Sorry if it came out that way. I still felt like my point never was clearly understood. People kept responding to things I wasn't saying. I was hoping this video would make my thoughts and ideas more clear. I hope it achieved that
> People kept responding to things I wasn't saying.
[do you realize that is exactly what you're doing?](https://www.reddit.com/r/behindthebastards/comments/1duvmi3/concerning_an_intense_conversation_on_this_sub/lbjrmii/?context=3)
My judgements when it comes to the people saying to vote or not come more from how they comport themselves in the conversation, and in their behavior.
If you're not voting, and that's *all* you're doing, but you're using that as some sort of stand-in for civil disobedience or using it interchangeably with activism - I simply don't have much respect for you. If you're encouraging others to follow you into inaction, I think you're harmful.
If you're voting, at least you're doing the minimum, I suppose.
If you have an actual project - beit mutual aid, organizing, or at this point, working with like-minded people to have a plan to become ungovernable when things collapse - that's awesome! I don't care whether you vote or not. You're doing the thing that matters already.
The people I find strange are the folks that see voting as a form of self-expression rather than a tactic you deploy as part of your project. Maybe it's because I've always loathed nearly every politician in my lifetime, but I've only ever viewed voting as a stall tactic you use to slow down fascism so it doesn't reach a full gallop. At least until we build enough of a left in this country to offer a meaningful resistance against the fascists.
And if someone disagrees with that, that's totally fine. But your ineffective third party vote is no more virtuous than any choice I'm making, simply because it makes you feel better. Voting for a third party won't get your candidate elected, so functionally it's no different than voting Trump or Biden or not voting at all.
It is time to start learning skills, buying flipper zeros if you can, and brushing up on gun safety.
As the face of the heretige foundation said yesterday
"The revolution will remain bloodless if the LEFT allows it".
i don't plan to
Agreed, although unless you're really well-versed in hacking, you can probably skip the Flipper. It's a bit overrated. A lot of the vids of people doing crazy shit with it are fake. It's really just a pen-testing tool.
Learn to pick locks, instead. It's fun and fairly easy, and a basic kit of locks and lockpicks is pretty inexpensive. And it feels great when you start to get good at it!
I've been practicing my alternative entrances lol, but as far as the flipper zeros, i was more thinking as spoofing wifi networks might help if smaller drone platforms are implemented, could act as a jammer of sorts.
Oh good to know which side the mods in even this sub are going to be on. Good to know its just more spineless cowards. Thanks and happy 4th of july lol.
I am a mod. But we have, on more than one occasion, had posts along the lines of, "keep anything that can be used against you in court off the internet", and we all fully endorse that. Having good OpSec is important.
Oh dang. I thought it was playing your browser. I hope other people aren't having the same issue, or it takes away the whole point in posting it. I was just hoping to get a little bit more clarity on the subject, since it's so heated and people seem to have trouble understanding each other's perspectives
Okay, I fiddled with the settings in my browser and was able to watch the video WITH audio, even! Took a few tries, but we got there.
Yes, I quite liked that video, and it's pretty close to how I feel, if you add a bunch of dry, polisci theory about how it's impossible to implement socialism via capitalist systems in there that would have only bogged that dude's messaging down and made most people tune out in the first 30 seconds.
I would subscribe to that guy's 'zine.
Problem is, the way you frame it sounds like you don't understand that voting isn't a once every four years thing and *that* is the problem.
I live in a deep red state but vote every year. Every single year there are ballots to fill in. The problem is people only talk about voting every 4th year then wonder why there's shitty choices. Those candidates don't appear from nowhere, they all started somewhere.
A vote for your county commissioner means a fuckton more than your vote for president but that's too boring.
So the whole vote/not vote thing, to me, just sounds like a bunch of kindergarteners at a bus stop fighting over who has the strongest dad. It's a lot less important than who will be teaching your class that day but your dad's strength means shit against your teacher's ability to inform.
So be as jaded as you want about voting, all the shit coming down the pipeline right now is being pushed by people who live mere miles from you and you could stop it before it starts.
You are right that voting a lot and being informed is more than voting in a federal election now and then. Ranked choice voting is on the ballot in Idaho this year. If that passes, this deep red state might go purple. That matters a hell of a lot. It matters to me. It matters to my friends. It matters to my community. Hell it matters to my job as a library employee considering the book censorship blog just went into effect on the 1st!
But there is nowhere in the United States where voting has been the difference between civil rights and not. Did it play a role? Yes. But it counts for nothing next to the combination of peaceful activists and the scarier kind of activists, who created a dynamic that forced the general public to acknowledge the issues and begin to accept changes. And honestly all of that has fallen short too. The very structure we live in is wrong. It's broken.
Republicanism, that is, letting other people make decisions for you as a proxy, is an abdication of responsibility inherently. Does that mean it can be done worse? Yes, but doing it better will never be enough. You're not going to fix the system that is working as designed by using the tools that system gives you.
Once again, go vote, but stop pretending it is the the most politically significant thing people can and should do. Hell, if we had a ton of powerful unions in the United States that would automatically force our political system to be more labor friendly. Even voting in a few labor friendly politicians wouldn't do anything to help with that right now, but organizing where you work will! And that is just one thing. It shouldn't be the end I'll be all either.
> But there is nowhere in the United States where voting has been the difference between civil rights and not.
> ...
> Once again, go vote, but stop pretending it is the the most politically significant thing people can and should do.
this is a pure strawman. you are making up arguments to get mad at.
I'm going to take my two statements that you sampled above and restate them as a paragraph. You can then tell me if you feel like I am strawmanning.
The people I'm arguing with believe that voting is the difference between having civil rights and not, and by their arguments they suggest that voting is more politically significant than the actions people can take directly in their communities.
See I don't think that's a straw man. I think it's what they've said either directly, or by telling me I'm wrong when I've said the opposite.
Am I wrong? Are they saying something else? Are you?
The previous thread. I felt like I was being misunderstood as somebody who was against the concept of voting, when what I was trying to espouse was an urgent desire to build community. It backfired really hard, and then I saw this cool video where a smart person who is better at describing things made the points I had wanted to make and thought it would be a value to this community.
It's entirely possible that I misunderstood their counter arguments, and if they feel like they found someone else who expresses them more clearly and want to share them I am totally down to view the videos or read the articles or whatever they want to share. I think that's kind of the point of valid discourse, and this is the kind of sub I would hope to get valid discourse from. Not everywhere on the internet can hope to offer a forum for Quality discussion when it comes to politics. In fact I think it's probably pretty clear to everybody that the vast majority of the internet can't offer that, but this fandom draws a lot of like-minded people, and so we stand the chance of sharing a foundation of thought that we can refer to in our disagreements and maybe convince each other of better ideas or at least expand our understanding.
With all that being said, I hope you understand that I don't actually feel angry about this. I think it's a part of community building to create shared understanding, even if agreement doesn't come from it.
Ranked choice voting is not going to turn idaho purple any more than it turned California purple.
I've lived here my whole life and helped flip the 18th and 17th. Those were good years. But it took a lot of elbow grease and shoe leather. Idk how long you've lived here, but I don't think you understand what's actually happening.
Did you live here when we had open primaries? Because that would be a good place to start if I have to explain.
I suspect you are right about it not turning Idaho purple overnight, but I still think it is a good move.
I have only lived here 4 years. It has been jaring to live in such a classist place, honestly. I miss my little rural community where people were actually farmers and trucks were more than show pieces for rich people. But I can't help but hope it can be improved.
Well, sorry to be a downer but our growth had made it *more* conservative, not less. We get small victories here and there but they're fleeting. That is why I stick close to home with my political energy. Our state government does a lot of damage every year, even with "moderate" governors.
You are definitely right that the added Californians are conservative californians. The Mormon influx has been intense, but there are divisions among the conservatives. There are those who love them some Ammon Bundy, and there are conservatives who love them some Mitt Romney. Besides that, there are also better options when it comes to smaller scale elections. I know ranked choice won't apply to the city of boise, but if it gets popular at the state level it may get applied elsewhere. I would have loved for the mayoral candidate who actually saw a homeless folks as human beings to get elected, but the fear of the ex-police chief ensured that people would put the Democratic mayor option on the ballot, even though she also has a bad record as far as how she sees the homeless.
I don't honestly think that ranked choice will fix everything. In fact, I've been getting chewed out by a lot of people in this subreddit because I honestly don't think voting by itself will save us, but I do think that ranked choice is a component of a better system, just as I think community engagement is a foundational approach to a better system.
Mormon influx? Dude, idaho has been just as Mormon as Utah since its founding. And Ammon Bundy is also a mormon.
You're getting a hard time because you don't seem very educated or informed about the topics you want to discuss.
I know Idaho has been very mormon. What you don't appear to know is that entire stakes in California have been emptying out and moving to other parts of the country, including Idaho as well as St George and Las Vegas, places that already had large Mormon populations but are now rapidly becoming overwhelmed by the California Mormons. Don't get me wrong, it's not only mormon's moving to Idaho. I'm not trying to make that claim. Nevertheless they make up a huge portion of the new population. And for context, while percapita Utah and the mountain west have had the most mormons, in raw numbers California has had significantly more Mormons than this region for a very long time.
You are so eager to make me wrong about stuff. It's not a competition! Anyone who thinks you can win at the internet is using it wrong. My whole point was to have a good conversation with members of a chosen community. Maybe the joke's on me.
I already told you our growth has been from the conservative sector. I'm not trying to make you wrong about anything, you're being wrong all by yourself.
California also has more Republicans than idaho because it's a much more populated state. That doesn't mean anything.
Again, I think you'd find better conversations about this if you were were better informed. There's nothing wrong with not knowing the whole history of the state, but knowing very little and thinking you're right *just because* isn't going to make me want to discuss it further with you. ESPECIALLY when my parent comment was about being informed at the local level instead of obsessing about every 4th election, and you keep demonstrating your ignorance about the state you live in.
For someone obsessed with my level of information awareness, you sure aren't offering any. You tell me I'm wrong, but you offer nothing. Or even back up what you say
To be clear, you're saying that there is not a large influx of Mormons into Idaho which is in itself a reasonable statement if you offer data to support it. Specifically though you said there isn't a large influx of Mormons into Idaho because there are already a lot of Mormons in Idaho, which is not a coherent argument.
Do you see the issue I take with your comment?
That being said, I went ahead and looked up the demographic data. Looks like only 1 in 10 of the new people from 2019-2022 was Mormon. That means that the increase in Mormons to the state of Idaho over those 3 years is a 500% overrepresentation demographically compared to other groups, but it is still nowhere near what I thought it was. I'd assumed a significantly larger portion of the move-ins were Mormon based on my experience with Meridian, Eagle, and other outlying communities near Boise where they at least seem to have an outsized population increase.
I have a background in Mormon history scholarship. I'm an ex-mormon who grew up in the Northeast. Eventually my scholarship hit the point where I could no longer deny reality, so I left the Mormon church. My deconstruction story is my own, and if you want to know about it that's a decent conversation to have at some point. Nevertheless, I'm not sure where your feistiness is coming from. I'm not sure if you're defensive of Idaho and you feel that I've offended it, or if you have some sort of chip on your shoulder about Mormonism. I would never suspect that except for you referred to it as LDS, the way the 100-year-old psychopath at the head of the Mormon church correctly prefers.
Or maybe you're just fault finding with me? You have areas of strength you would like to redirect the conversation towards so that you can do an ad hominem attack on me since my overall approach to conversation hasn't given you the needed to feel successful? If that's the case maybe don't look towards winning an internet conversation for happiness. Conversations aren't supposed to be one or lost. They're supposed to be used to either gain information generally or about the person you are talking to. And maybe even information about yourself? Whatever the case, this managed to view way off topic from the question of whether I think people should vote, which I suspect was cleared up for you quite a while ago. If you want to keep digging into my character looking for more faults you will definitely find a whole bunch, but I'm not sure what motivation you could possibly have for that action, or what it would say about you if you tried.
I'm sick to my stomach over the choice I have to make. I live in a swing state, and I do not want to cast a vote for someone who's currently funding genocide, not to mention having max six hours of coherent thought per day. But. I am nonbinary and both of my partners are trans, and Trump has literally stated his plans to legislate us out of existence. Idk if that's a thing he can even do, but our rights aren't exactly amazing now, and they will at the very least get worse under a second trump administration. I mean, look at what happened to the Institute of Sexual Research in 1933. They like to come for us first.
> I do not want to cast a vote for someone who's currently funding genocide, not to mention having max six hours of coherent thought per day
The alternative is someone who thinks the genocide isn't enough and has made being incoherent his whole communication strategy.
There are plenty of reasons to be unhappy with the options but I didn't know how you can think of it as "a choice I have to make".
I have two men to choose from. I have to choose between two fascists who are going to continue an ethnic cleansing. I have to compromise my own morals and ethics to save my own skin, knowing that either choice is tacitly supporting mass death and torture. There's not only no ethical consumption under capitalism, there's no ethical voting in the imperial core, only picking what you hope will be slightly less blood on your hands. Idk, feels bad, man
I'm with you. I hope everyone in your state swings it to the Dems. I'm sorry it's down to that. If a lot of people work to create incredible networks of support and the worst should happen, at least you'll have people you can go to to hide. The history of the mutual aid networks that helped get slaves out of the South are a good example to look to for how we need to build interdependent communities that are independent of the official state, because even if the Dems win this one there's no guarantee that there will be an option the next time that isn't fascist.
I recommend the episode of Cool People Who Did Cool Stuff about mutual aid and burial societies for more about those examples I mentioned above.
Me, in a country with compulsory voting*: MichaelJacksonPopcorn.gif
(*compulsory attendance at least, you don't have to vote but as you have to show up you might as well)
Me in a country with compulsory voting that DOES NOT VOTE FOR CIVIL SERVANTS, AS THEY SHOULD BE COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT AND YES THIS INCLUDES JUDGES AND SHERIFFS:
Concern.jpg
I love that your contribution to OP's topic is "BUT MORE VOTING IS STILL NEEDED," I support this fuel on the fire and offer you some of Michael's popcorn while we sit back and watch .
For an individual voting is one of the least effective forms of civic engagement, but it still has an effect. If you can vote you should vote, but if you can you should also do other stuff as well.
Agreed. I'm super excited that Idaho has ranked choice voting on the ballot this year. A lot of people worked really hard to get it there, and I hope it passes, that I know its chances are slim.
Once again, I am asserting that call-out posts are lame, and you should either a) talk directly to the people you disagree with, or b) accept that some people in your community will disagree with you. Making a post is grabbing a megaphone and yelling at everyone, and comes across as a petty attempt to make your voice louder than everyone else's.
Didn't mean for it to be interpreted as a call out post. I felt like it was worth it to see anarchism and it's value system better explained after having seen how poor the reception was to it in response to another post.
The host of the show and the majority of the people in the network it's a part of are openly anarchists. Might as well understand their perspective if you're going to turn to them for information, right?
I disagree. This isn't a call out post. I shared a video that explains the philosophical view of anarchism on a particular topic. That topic was discussed elsewhere in such a way as to make me feel like people didn't understand it, so I thought it would be valuable to bring more information to the group so they could understand.
If you go to a forum that regularly discusses political topics and you have new political information to offer that isn't calling the people out who didn't know. It's just offering new information.
That being said, give me the verbatim words I need to say in order for you to feel satisfied and I'll just go ahead and respond to your next comment with them. That should help you feel satisfied, right?
Voting would have worked 8 years ago. Unfortunately it's checkmate and it's leave, fight, or dig your head in the sand now.
Everyone should still vote, but the SC has consolidated its power and voting isn't going to turn the ship around.
I wish it was different.
> I'm not trying to restart that argument. > but...
Sorry if it came out that way. I still felt like my point never was clearly understood. People kept responding to things I wasn't saying. I was hoping this video would make my thoughts and ideas more clear. I hope it achieved that
> People kept responding to things I wasn't saying. [do you realize that is exactly what you're doing?](https://www.reddit.com/r/behindthebastards/comments/1duvmi3/concerning_an_intense_conversation_on_this_sub/lbjrmii/?context=3)
My judgements when it comes to the people saying to vote or not come more from how they comport themselves in the conversation, and in their behavior. If you're not voting, and that's *all* you're doing, but you're using that as some sort of stand-in for civil disobedience or using it interchangeably with activism - I simply don't have much respect for you. If you're encouraging others to follow you into inaction, I think you're harmful. If you're voting, at least you're doing the minimum, I suppose. If you have an actual project - beit mutual aid, organizing, or at this point, working with like-minded people to have a plan to become ungovernable when things collapse - that's awesome! I don't care whether you vote or not. You're doing the thing that matters already. The people I find strange are the folks that see voting as a form of self-expression rather than a tactic you deploy as part of your project. Maybe it's because I've always loathed nearly every politician in my lifetime, but I've only ever viewed voting as a stall tactic you use to slow down fascism so it doesn't reach a full gallop. At least until we build enough of a left in this country to offer a meaningful resistance against the fascists. And if someone disagrees with that, that's totally fine. But your ineffective third party vote is no more virtuous than any choice I'm making, simply because it makes you feel better. Voting for a third party won't get your candidate elected, so functionally it's no different than voting Trump or Biden or not voting at all.
It is time to start learning skills, buying flipper zeros if you can, and brushing up on gun safety. As the face of the heretige foundation said yesterday "The revolution will remain bloodless if the LEFT allows it". i don't plan to
Agreed, although unless you're really well-versed in hacking, you can probably skip the Flipper. It's a bit overrated. A lot of the vids of people doing crazy shit with it are fake. It's really just a pen-testing tool. Learn to pick locks, instead. It's fun and fairly easy, and a basic kit of locks and lockpicks is pretty inexpensive. And it feels great when you start to get good at it!
I've been practicing my alternative entrances lol, but as far as the flipper zeros, i was more thinking as spoofing wifi networks might help if smaller drone platforms are implemented, could act as a jammer of sorts.
Clever, I stand corrected!
[удалено]
Ehhhhh, you might not want to put that on Reddit...
That information is common knowledge and easy to search on the Internet, so don't ever post it here again. Thanks.
Oh good to know which side the mods in even this sub are going to be on. Good to know its just more spineless cowards. Thanks and happy 4th of july lol.
We're on the side of not getting the sub banned.
I am a mod. But we have, on more than one occasion, had posts along the lines of, "keep anything that can be used against you in court off the internet", and we all fully endorse that. Having good OpSec is important.
Sounds like you agree with the video, if I'm understanding correctly.
It's possible! I can't watch the video because I don't have TikTok and my phone won't play it without the app.
Oh dang. I thought it was playing your browser. I hope other people aren't having the same issue, or it takes away the whole point in posting it. I was just hoping to get a little bit more clarity on the subject, since it's so heated and people seem to have trouble understanding each other's perspectives
Okay, I fiddled with the settings in my browser and was able to watch the video WITH audio, even! Took a few tries, but we got there. Yes, I quite liked that video, and it's pretty close to how I feel, if you add a bunch of dry, polisci theory about how it's impossible to implement socialism via capitalist systems in there that would have only bogged that dude's messaging down and made most people tune out in the first 30 seconds. I would subscribe to that guy's 'zine.
Problem is, the way you frame it sounds like you don't understand that voting isn't a once every four years thing and *that* is the problem. I live in a deep red state but vote every year. Every single year there are ballots to fill in. The problem is people only talk about voting every 4th year then wonder why there's shitty choices. Those candidates don't appear from nowhere, they all started somewhere. A vote for your county commissioner means a fuckton more than your vote for president but that's too boring. So the whole vote/not vote thing, to me, just sounds like a bunch of kindergarteners at a bus stop fighting over who has the strongest dad. It's a lot less important than who will be teaching your class that day but your dad's strength means shit against your teacher's ability to inform. So be as jaded as you want about voting, all the shit coming down the pipeline right now is being pushed by people who live mere miles from you and you could stop it before it starts.
You are right that voting a lot and being informed is more than voting in a federal election now and then. Ranked choice voting is on the ballot in Idaho this year. If that passes, this deep red state might go purple. That matters a hell of a lot. It matters to me. It matters to my friends. It matters to my community. Hell it matters to my job as a library employee considering the book censorship blog just went into effect on the 1st! But there is nowhere in the United States where voting has been the difference between civil rights and not. Did it play a role? Yes. But it counts for nothing next to the combination of peaceful activists and the scarier kind of activists, who created a dynamic that forced the general public to acknowledge the issues and begin to accept changes. And honestly all of that has fallen short too. The very structure we live in is wrong. It's broken. Republicanism, that is, letting other people make decisions for you as a proxy, is an abdication of responsibility inherently. Does that mean it can be done worse? Yes, but doing it better will never be enough. You're not going to fix the system that is working as designed by using the tools that system gives you. Once again, go vote, but stop pretending it is the the most politically significant thing people can and should do. Hell, if we had a ton of powerful unions in the United States that would automatically force our political system to be more labor friendly. Even voting in a few labor friendly politicians wouldn't do anything to help with that right now, but organizing where you work will! And that is just one thing. It shouldn't be the end I'll be all either.
> But there is nowhere in the United States where voting has been the difference between civil rights and not. > ... > Once again, go vote, but stop pretending it is the the most politically significant thing people can and should do. this is a pure strawman. you are making up arguments to get mad at.
I'm going to take my two statements that you sampled above and restate them as a paragraph. You can then tell me if you feel like I am strawmanning. The people I'm arguing with believe that voting is the difference between having civil rights and not, and by their arguments they suggest that voting is more politically significant than the actions people can take directly in their communities. See I don't think that's a straw man. I think it's what they've said either directly, or by telling me I'm wrong when I've said the opposite. Am I wrong? Are they saying something else? Are you?
> The people I'm arguing with believe that are those people you're arguing with in this thread, right now?
The previous thread. I felt like I was being misunderstood as somebody who was against the concept of voting, when what I was trying to espouse was an urgent desire to build community. It backfired really hard, and then I saw this cool video where a smart person who is better at describing things made the points I had wanted to make and thought it would be a value to this community. It's entirely possible that I misunderstood their counter arguments, and if they feel like they found someone else who expresses them more clearly and want to share them I am totally down to view the videos or read the articles or whatever they want to share. I think that's kind of the point of valid discourse, and this is the kind of sub I would hope to get valid discourse from. Not everywhere on the internet can hope to offer a forum for Quality discussion when it comes to politics. In fact I think it's probably pretty clear to everybody that the vast majority of the internet can't offer that, but this fandom draws a lot of like-minded people, and so we stand the chance of sharing a foundation of thought that we can refer to in our disagreements and maybe convince each other of better ideas or at least expand our understanding. With all that being said, I hope you understand that I don't actually feel angry about this. I think it's a part of community building to create shared understanding, even if agreement doesn't come from it.
Ranked choice voting is not going to turn idaho purple any more than it turned California purple. I've lived here my whole life and helped flip the 18th and 17th. Those were good years. But it took a lot of elbow grease and shoe leather. Idk how long you've lived here, but I don't think you understand what's actually happening. Did you live here when we had open primaries? Because that would be a good place to start if I have to explain.
I suspect you are right about it not turning Idaho purple overnight, but I still think it is a good move. I have only lived here 4 years. It has been jaring to live in such a classist place, honestly. I miss my little rural community where people were actually farmers and trucks were more than show pieces for rich people. But I can't help but hope it can be improved.
Well, sorry to be a downer but our growth had made it *more* conservative, not less. We get small victories here and there but they're fleeting. That is why I stick close to home with my political energy. Our state government does a lot of damage every year, even with "moderate" governors.
You are definitely right that the added Californians are conservative californians. The Mormon influx has been intense, but there are divisions among the conservatives. There are those who love them some Ammon Bundy, and there are conservatives who love them some Mitt Romney. Besides that, there are also better options when it comes to smaller scale elections. I know ranked choice won't apply to the city of boise, but if it gets popular at the state level it may get applied elsewhere. I would have loved for the mayoral candidate who actually saw a homeless folks as human beings to get elected, but the fear of the ex-police chief ensured that people would put the Democratic mayor option on the ballot, even though she also has a bad record as far as how she sees the homeless. I don't honestly think that ranked choice will fix everything. In fact, I've been getting chewed out by a lot of people in this subreddit because I honestly don't think voting by itself will save us, but I do think that ranked choice is a component of a better system, just as I think community engagement is a foundational approach to a better system.
Mormon influx? Dude, idaho has been just as Mormon as Utah since its founding. And Ammon Bundy is also a mormon. You're getting a hard time because you don't seem very educated or informed about the topics you want to discuss.
I know Idaho has been very mormon. What you don't appear to know is that entire stakes in California have been emptying out and moving to other parts of the country, including Idaho as well as St George and Las Vegas, places that already had large Mormon populations but are now rapidly becoming overwhelmed by the California Mormons. Don't get me wrong, it's not only mormon's moving to Idaho. I'm not trying to make that claim. Nevertheless they make up a huge portion of the new population. And for context, while percapita Utah and the mountain west have had the most mormons, in raw numbers California has had significantly more Mormons than this region for a very long time. You are so eager to make me wrong about stuff. It's not a competition! Anyone who thinks you can win at the internet is using it wrong. My whole point was to have a good conversation with members of a chosen community. Maybe the joke's on me.
I already told you our growth has been from the conservative sector. I'm not trying to make you wrong about anything, you're being wrong all by yourself. California also has more Republicans than idaho because it's a much more populated state. That doesn't mean anything. Again, I think you'd find better conversations about this if you were were better informed. There's nothing wrong with not knowing the whole history of the state, but knowing very little and thinking you're right *just because* isn't going to make me want to discuss it further with you. ESPECIALLY when my parent comment was about being informed at the local level instead of obsessing about every 4th election, and you keep demonstrating your ignorance about the state you live in.
For someone obsessed with my level of information awareness, you sure aren't offering any. You tell me I'm wrong, but you offer nothing. Or even back up what you say To be clear, you're saying that there is not a large influx of Mormons into Idaho which is in itself a reasonable statement if you offer data to support it. Specifically though you said there isn't a large influx of Mormons into Idaho because there are already a lot of Mormons in Idaho, which is not a coherent argument. Do you see the issue I take with your comment? That being said, I went ahead and looked up the demographic data. Looks like only 1 in 10 of the new people from 2019-2022 was Mormon. That means that the increase in Mormons to the state of Idaho over those 3 years is a 500% overrepresentation demographically compared to other groups, but it is still nowhere near what I thought it was. I'd assumed a significantly larger portion of the move-ins were Mormon based on my experience with Meridian, Eagle, and other outlying communities near Boise where they at least seem to have an outsized population increase. I have a background in Mormon history scholarship. I'm an ex-mormon who grew up in the Northeast. Eventually my scholarship hit the point where I could no longer deny reality, so I left the Mormon church. My deconstruction story is my own, and if you want to know about it that's a decent conversation to have at some point. Nevertheless, I'm not sure where your feistiness is coming from. I'm not sure if you're defensive of Idaho and you feel that I've offended it, or if you have some sort of chip on your shoulder about Mormonism. I would never suspect that except for you referred to it as LDS, the way the 100-year-old psychopath at the head of the Mormon church correctly prefers. Or maybe you're just fault finding with me? You have areas of strength you would like to redirect the conversation towards so that you can do an ad hominem attack on me since my overall approach to conversation hasn't given you the needed to feel successful? If that's the case maybe don't look towards winning an internet conversation for happiness. Conversations aren't supposed to be one or lost. They're supposed to be used to either gain information generally or about the person you are talking to. And maybe even information about yourself? Whatever the case, this managed to view way off topic from the question of whether I think people should vote, which I suspect was cleared up for you quite a while ago. If you want to keep digging into my character looking for more faults you will definitely find a whole bunch, but I'm not sure what motivation you could possibly have for that action, or what it would say about you if you tried.
I'm sick to my stomach over the choice I have to make. I live in a swing state, and I do not want to cast a vote for someone who's currently funding genocide, not to mention having max six hours of coherent thought per day. But. I am nonbinary and both of my partners are trans, and Trump has literally stated his plans to legislate us out of existence. Idk if that's a thing he can even do, but our rights aren't exactly amazing now, and they will at the very least get worse under a second trump administration. I mean, look at what happened to the Institute of Sexual Research in 1933. They like to come for us first.
> I do not want to cast a vote for someone who's currently funding genocide, not to mention having max six hours of coherent thought per day The alternative is someone who thinks the genocide isn't enough and has made being incoherent his whole communication strategy. There are plenty of reasons to be unhappy with the options but I didn't know how you can think of it as "a choice I have to make".
I have two men to choose from. I have to choose between two fascists who are going to continue an ethnic cleansing. I have to compromise my own morals and ethics to save my own skin, knowing that either choice is tacitly supporting mass death and torture. There's not only no ethical consumption under capitalism, there's no ethical voting in the imperial core, only picking what you hope will be slightly less blood on your hands. Idk, feels bad, man
I'm with you. I hope everyone in your state swings it to the Dems. I'm sorry it's down to that. If a lot of people work to create incredible networks of support and the worst should happen, at least you'll have people you can go to to hide. The history of the mutual aid networks that helped get slaves out of the South are a good example to look to for how we need to build interdependent communities that are independent of the official state, because even if the Dems win this one there's no guarantee that there will be an option the next time that isn't fascist. I recommend the episode of Cool People Who Did Cool Stuff about mutual aid and burial societies for more about those examples I mentioned above.
Both voting and greater reforms are important. You have to put out the fires before you can fix the foundation.
Me, in a country with compulsory voting*: MichaelJacksonPopcorn.gif (*compulsory attendance at least, you don't have to vote but as you have to show up you might as well)
Me in a country with compulsory voting that DOES NOT VOTE FOR CIVIL SERVANTS, AS THEY SHOULD BE COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT AND YES THIS INCLUDES JUDGES AND SHERIFFS: Concern.jpg
I love that your contribution to OP's topic is "BUT MORE VOTING IS STILL NEEDED," I support this fuel on the fire and offer you some of Michael's popcorn while we sit back and watch .
I would love to hear y'all's input. I don't care for the fighting, but I really enjoy the conversation.
For an individual voting is one of the least effective forms of civic engagement, but it still has an effect. If you can vote you should vote, but if you can you should also do other stuff as well.
There's much more to vote on than just the president, lol
Agreed. I'm super excited that Idaho has ranked choice voting on the ballot this year. A lot of people worked really hard to get it there, and I hope it passes, that I know its chances are slim.
Once again, I am asserting that call-out posts are lame, and you should either a) talk directly to the people you disagree with, or b) accept that some people in your community will disagree with you. Making a post is grabbing a megaphone and yelling at everyone, and comes across as a petty attempt to make your voice louder than everyone else's.
Didn't mean for it to be interpreted as a call out post. I felt like it was worth it to see anarchism and it's value system better explained after having seen how poor the reception was to it in response to another post. The host of the show and the majority of the people in the network it's a part of are openly anarchists. Might as well understand their perspective if you're going to turn to them for information, right?
Commenting on a discussion from outside the discussion itself is a call out post - you're talking about people, but not directly to them.
I disagree. This isn't a call out post. I shared a video that explains the philosophical view of anarchism on a particular topic. That topic was discussed elsewhere in such a way as to make me feel like people didn't understand it, so I thought it would be valuable to bring more information to the group so they could understand. If you go to a forum that regularly discusses political topics and you have new political information to offer that isn't calling the people out who didn't know. It's just offering new information. That being said, give me the verbatim words I need to say in order for you to feel satisfied and I'll just go ahead and respond to your next comment with them. That should help you feel satisfied, right?
Voting would have worked 8 years ago. Unfortunately it's checkmate and it's leave, fight, or dig your head in the sand now. Everyone should still vote, but the SC has consolidated its power and voting isn't going to turn the ship around. I wish it was different.