Voting feels like shit.

Seriously. Why? Because I have to vote for parties and representatives that might have one interest in common with me but go against my points of view almost all of the time. "We'll introduce a freedom of information act and legalize weed for better drug policy and youth protection!" -- WOW Great I'll vote for yo .. " ...and we'll also come to your home kill your dog, rape your family and shit in your back yard." -- oh f*** WHY? why do I have to live in a system were I am constantly forced to trade shit for even worse shit? Why can't I vote for policies or at least some kind of 'single' - issue representative?

I know that solving this problem is not easy and I do not claim to have the magical solution. "Not voting is even worse" sure but I am getting so fucking tired of it. It doesn't feel like progression and it sure as hell does not feel like it matters because in the end of the day you are just voting for the party that's at least going to use lube when raping you. I hate these ad hominem politics where we don't discuss the ideas but the people who represent them. I honestly don't give a fuck about who you are, if you're gay, married, or are left-wing, right-wing, conservative or liberal, in the end its about finding a good solution for everyone and not about the people implementing it. I don't care about politicians private lifes or worldviews (in terms of ideals, morals, religion etc.) , I care about finding the solutions to problems and having a wide array of opinions in order to discuss ideas and to find a valid and good way to go forward. "you can't agree with that person at all, because he's evil", yeah you know what? I don't care. It's about the ideas, arguments, discussions and solutions, not about the people who discuss them.

"I made a discovery today. I found a computer. Wait a second, this is cool. It does what I want it to. If it makes a mistake, it's because I
screwed it up. Not because it doesn't like me...
Or feels threatened by me...
Or thinks I'm a smart ass...
Or doesn't like teaching and shouldn't be here...
Damn kid. All he does is play games. They're all alike."

  • 13
    just imagine a coding project with the same system: "we can't merge that, i've heard the author is right wing"
  • 5
    Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
  • 1
  • 2
    @SevenDeadlyBugs Oh sorry won't make that mistake again.
  • 7
    @lolcube Unfortunately that political dev shit is starting to happen. Remember the CoC fiascos that ban contributors or block their patches because of things they've ostensibly said, have not said, or even things they stand for?
  • 4
    @Root OH FUCK YES I DO. I was so angry. I thought that community had some people who were a little bit more intelligent than that.... I want back to the days of phrack. Where it didn't matter who you were but what you do. I could be wrong though... because that was pre - me. (19) I went into IT for exactly that reason. I read all those old phrack magazines and BBS texts advocating for ideas and not people. I think reading the mentors texts did a lot for me because that was exactly how i felt. It was that hackers mentality that idea of starting a new era where ideas and facts ruled over feelings.
  • 3
    @lolcube @SevenDeadlyBugs

    While technically against the blanket ban on politics, @lolcube's rant is acceptable because it isn't polarizing: it complains about a very real problem without alienating anyone. It's positive, or at least helpful.

    @SevenDeadlyBugs' comment about politics is not for the same reason: it's polarizing because it complains about a specific political ideology/group/person. It's negative and alienates people, and makes the platform less enjoyable.
  • 2
    @lolcube Yes!

    Feelings and people are more or less irrelevant. What matters is what you can do, how you can improve things, problems you can solve, how you can help, etc. That is what everyone should focus on!
  • 6
    Also, I think people shouldn't automatically be hated for stating their ideas or views even if those views are "bad". There shouldn't be a single idea that isn't allowed to be discussed even if it is something that most people don't agree upon.
  • 1
    @lolcube Agreed yet again. 😊
  • 2
    @Root YES. Maybe there is a way to go away from this idea of representing and including everyone but instead just 'excluding' everyone. With excluding meaning excluding their personal identity but not their skill, ideas or contributions. Kind of taking those variables of skin color, political stance (ofc excluding politics itself) etc. out of the equation. And to be honest: I even think that was their goal but instead they accomplished the opposite.
  • 1
  • 4
    @lolcube And I also think that is why anonymity is so important for so many things even when you don't have to hide something. Because even the people trying to be as neutral to those things as possible are still that: people. Not having the information in the first place is just something that creates an environment for more neutral discussions of ideas.
  • 1
    @Frederick haha :D go to bed. Politics won't change over night anyways.
  • 1
    we need a new, moderate, antifederalist party focused on passing voter proposition laws.

    I've been plenty mad for a long time that people I don't like, people I don't agree with, who live in a different state than I, needlessly have to live under laws they didnt vote for, even if I did.

    And I think theres plenty of other people mad about this.

    We need a party thats damn near *militant* about "live and let live."

    A party that says "Im gonna vote for the laws that work best for my family here in my home state and I believe that all of you, my fellow Americans, are smart enough and wise enough to decide whats best for you in YOUR own home states!"
  • 1
    @Wisecrack I think that having parties is a problem in the first place because they bundle too many ideas into one big package. It is a solution that is too simple for the problem it tries to solve. Also: i live in Austria

    Edit: also I think there are issues that need to be implemented no matter what. (Constitutions do make sense imho)
  • 3
    @lolcube The scenario you gave about merging from a right wing author reminds me of the Linux CoC debacle.
  • 2
  • 1
    @Nanos haha :D
  • 1
    @lolcube well think of the idea of a new party as an *organizing* structure not as a package pf opinions. same word, new approach. package new ideas in the form of the familiar.
  • 2
    @Nanos Uff I heavily disagree but I really have to go and work now. I might answer this later.
  • 1
    @Nanos Rules4Rulers: https://youtube.com/watch/...

    Edit: I think you want to be the next Atatürk:

  • 2
    Well, the first party sounds very promising if you don't have a dog, a family and a backyard. Where do I vote? :P
  • 2
    If you choose to take the side of any political party or any religion, you're simply a worthless liar, an unloyal traitor, and an unintelligent fool.

    Because the rules set forth will not be followed accordingly, excuses will be made, and other people will now be pointed at as an excuse for your inadequacies.

    You have cheered the deaths of your enemies, along with the slow starvation and suffering of those who cannot obtain or provide what you want.
  • 1
    @Nanos we could just rescind laws in places like florida that say the electric ompany dorsnt habe to pay youwhen your solar panels feed into the electric grid.
  • 2
    @Hypergeek I disagree. I have seen the very bottom of despair in my lifetime, mine and others, many times. And what I can tell you is this: there is hope, always, not this bs "hope and change" sloganeering of the left, nor the cynical "maga" of the right, all perhaps well meaning phrases, but *real* hope.

    And it starts with new beginnings, with giving people *real* and *meaningful* choices, choices that matter to them individually.

    It is an easy time to despair. But I reject despair, and so should you.

    In the face of disarray, the fake "unity" of wallstreets politicalpuppets, we are individually and together, still capable of much more.

    You'll never convince me otherwise.

    You have nothing to lose my believing because belief is the beginning of all great things.

    And we have nothing to lose by trying, except maybe looking a little bit foolish and having a good story to tell our families one day.
  • 1
    @Nanos you keep talking about your current country but never say from where. If you dont mind being asked, what country do you currently call home?
  • 1
    @Nanos its the uk or canada isnt it?

    Im right, aren't I?
  • 1
    @Nanos I dont speak mandarin, saudi arabian, eastern european, or the five billion dialects of african.
  • 3
    As much flai as I get for it, I protest vote.

    The systems are clearly built to keep the same groups in power.

    People tell me "well then your wasting your vote", I say "you clearly don't know what this system is for" the fact protest votes are counted because they're a legitimate action just proves my point ; if you vote "strategically" then you are the people working around the politicians, its supposed to be the other way around.
  • 1
    Hey, just interjecting a small fantasy here.

    What if an 'objectively benevolent' A.I. had ultimate power in a country?

    I'm intrigued by this idea thanks to shows like Person of Interest and I'm really curious how an A.I.-controlled state would operate, given that such an A.I. can be made without being influenced by the political opinions of its creator and it only bases its actions on logic and reason.
  • 2
    Well since we have this thread I can just take the time and open my support for absolute monarchy, something that is a bit harder to do well if your country doesn't still have a royal family tho
  • 1
    @Nanos well yes technically one could but I believe that it would be much more difficult for a non established royal family without the history and people support to make it working well. However our currently royal family was once elected with broad people support and from the old(dying without and heir) Royal family. Thus leading to a successful monarchy so as long as there is a support in the people I suppose
  • 1
    @Nanos I'll read that one later(firewall issues)

    It does make sense as being rich or at least looking like it would imply some form of success. In terms of royal families I'd say its beneficial that they are rich as their money is straight up an asset for the kingdom, ours started off by paying off the national debt from his own pocket
Add Comment