know more about washington politics than I do, so I'm asking you this:

Were the two candidates actualyl different, or where they they essentially the exact same guy, they just kissed different asses like every presidential candidate we've had since 2000? (Before 2000, I was too young to vote in a presidential election, so I wasn't really paying attention.)


And I am taking a completely different stance than Phonelobster. I say that participation in our current government is WRONG.

Why would I say something so controversal? (Other than the fact that I'm an erratic hothead)

It's simple. By participating in politics, you are saying by action that you approve of the two political parties throwing the same asshole up for election as they always do. Sure, they suck up to different people, but democrats and republicans are pretty much identical when it comes to policy. (They both screw over the middle class, they both bomb brown people when public support drops, and so forth.)

You say that government won't change unless everyone does what they're told and participates. I say the government won't change unless we all walk out and start a new one.

The system could potentially be changed, but the people in power currently are the people who would lose the most if things change. So basically, shit in one hand and wish in the other and see what fills up first.

And if more Americans gave the government a vote of no confidence, then maybe they'd sit up and listen.

[Essence]

Except that not participating in a democracy is not a vote of "no confidence". Going to your local voting booth and writing "no confidence" in every single issue/position -- that is a vote of "no confidence", and I know at least a dozen people who do just that in every election, county, state, or nationwide.

Voluntarily getting out of the way is not any kind of impediment to the system. Voluntarily getting in the way is.

[Maj]

Honestly, Count, I don't really know. I spent a small amount of time researching both candidates... And then voted Libertarian because I didn't support either of the two major candidates superficially, let alone in depth.

[Josh_Kablack]

1122825651[/unixtime]]

Were the two candidates actualyl different, or where they they essentially the exact same guy,

No. One was the exact same guy and the other was the exact same gal. Even I knew that much about their election.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Honestly, Count, I don't really know. I spent a small amount of time researching both candidates... And then voted Libertarian because I didn't support either of the two major candidates superficially, let alone in depth.

Heh, I did the exact same thing in the presidential election. Although I am far from devoting myself to any political party, Libertarian is the closest one to my opinions.

Except that not participating in a democracy is not a vote of "no confidence". Going to your local voting booth and writing "no confidence" in every single issue/position -- that is a vote of "no confidence", and I know at least a dozen people who do just that in every election, county, state, or nationwide.

Voluntarily getting out of the way is not any kind of impediment to the system. Voluntarily getting in the way is.

You know, that's a pretty good idea. I'm totally doing that next election.

No. One was the exact same guy and the other was the exact same gal. Even I knew that much about their election.

Sorry, I try to avoid learning about those evil satanic blue states as I can.

[RandomCasualty]

1122825651[/unixtime]]
You say that government won't change unless everyone does what they're told and participates. I say the government won't change unless we all walk out and start a new one.

The system could potentially be changed, but the people in power currently are the people who would lose the most if things change. So basically, shit in one hand and wish in the other and see what fills up first.

And if more Americans gave the government a vote of no confidence, then maybe they'd sit up and listen.

Seriously that won't do any good. The only thing that actually does something are revolutions, like the French Revolution. You grab the current corrupt political parties, you chop their heads off in a bloodbath and you start anew.

Honestly the political parties could care less if you vote or not. They don't require a minimum percentage of the population, so long as they get more votes than the other guy, they don't care.

It's a lose lose situation. You won't get enough votes for a 3rd party to send a message, you don't send them a message by not voting. We live in an information age and that means that the rich control the information and have all the influence. This isn't about going to the town square and standing on a soap box and preaching. This is about convincing millions and millions of stupid people, most of which are nothing more than brainwashed cattle who do whatever the popular opinion says they should do.

Seriously the only message you could send them would be storming the Republican headquarters and chopping off some heads. That's way too extreme for most people, so we still live with our current government. But that's the only way you'd actually "fix" the government.

I'm certainly not willing to give my life to do something like that, I just don't care enough either way. Our government is pretty bad and corrupt, but not that awful that I can't live in it. Though if someone did do that, I wouldn't shed a tear for those lying SoBs we call politicians.

Before things get fixed it's going to have to get a lot worse, to the point where everyone except a few are literally starving and taking to the streets really is the best option.

[PhoneLobster]

A vote of no confidence is certainly not the same as this often spouted philosophy of "all our base are belong to evil politicians".

Here abouts OUR system has compulsory voting (though you would be amazed at the ease with which large numbers of asses skip out or vote for people like John Howard and Pauline Hanson "because its a joke").

But all you have to do is turn up and have your name ticked off. More importantly when you cast your ballot it need not be a valid vote for either party.

We actually have a no confidence option written right in there and if the majority in an electorate for WHATEVER reason cast invalid or protest votes then all candidates in that electorate must stand down and a new set of candidates run in a new election.

Now you might sit down and go "gosh with all these wankers running around going on about never making a difference and how the rule of evil is inevitable surely this is an event that is common place?"

But it has never happened. The reason? Its because the people who spin that line and have that attitude are doing it SOLELY for the psychological reason of shifting blame and guilt off themselves. They sure as hell aren't soldiers in the cause of no confidence in the system, if anything their actions support the status quo and the general worsening of the standards of quality of all candidates.

It isn't anything half as noble as a "vote of no confidence" its actually a means of accepting and supporting the current state of affairs and attempting to wash the blood off their own hands.

Most people who express these views, just as the Count knows nothing about the actual candidates and ignorantly assumes they are identical, don't even know we HAVE a provision in our electoral system that allows votes of no confidence because they are that afraid to take any responsibility about knowing anything or doing anything about society ever.

Its pure fear, guilt, ignorance and shame, not a noble cause of divorcing ones self from a corrupt system.

Anyway, remember your memes "The only thing required for evil to triumph is for a good man to do nothing" or however it goes. Not voting is doing nothing, if the system is really so damn bad why are you sitting on your fat ass instead of being a revolutionary guerilla?

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Out of curiosity, Phonelobster, can you express a difference of opinion WITHOUT being condescending for once?

I might be more apt to listen to you if you aren't insulting my intelligence very three seconds.

Look at Frank's replies to my posts. Although I'm pretty sure what I said irritated him, he didn't let it interfere with his points. He addressed me as an equal then calmly explained his points.

To which I read his points, and thought that his ideas weren't so bad after all. At that point, I conceded.

To put it bluntly, drop the high and mighty 'tude, I don't have to listen to it. And I'm going to disagree with you out of pure spite until you learn to keep a civil tongue in your head.

[fbmf]

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
The personal attacks and condescending attitudes will stop or I will lock this thread.
[/The Great Fence Builder Speaks]

[RandomCasualty]

1122854338[/unixtime]] Not voting is doing nothing, if the system is really so damn bad why are you sitting on your fat ass instead of being a revolutionary guerilla?

Voting no confidence is also doing nothing. When you vote no confidence you dont' actually feel like your vote will pass, in fact you are pretty much 100% sure your vote won't matter. But it's another way for people to mentally think of themselves as doing something productive. In terms of effectiveness, it's just as effective as Arioch just not voting at all.

Voting no confidence is merely another excuse not to go out and become a revolutionary. Being a revolutionary is dangerous for one. So you either:

-become a revolutionary
-Accept your powerlessness in society, but not care enough to try to overthrow it.
-make up some BS reason why what you're doing is contributing, thus allowing you to look yourself in the mirror in the morning. This can be saying you don't vote to show your discontent with the system, saying you voted No confidence, or voting for a 3rd party. It doesn't matter what justification you have for what you're doing and how it supposedly helps society, because it doesn't.

[Sir Neil]

RC, if you had enough support that the populace doesn't mind mass killings, I think you could just as easily vote the scum out.

We actually have a no confidence option written right in there and if the majority in an electorate for WHATEVER reason cast invalid or protest votes then all candidates in that electorate must stand down and a new set of candidates run in a new election.

That would be the coolest thing ever.

[PhoneLobster]

Voting no confidence is also doing nothing.

Not that I suggest it as a wise action or even likely to achieve anything here or elsewhere but it isn't really doing nothing.

An actual campaign or movement of no confidence can be used as a means of achieving various things.

Even an organized boycott of voting is an action intended to deliver some result (this is as opposed to just throwing up your hands and declaring the whole thing a waste of time).

People and groups use those sorts of tactics to try and delegitimize a government or electoral system in the hope of pressuring it to change, or pressuring outside influences to in turn press for change.

It happens all the time. It nearly/kinda happened in Iraq just recently. It isn't the greatest tactic ever but its hard to argue that it is "nothing".

The very reason we have the whole thing with compulsory voting and the potential to rerun an election is because someone at some point attempted to design the system so that it had a sort of breaker switch to prevent such percieved/real lack of legitimacy.

That would be the coolest thing ever.

As cool as it might be its never going to happen. We have prefferential voting and even the major parties rarely ever pull an outright majority of any given electorate (which to my understanding is the only way to achieve the re-run thingmo).

And they also pull a few other little tricks to make it less likely to ever happen, like making it illegal to actually campaign for people to cast invalid ballots.