If you’re okay with people voting their conscience, then you can’t be upset when they do that. If you are upset when they don’t vote your way, that’s the policing of thought.
I’m fine with people voting with their conscience, but I just want folks to acknowledge whether or not their vote makes a trump presidency (therefore more genocide) more likely. Most people just seem to think “I’m not voting for genocide so my hands are clean and I’m good!” and stick their head in the sand.
I’m not upset if they do, nor do I expect them to vote my way. I just want to encourage them to discuss the real world effects of their choice. I just want to make sure they’re internally consistent in their reasoning. For example, another commentor said they’ve voted for third party since 2008, and my response was for them to simply carry on doing so.
You can label discourse as “thought policing”, but then that casts an extremely wide net that cheapens the term as used by Orwell.
People who are choosing not to vote for Biden are doing so because of a genocide that is happening NOW. You want to question them on contingent hypothetical real world results of a Trump presidency that may, or may not, happen in the FUTURE.
You’re trying to scare voters by telling them a dragon 🐉 is outside, when a venomous hydra is already in the room with them.
You’re concern trolling and “just asking questions,” it reeks of desperation.
People who are choosing not to vote for Biden are doing so because of a genocide that is happening NOW. You want to question them on contingent hypothetical real world results of a Trump presidency that may, or may not, happen in the FUTURE.
Oh so they can reason about a hypothetical future if they vote third party, but they can’t do so if it’s about a trump presidency? That’s hilarious. Or are you saying they unable reason about a hypothetical future at all?
Holy shit my man I’m asking folks to tell me what THEY think is going to happen as a consequence of their actions. If their reasoning is so shit that that question shakes them to their core, get good.
Unlike voters in many other industrialized countries, Americans tend to vote from this “retrospective” perspective. Studies show that Americans view elections – especially presidential ones – as a referendum on the past performance of an officeholder, a political party or the current administration.
Do you think retrospective voters use the past to try and inform reasoning about the future?
IMO there has to be some level of this happening, otherwise retrospective voters would only have an opinion on those that already have served, and would be essentially picking from those who have not served at random.
If you’re okay with people voting their conscience, then you can’t be upset when they do that. If you are upset when they don’t vote your way, that’s the policing of thought.
I’m not upset if they do, nor do I expect them to vote my way. I just want to encourage them to discuss the real world effects of their choice. I just want to make sure they’re internally consistent in their reasoning. For example, another commentor said they’ve voted for third party since 2008, and my response was for them to simply carry on doing so.
You can label discourse as “thought policing”, but then that casts an extremely wide net that cheapens the term as used by Orwell.
People who are choosing not to vote for Biden are doing so because of a genocide that is happening NOW. You want to question them on contingent hypothetical real world results of a Trump presidency that may, or may not, happen in the FUTURE.
You’re trying to scare voters by telling them a dragon 🐉 is outside, when a venomous hydra is already in the room with them.
You’re concern trolling and “just asking questions,” it reeks of desperation.
Oh so they can reason about a hypothetical future if they vote third party, but they can’t do so if it’s about a trump presidency? That’s hilarious. Or are you saying they unable reason about a hypothetical future at all?
Holy shit my man I’m asking folks to tell me what THEY think is going to happen as a consequence of their actions. If their reasoning is so shit that that question shakes them to their core, get good.
Most voters are retrospective voters. They aren’t as concerned with the future as they are with the present and past.
I appreciate you defining that, but I don’t see anything that suggests most voters fall under that category - any chance you’d be able to dig that up?
Sure.
Thanks!
Do you think retrospective voters use the past to try and inform reasoning about the future?
IMO there has to be some level of this happening, otherwise retrospective voters would only have an opinion on those that already have served, and would be essentially picking from those who have not served at random.
It’s been a while since I read the study, but I think that was part of it. They used the past to inform opinions about the future.