Yes, and your arguments are based on things you feel. Obviously, feeling and analysis are used by all human beings to form an opinion. I think your 'worries' about the disabled and such are pure nonsense. The same hue and cry is raised by the anti medically assisted dying crowd. Yet MAID has been legal (in Canada anyways) since 2016. I am certain not one disabled person has been unwillingly euthanized. It's pure emotion based fear mongering usually deployed when no reasonable data to support one's position can be found. However, if the mentally ill are murdering innocent and healthy and productive members of society, they have to be contained. Society does not have infinite resources, sometimes pragmatic decisions have to be made. I am always surprised at the almost zero concern for the victims. Their death is greeted with a collective shrug of indifference. It's like the ivory tower moralists think "well I committed no crime so who cares, but if I support the death penalty I might feel some guilt, best make my decision 100% based on protecting my own delicate sensibilities".
Don't confuse emotion with values. Most of our decision making is informed by our personal values, that is, subjective judgment. In fact, I don't think it is possible to make a decision without it. This, too, can be a rational, thought-based process.
I was talking about this with my hubby earlier today and about how the civil rights movement back in the day mobilized people to get folks voting whom certain people preferred to not go voting. Maybe that's what's needed today. The country might look mighty divided but voter turnout is so low by international standards that there is a huge reservoir of people that just don't make their vote count.
Yes, I am aware that the system is tweaked and in many states people are actively discouraged from helping others get to vote (WTF!? Not being allowed to hand out water to people waiting in line to vote? Did I get that right?!)..... But at least this time around the chances of getting murdered by the goddam KKK while doing the good work has diminished somewhat.
And, yes, you guys still tend to set the trends. And whether or not you are onboard with missions affecting the entire planet like the fight against climate change or the pushback against authoritarian power grabs does matter.
There are groups, such as the League of Women Voters, whose primary mission is voter empowerment, which includes mobilizing especially underrepresented groups to vote, as well as challenging impediments to voting. Some of the measures the League is at the forefront of opposing include:
- exclusionary voter ID laws
- reduction of early in-person voting hours, especially on Sundays when historically black church congregations have given the elderly and disabled a ride to the polling place after the service
- shortened deadlines for returning an absentee ballot
- removing dropboxes for returning absentee ballots in person
- requiring voters to put their own absentee ballot into the dropbox, so no more dropping one off for Grandma or your elderly homebound neighbor
- purging voter rolls of people who have not voted recently, without notifying them so they know to re-register
And yes, in some locations, approaching voters waiting in line to offer snacks or water was prohibited. These were places where lines were very long, with voters often waiting hours outside in whatever weather, accompanied by their young children. I have personally witnessed voters seeing the long lines and just leaving, because they know they cannot wait there that long. Is this situation deliberately engineered to discourage voting? Or is it simply tolerated, because authorities are willing or even eager to lose the kinds of votes that would be lost?
I don't know if anyone has been compiling statistics on how many voters are effectively disenfranchised through these measures. They disproportionately affect the poor, elderly, and disabled, especially people of color. They also affect young people who are often in school away from home, or recently/frequently moving house. There are quite reliable statistics on voter fraud over the years, with many numbers in the single digits of cases, most of which are resolved as simple errors (voter moved and neglected to register in new location).
I had no problem being asked what I was meaning by woke. Because it has two definitions these days. The original definition which Coriolis mentioned and I have no problem with people with that kind of mindset. However, per JVD, woke is now more commonly used in the pejorative fashion, and indeed, that is how I was using it and tend to use the term in general. As a catch all condemnation of what I consider to be blind, non well thought out, virtue signaling nonsense combined with a holier than thou political correct overtone (never state a view that may offend someone). I consider those kind of woke people daft. And they are very common these days. So it's a good catch all term to describe that kind of thinking. The woke mind virus as it is also referred to.
My usage is not the original definition of woke and I am aware of it. Just like gay is much more commonly used to define sexual orientation vs it's original definition of festive. So I am fine with Coriolis seeking clarity of how I am using the term or we might have trouble understanding each other. S/he can generally assume I am using woke in the pejorative fashion.
The religious thing I had no problem with either. I'm not religious and that's just the way I am. Although I find it neither here nor there for political discussions. I mean, Trump is the favorite of most of the religious right, and that guy is all selfishness, condemnation, hate and fear mongering. There is not a charitable or 'love thy neighbor' bone in his body. In fact, if I was a believer in biblical prophesy, I would say Trump ticks all the boxes as a candidate for the antichrist. And yet many so called Christians in the USA seem to love him. Go figure.
You are completely correct about the hypocrisy of these so-called Christians. If they really wanted a president who was a good Christian, morally sound, etc. they would have re-elected Jimmy Carter. I recently read an article about Carter as an example of the "evangelical road not taken", namely living a life that is actually Christ-like, asking every day about every thing: "What would Jesus do?" and then doing your best to act that way. Far too many evangelicals have compromised their personal spiritual integrity for the chance to try to legislate their own morality and force it on everyone else. These same folks would be outraged if followers of any other faith tried to do that. Again, hypocrisy at its best.
As for the rest: as I said above, dispense with the catchwords and jargon, and just state your meaning plainly. This is a general directive, not aimed at you specifically. What you point out simply highlights the trouble caused when people do not do this.
Regarding marijuana:
Alcohol is legal almost everywhere except Islamic countries. Alcohol can cause many health problems, too, but has the advantage of centuries of tradition behind it. Too much marijuana is probably not good for you, but it's the same for alcohol.
Marijuana legalization in the U.S. is driven by a few different things, some of which I suppose in Europe might not apply because of history.
I agree, but then I tend to start from the rather libertarian position that everyone has the right to do anything they want. The laws and regulations we build on top of that to avoid conflict and keep society civil should be consistent (why marijuana and not alcohol?) and should bring real benefit to society at large, for the cost in individual liberty. This is my objection to many gun control measures. They cannot be shown actually to reduce gun violence. Even the attempt to consider such evidence is often attacked, similar to the reaction to your unasked questions. This is no way to address a real problem.
