this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
400 points (93.9% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36167 readers
1358 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 3) 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NewDark@lemmings.world 2 points 1 month ago

Manufactured consent

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

In the US, is this actually the moment past the point of no return? Would you ever allow yourself to accept that truth if so, or will you need to see actually bodies in the streets before you believe it's over?

[–] Kcap@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

It all boils down to education

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

TL;DR: I blame FPTP.


Hm, I'd argue that this is a byproduct of the spoiler effect — I think it's due to strategic voting. I think that it's likely not due to people consciously voting against their own interests to benefit the rich (assuming that they indeed do this ­— ie that voting to benefit the rich is against their interests), but instead that the entities that support these sorts of beliefs, also tend to align with other beliefs that are more important to the voters, and "benefiting the rich", while possibly perceived negatively, is a sacrifice that the voters are willing to make.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's hard to vote for one candidate that represents all your values or interests. Typically every candidate will be against your own interests in some manner. Preferential voting systems mostly curb this issue by allowing you to select many candidates in order of preference.

[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Bexause you have a two party system where both sides are corrupt

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Because everyone thinks of themselves as a potential rich person. Or in other words: people think that being rich is the ideal state, so let’s align everything around that.

If we truly put a yoke on the rich and contained them, we would also be reining in the smallfolks dreams.

By contrast, rich people don’t sit around dreaming about being smallfolk and planning aspirationally for the day that will happen.

[–] Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Something to consider is not everyone's interests are aligned. I'm not American so I can't comment on that specific area of the world, but that sort of question comes up a lot in my country and one of the biggest reasons is one party wants to make my hobbies/job harder and the other doesn't. So I don't think I'll vote for them. Now you, someone who doesn't have said job or hobbies, probably doesn't give a fuck about that. So you support said positions.

[–] Fighter_Moo@discuss.online 1 points 1 month ago

Anger, Self-Loathing, and misguided Hate

Anger is like a fire. They're a useful yet dangerous tool that burns and breaks stuff. When handled correctly, fire can shine light in the dark, give warmth in the cold, cook meals for the hungry, or protect you from wolves. In other words, a well controlled Anger is good at getting work done.

Not everyone has learned how to manage their Anger properly. Some let their Anger go too dim, making it hard to do stuff. Some redirect their Anger at themselves, out of fear of hurting others or believing they deserve it. Some let their Anger spread without a care of who it hurts, as long as it gets the job done. Some learn to concentrate their Anger into a beam of Hate, but don't know who or what to aim the beam at.

Going back to the question "why do people vote against their own interests?" It is Self-Loathing. It is people who are so used to having a piece of themselves set on fire by others that they start setting themselves on fire of their own volition. It is misguided Hate. It is people who know there's a problem and want to fix it, but have been misled about the source of the problems by people who are interested in not getting targeted by Hate.

"Why do they vote to benefit the rich?" We don't have a choice there when either vote would have benefited the rich and powerful anyway. Just choosing between different types of benefits. Money and Power have a tendency to rise upwards, so any aid we give to those struggling at the bottom will end up benefiting those at the top anyway. But I hear ya, giving benefits to the poor and letting it rise away still beats just giving it to the rich and hoping it'll trickle down someday.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Because civic education is lowly valued. It's not, strictly speaking, intelligence. It's that they were never taught what politics actually means, and after a while, they figure that since they've gone so long without it and things have been 'fine' in their life, it must not matter all that much.

[–] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The incredibly recent Sri Lankan election enters the chat… and feels sad at being ignored.

[–] tigerjerusalem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm ignorant about that, care to elaborate?

[–] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Sri Lankans (of all varieties - complicated history) have elected a left leaning coalition. It’s very unusual the majority of every “section” of Sri Lanka to throw their support behind the same candidate / party (again - historical reasons.)

Here’s a BBC link. It appears to be reasonably factual as I understand it and is a good synopsis:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crr9n2w0lyzo

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Since I didn't see it listed yet, fear of change.

Some folks are just fearful of change.

Rarely is a change proposal black and white. We can show you good data to support the change. We can look at it from a reputable source. We can look at how the change affected others. We can agree it's most likely a good change.

But sometimes we fear it.

What if we're wrong?

[–] Free_Opinions@feddit.uk -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What would be an example of this? It's not obvious to me that by simply voting in a manner that benefits "the rich" then also means it's against your own interests. When someone gains something it doesn't mean I must lose something in exchange.

[–] Jackthelad@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

"You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer".

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›