Is a person irredeemable because of how they voted in the past?

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I mean this in two senses.

1. Irredeemable, in the sense that you can't change a person's mind.
2. Irredeemable, in the sense that a person exists beyond the pale for what they have done, and should not be engaged with on any level.

I wish we still had polls.

 

[The Cat]

No.

 

[ceecee]

No.

 

[Vendrah]

No.

 

[SensEye]

Maybe.

 

[Virtual ghost]

It really depends on the circumstances and exact details. You really can't fully generalize.
After all not everyone lives in the same political system. If you have only 2 options it can be easy to make a mistake (multiple times). But if you have a genuine multiparty system and 25 parties on the ballot then this is another matter. In other words if you have so many options and you are voting for the biggest shit you can find that is something else entirely. Especially if you are voting for that over and over again.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It's probably a case by case for me. I know people who are excelllent conversations about so many different subjects who also have different opinions about a few things. But overall there is an exploratory temperament that I think has the potential to make discussions even about political differences worthwhile.

On the other hand I get frustrated by a more dogmatic apparoach, and while I might not cut them off, I would be more inclined to just steer clear of those waters. I'd stick to classic rock or food.

And then some people just strike me as sadistic.

 

[ceecee]

It's probably a case by case for me. I know people who are excelllent conversations about so many different subjects who also have different opinions about a few things. But overall there is an exploratory temperament that I think has the potential to make discussions even about political differences worthwhile.

On the other hand I get frustrated by a more dogmatic apparoach, and while I might not cut them off, I would be more inclined to just steer clear of those waters. I'd stick to classic rock or food.

And then some people just strike me as sadistic.

I mean, then they're just sadistic. Doesn't matter fuck all how they vote or if they do or not. You know how many of those smooth brained criminals that did the J6 riot didn't even vote? To me that is the epitome of idiotic. Not willing to vote for but willing to go to jail for.

They stormed the Capitol to overturn the results of an election they didn't vote in | CNN

They were there to "stop the steal" and to keep the president they revered in office, yet records show that some of the rioters who stormed the US Capitol did not vote in the very election they were protesting.

www.cnn.com

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I mean, then they're just sadistic. Doesn't matter fuck all how they vote or if they do or not. You know how many of those smooth brained criminals that did the J6 riot didn't even vote? To me that is the epitome of idiotic. Not willing to vote for but willing to go to jail for.

They stormed the Capitol to overturn the results of an election they didn't vote in | CNN

They were there to "stop the steal" and to keep the president they revered in office, yet records show that some of the rioters who stormed the US Capitol did not vote in the very election they were protesting.

www.cnn.com

Jessica Stern, a Boston University professor who has spent around 30 years researching extremists, said that while she hasn’t spoken with the individuals involved in the events at the Capitol, from her interviews with other violent extremists, she believes a number of factors could have been at play. They could have believed the system was rigged, as the “Stop the Steal” movement claims, in which case there would be no point in voting. They could be more attracted to the theater, violence or attention they would get from a demonstration like the one at the Capitol than to actually achieving their purported goal – in this case, different election results.

So in other words, it's a social-media-seeking-my-fifteen-minutes-of-fame-stunt rather than a political stunt. And yet, it's fitting that these people would gravitate towards Trump, our first social media president, although I doubt he'll be the last.

In the early days of television, there was much concern about the impact it would have on the nation's politics, and they were right. It's only made politics more superficial.

I think social media will have an impact comparable to television, but on steroids. It will make Idiocracy look quaint. I will say that not all social media is created equal but I particularly don't like platforms with strict character limits where I could never type a message like this. I'll take Instagram over that.

Unrelated, but I wonder sometimes if I'm a doomer. And then I realize that the fact that I think I can get through to some people means I'm not. I do really struggle to comprehend how anything can get accomplished regarding climate change; all the momentum is simply pointed in the opposite direction. Politicians have all kinds of incentives not to do anything about it. The solution I guess requires altering incentives through protests (which would need to have better messaging than Occupy Wall Street and hold politicians accountable) or primary challenges (which is probably the most effective) of some sort. It's hard for me to see either of these materializing around this issue, though.

 

[ygolo]

I don't believe anyone is irredeemable. In my ideal situation, I'd hear the other side, make empathic and rational counterpoints, and continue.

But my energy is limited. Practically speaking, I will likely just let the people be, if they are significantly different from me in experience and thought process.