Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Dec 18 09:21:17 PST 2018

Utopia Talk / Politics / Steve Bannon and the fascists in Europe
Paramount
Member
Sun Nov 25 13:51:16
A good video to watch if you have 26 minutes to spare:

http://www...vement-stalled-in-europe-video
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Nov 26 01:48:11
Here is the problem.

Asking republicans and democrats, if scientific evidence proved that the other parties worldview would bring greater prosperity, lower crime and so on for all the good stuff we keep track of, would you switch party?

85% (repub and dem) said no. 14% said yes. I don’t have the link, but somehow I guess no one is surprised by these results? And I don’t have any good resons to believe it is much different outside the USA. Anecdotal evidence is abundant.

We are stupid, tribal idiots who vote the way it ”feels” good. And this transcends educational level and IQ score results - People are equally biased, just towards different things. This is the Gordian knot that democracy has not solved, but it has actually emerged and matured largely due to democracy. The void left by religion is now filled by politics.
McKobb
Member
Mon Nov 26 01:52:17
And politicized science.
Paramount
Member
Mon Nov 26 02:58:09
”We are stupid, tribal idiots who vote the way it ”feels” good.”

Yes, it is stupid to vote for something that feels good when you can vote for something that feels bad.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Nov 26 05:02:17
Especially when the feeling isn’t supported by actual facts. I ”feel” unsafe with all this refugees around.

The point is that your feelings are (can be) stupid and detached from reality and some 85% of people even if proven wrong, will not change their minds.

It just means what everyone already knows, the undecided votes are those that decide elections, everyone else are entrenched and vote religiously as they always have and will.
jergul
large member
Mon Nov 26 06:05:06
In a US context, the choice is not binary.

I would argue that elections are decided by the decision to vote or not to vote.

So not so much the undecided votes as it is voters who decided to not vote in any given election cycle.

A democrat not voting has half the impact of an undecided opting to vote GOP, but the not voting groups is far, far larger than the undecided is (not voting in the US varies between 40 and 60% of eligable).
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Nov 26 06:36:58
The couch potatoes would then fall in the 85% or 15%. Or they were so undecided they didn’t even vote. It doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive as religiously entrenched people could also not vote. Maybe the undecided are not always the deciders, it depends on how many couch potatoes each party has. The issue of voting tribally however, innoculated to changing opinions, remain.
jergul
large member
Mon Nov 26 08:01:28
I was responding to what determines election outcomes: "It just means what everyone already knows, the undecided votes are those that decide elections, everyone else are entrenched and vote religiously as they always have and will."

It stands to reason. People are much more likely to refrain from voting if they disagree on their party for whatever reason, than they are to vote for a different party.

For the US the couch potato party membership varies between 40 and 60 percent of all people would would otherwise be eligable to vote.

Identity politics are what they are. The world would be an entirely different place if people voted objectively along lines of their own best interests.
hood
Member
Mon Nov 26 08:26:23
"if scientific evidence proved that the other parties worldview would bring greater prosperity, lower crime and so on for all the good stuff we keep track of, would you switch party?"

Part of the problem is that all of these metrics we keep track of don't necessarily tell a complete story. One could easily see a rise in every metric, but still see more hardship and more problems not covered by metrics.

Often times it's the "median wages rose by 10%!" and "the bottom quarter of wages fell by 5%" both being true that fucks with you. My the standard metric, median wages, things look better. But when 1/4 of your entire working population lost money, that metric looks a bit silly.


I get your point. If we had hard evidence that economy would be better off being run the other way (fully better, not just illusionary better), then sure. We can discuss that economic model.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Nov 26 09:56:04
Jergul
”The world would be an entirely different place if people voted objectively along lines of their own best interests.”

It is one of those things where one would add, ”well that aint never happening”. The need to belong somewhere with other people who have a cause, grander than life, preferably good vs evil. We need it, but it has trended to become corrosive and obstructionist.

Hood
Yes, the question was so broad as for anyone to dream up the perfect hypothetical and of course also impossible practically. It is a peek into human psychology from my pov, we need grand narratives and meaning, things people do not give up so easily once they find it.
jergul
large member
Mon Nov 26 10:07:55
Nimi
You could add it. Or you could put it in front like I did.

"Identity politics are what they are. The world would be an entirely different place if people voted objectively along lines of their own best interests. "

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Nov 26 11:50:00
ID politics is just a modern phrase, it could mean different things to people. I take it then, we agree on the underlying inherent cause? As a working theory of course.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Nov 26 12:03:57
The thing is people do act in their best interests, part of that is to play in a group, it has material benefits of belonging to a group. It is when those functions break down as the size of the group reaches ”almost everyone in the world”, it is there that things go destructive and polarized. As an example, every week or so now since Swedish elections, you hear news stories from municipal government level, parties working together, that are unimaginable at the Riksdag.
jergul
large member
Mon Nov 26 13:37:16
Identity politics is the underlying cause of religion.

You dropped the qualifyer "objectively". It was rather important. You are constructing a false dichotomy. Belonging to a group is objectively in best self-interests. Belonging to a group that wants to gut Obama care is objectively not in the best self-interests of most Americans.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Nov 27 00:44:52
You said if people acted in their own self interest. I added that part of that self interest is group play, reputation etc. Those instincts work pretty well in small settings, aligning your interest with those of the group. As the size of the group goes up and geographically spreads across a large country or the earth ”objective self interest” (I don’t know what you mean by objective) breaks down. It isn’t obvious that I should cooperate with all these other people or that our goals align (or that we value the goals equally), many more people = many more goals. You already have a great private insurance through your job, for instance. So this isn’t a problem for you, objectively.
jergul
large member
Tue Nov 27 03:57:25
I said: "Identity politics are what they are. The world would be an entirely different place if people voted objectively along lines of their own best interests."

It could very well be that voting for the GOP is in the objective best interests of say 20% of the population. A lot more people use non-objective criteria and vote for the GOP anyway.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Nov 29 04:14:50
Watch here now how you handle autistic posters.
jergul
large member
Thu Nov 29 05:00:07
Indeed. At least you have abandoned your fixation on religion for a few moments.

Therapy works!
Rugian
Member
Thu Nov 29 08:49:27
ITT: "self-interest" is narrowly defined exclusively in monetary terms.


Anyway, I dont have 26 minutes to spare. But seeing how the Swedish posters on here consider anyone to the right of Richard Nixon as "far right," I'm rather skeptical of the OPs fascism label.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Nov 29 08:54:51
Anyone right of Obama actually. Times have changed.
jergul
large member
Thu Nov 29 08:55:08
Ruggy
No. Though you can monetize things like access to healthcare if you like.
Rugian
Member
Thu Nov 29 09:13:19
Jergul,

I think it's quite within our self-interests to have one of the most innovative healthcare industries in the world. But if I was to take your position, that would indeed be a monetary issue.

I'm not addressing nimmy's initial point about tribalism in voting habits, but "self interests" need not be limited to individual monetary positions. Societal cohesion for example is a goal in and of itself for those that believe in it.

"Anyone right of Obama actually. Times have changed."

This is accurate.
jergul
large member
Thu Nov 29 12:07:59
Ruggy
It may be collectively in your self-interest with "innovation", but individual access would be the individual criteria for objective self-interest.

A desire for social cohesion would for example suggest that society judge itself on the most poorly off and give you social democracy as a rational way of promoting social cohesion.

Its almost like you are in denial about how much your system sucks.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share