Dare ObasanjoI used to think it was condescending and patronizing to describe people as voting against their own interests.
However seeing people literally cheering on a billionaire dismantling the regulatory state has left me no choice but to agree. They did.
Winston Smith@carnage4life Yep. I used to think this also. But when you see this happen many times then there is no other conclusion.
Ray Jepson@carnage4life progressive policies have been quite popular in the US, including in the square states, for 20-30 years. It's notable that Nebraska voters approved the Nebraska Healthy Families and Workplaces Act, which mandates more sick leave for workers, in the same election where they overwhelmingly voted for #Trump.
However, the brand-voters are difficult to move and the low information voters are unreachable.
@carnage4life
I wouldn't blame Americans only though: Britons, weighed down by a sluggish economy, decided thre best thing to do was to cut the sails of the EU and see if that would speed the boat up. Anyone who read about the issue for 20 minutes would have voted to stay in.
Here in #Quebec, we're likely going to vote a separatist party in the next election, although separatism is at all time lows.
Voters being irrational should always be the starting point.
Frank Quednau@carnage4life my dad, may he rest in peace, always said that most people are stupid and as a young man, I couldn’t disagree more. Alas, he was right.
At the end of the day, regardless of whatever metric you look at on which people fare good or bad, the bell curve tells us that 50% of people are below average.
At the end of the day, regardless of whatever metric you look at on which people fare good or bad, the bell curve tells us that 50% of people are below average.
Richard Ayres@carnage4life tbh we need people to vote "against their own interests" in the narrow sense. People should vote for the best interests of society. Housed people need to vote for the interests of the unhoused. Able-bodied people need to vote for the interests of non-able-bodied people. Relatively wealthy people need to vote for the interests of poor people. Even if this means their tax bill goes up.
Court Cantrell does not comply@rayres @carnage4life 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 CANNOT BOOST THIS ENOUGH. 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🤘🤘🤘🖖
Firehorseart Lives!People are more likely to vote against their interests when they have another incentive they feel strongly about.
It helps to make your argument feel personal as well.
Charities know that telling people they are helping society often doesn't have as much impact as saying 'you are helping this <named child> <insert image of child> get better.
@carnage4life
@srfirehorseart @carnage4life
Yes, that's very true
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
- Lyndon B Johnson
It accounts for a lot.
Well yes. Sad but true.
However, people will also sooner pay to rescue sick pets than help end poverty.
Yet the sick pets are probably the result of the poverty and poor mental health of the owners.
So we end up with a cat named Bob rescuing a man, instead of the other way round.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Street_Cat_Named_Bob_(film)
jnmrcdvl@carnage4life Are we sure that despite loosing in some ways they still might have voted in their best interest? (For example if their priority in life is something Trump is offering them, like proudness or feeling of belongings or more). Can't help more as I don't understand either but I like your first assumption.
Androcat@carnage4life It's a lot easier to see without the two-party system.
Over here we have "conservative" parties, that if they were being honest, work for the Ultra-Rich and ONLY the Ultra-Rich.
But there aren't a lot of Ultra-Rich voters, so every single one of those "conservative" parties has to depend on ugh wage-earners (usually rich ones, but still, how gauche!!).
And these wage-earners are being very openly tricked into voting against the interests of wage-earners.
The right wing literally wouldn't exist if people weren't being tricked to vote against their own best interests.
Grievous Angel@carnage4life the culture wars benefit is so powerful that if a negative change will enrage / pwn the libs then that’s all good. It’s a positive economic trade off for a lot of people. Especially since they didn’t benefit that much from the weak democrat policies anyway, which is how we got here.