Is It Bad That I Don't Find Interest In Politics?

[Red]

Almost every active forum member has participated in EquALLity's Bernie Sander's topic, and I am convinced that I'm probably the only forum member that could not give a damn about the matter. I hate discussing politics (unless it's concerning ancient politics, then that interests me) for reasons that I'm uncertain. I dunno, I just see it as just another run of the mill conversation people have, and I hate those. I prefer discussing things that aren't mainstream, as hipster as that sounds. I prefer talking about things that only so many people know about, as that can help increase interest for me in conversation. For me, politics is like religiona and atheism: both sides are filled with sanctimonious troglodytes (or at least the ones who take it really seriously), with views infected with bias and conflicting viewpoints. Well, at least the more "pro choice" ones. Anyhow, is it bad that I find little interest in politics? Are my reasons stupid? Why do you find interest in politics? Do you think I'm a total piece of coprolite? Lemme know!

[EquALLity]

For me, politics is like religiona and atheism: both sides are filled with sanctimonious troglodytes (or at least the ones who take it really seriously), with views infected with bias and conflicting viewpoints.

I think conflicting viewpoints are interesting. Or maybe you're talking about contradictions in peoples' belief systems, not really sure.

If so, discussion can help alleviate those contradictions and that bias, and help people reach rational conclusions that will help the world. So many people use religion to justify bad political views, and then they vote for insane people like Ben Carson. If we can eliminate some of that religious irrationality, we can get people to be more reasonable when voting, and thereby help the world.

And obviously, it's not just politics that is skewed by religious irrationality; it's also peoples' perspectives regarding veganism.
"My religion has a holiday that requires me to eat animals."
"The Bible supports eating animals."

Well, at least the more "pro choice" ones.

What do you mean here?

Anyhow, is it bad that I find little interest in politics?

I think it depends on how disinterested, and what you replace interest in politics with.

If people don't vote because they just aren't interested in politics (when they're 18, obviously), I think that's an issue, because it's not really that difficult to go vote, and we already have an issue in America of liberals not showing up to the ballot box and crazy right-wingers being elected as a result.

There are other things besides voting, like campaigning (obviously) that require more investment and can help impact the world for the better. If people replace investment in politics with something like pursuing science, or animal activism, etc., I don't see why that'd be an issue, because they're doing something that can also change the world for the better.

I think it's an issue when you just don't give a shit about the world, and replace interest for something really worthwhile with a hobby for collecting candy wrappers or something.

[Red]

I think conflicting viewpoints are interesting. Or maybe you're talking about contradictions in peoples' belief systems, not really sure.

Yeah this is an entirely different conversation for a different time.

If so, discussion can help alleviate those contradictions and that bias, and help people reach rational conclusions that will help the world. So many people use religion to justify bad political views, and then they vote for insane people like Ben Carson. If we can eliminate some of that religious irrationality, we can get people to be more reasonable when voting, and thereby help the world.

True. And religion isn't the only thing that influences bias. Communism, Capitalism, and even Atheism can inflate your viewpoints. The politians use said things to garner votes. Or flat out lie for the same purpose. No clue who Ben Carson is.

And obviously, it's not just politics that is skewed by religious irrationality; it's also peoples' perspectives regarding veganism.
"My religion has a holiday that requires me to eat animals."
"The Bible supports eating animals."

Answered.

What do you mean here?

Wasn't referring to abortion. I was just looking for a degogatory term for the people who thing they're virtuosos in politics. Like Fortunato is with wine.

I think it depends on how disinterested, and what you replace interest in politics with.

0% interested.

If people don't vote because they just aren't interested in politics (when they're 18, obviously), I think that's an issue, because it's not really that difficult to go vote, and we already have an issue in America of liberals not showing up to the ballot box and crazy right-wingers being elected as a result.

But what if you hate both sides? There's no obligation to vote. It's not like a Vote or Die Mofo situation. Anyhow, not many people really care about the fact that people fight for our democracy. Myself included to be blunt. But I don't see it as that much of a big deal, considering if we cut our military budget by 80%, we would still have the worlds strongest military. I wouldn't consider myself to be a full out pacifist, but here's something I know: If people weren't greedy, and if people just loved one another, war would not exist. Of course, we're humans, and humans are animals, both figurativley and literally. I'm pretty sure we'll be the cause of our own extinction.

There are other things besides voting, like campaigning (obviously) that require more investment and can help impact the world for the better. If people replace investment in politics with something like pursuing science, or animal activism, etc., I don't see why that'd be an issue, because they're doing something that can also change the world for the better.

I see a serious lack thereof.

I think it's an issue when you just don't give a shit about the world, and replace interest for something really worthwhile with a hobby for collecting candy wrappers or something.

As cynical as this is, I've given up on humanity ever changing for the better.

[Volenta]

Politics is in modern times the place where decisions are or can be made that structure our society, economy, ecology, etc. It is where the power lies to change or conserve things. It's generally a good idea to be interested in, as far as it's possible and desirable to have some influence on it; whether it's voting, joining a party, or though various forms of activism.

You can still be interested in many non-mainstream ideas (also political), fields, entertainment or other things (as I am as well), but it's hard, and I would argue unwise to ignore the centers of power.

[EquALLity]

Yeah this is an entirely different conversation for a different time.

All I was saying there was that I wasn't sure what you were saying, and that conflicting viewpoints between different people make for interesting discussion.

No clue who Ben Carson is.

Oh, he's the current front runner in the republican party.

Answered.

But what if you hate both sides? There's no obligation to vote. It's not like a Vote or Die Mofo situation.

If you hate both the democratic party and the republican party equally, then I suppose there's no reason from that perspective to vote. But that perspective isn't rational.

If you don't hate them equally, then you're helping the world by choosing the lesser of two evils.

Yeah, you don't have to vote, but it's an easy way to help the world.

Anyhow, not many people really care about the fact that people fight for our democracy. Myself included to be blunt.

What? You don't care about democracy?

But I don't see it as that much of a big deal, considering if we cut our military budget by 80%, we would still have the worlds strongest military.

Not sure what your point is?

I see a serious lack thereof.

What?

As cynical as this is, I've given up on humanity ever changing for the better.

What if the Allies held that mindset during WW11?

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You think it's impossible to change humanity for the better, and as a result, you don't even try. And because you don't try, humanity doesn't change for the better.

[Red]

All I was saying there was that I wasn't sure what you were saying, and that conflicting viewpoints between different people make for interesting discussion.

Well why didn't you just say so?

Honestly, that seems to me as a huge clusterfuck.

Oh, he's the current front runner in the republican party.

oh

If you hate both the democratic party and the republican party equally, then I suppose there's no reason from that perspective to vote. But that perspective isn't rational.

Why not?

If you don't hate them equally, then you're helping the world by choosing the lesser of two evils.

Why should I vote for someone that basically rules over me, and makes vetos on laws that should be passed?

Yeah, you don't have to vote, but it's an easy way to help the world.

How?

What? You don't care about democracy?

I never said that. I'm saying that we send people out to kill each other just so we can vote for some knucklehead who thinks he knows what he's doing.

Not sure what your point is?

Refer to statement above.

What?

Lack of this:

There are other things besides voting, like campaigning (obviously) that require more investment and can help impact the world for the better. If people replace investment in politics with something like pursuing science, or animal activism, etc., I don't see why that'd be an issue, because they're doing something that can also change the world for the better.

What if the Allies held that mindset during WW11?

What does that have anything to do with this?

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You think it's impossible to change humanity for the better, and as a result, you don't even try. And because you don't try, humanity doesn't change for the better.

Because one person is going to change the perspectives of 7 billion people. People like me don't make up much of a majority, and by the time we actually do start doing things to change people opinions will be the time when we endanger ourselves.
Now I consider myself to be a fair man. I like to see a positive and negatives. But as it is now, I'm leaning towards one side. Can you guess which one it is?

[EquALLity]

Well why didn't you just say so?

Honestly, that seems to me as a huge clusterfuck.

I did, guess you just interpreted it in a different way.

Why not?

In general, these are the policies/views the democrats support vs the republicans, combined with stuff about Bernie. The stuff about Bernie is important because he is running for President, and leans more left than a lot of the democratic party.

Pro Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid (Bernie wants to expand these programs, and is pro Universal HC, though Obama actually supports cuts to some of these programs)
Pro action on climate change, like opposing keystone (Bernie actually supports a carbon tax)
Pro raising taxes on rich, pro cutting taxes on the middle class
Pro marriage equality
Anti police brutality
Pro choice
More anti War on Drugs than republicans
Pro addressing racial issues (Bernie was actually apart of the Civil Rights Movement- he organized sit-ins and fought against segregated schools etc.)
Bernie- getting money out of politics (more talked about by democratic politicians than republicans), which is the issue that impacts all the other issues
Pro education
Anti constant personal attacks about who is low energy or a dum-dum/lightweight
Bernie- anti perpetual wars in the Middle East
Pro Iran nuclear deal
Anti bigotry towards Muslims/gays/blacks etc.

I could go on and/or give examples etc. if you want.

Why should I vote for someone that basically rules over me

Rules over you? Presidents work for you; they're not Pharaohs.

Well, they're supposed to work for you, anyway. Lately they've been working for big business, but we need politics to fix that.

and makes vetos on laws that should be passed?

Because the alternative would use more vetoes on laws that should be passed etc..

How?

Because if you vote for the best person running, you are helping elect a candidate who will do the best out of both choices.

Do you think it's better for people who support mostly the right policies to let people who support mostly the bad policies take over, because those mostly right policies aren't completely right?

I never said that. I'm saying that we send people out to kill each other just so we can vote for some knucklehead who thinks he knows what he's doing.

That doesn't happen in America now. Still not really sure what your point is. What's the alternative to democracy, dictatorship?

Refer to statement above.

Still confused.

Lack of this:

You see a lack of science etc.?

What does that have anything to do with this?

I'm drawing a parallel between you giving up on humanity because you think it's beyond redemption, and the idea of the Allies giving up on WW11 because they thought the situation was beyond help. My point is that if the Allies gave up because they thought that, then the Axis Powers would have been able to do much worse things, like the world will get worse/not get better if you don't try to help it.

Because one person is going to change the perspectives of 7 billion people. People like me don't make up much of a majority, and by the time we actually do start doing things to change people opinions will be the time when we endanger ourselves.
Now I consider myself to be a fair man. I like to see a positive and negatives. But as it is now, I'm leaning towards one side. Can you guess which one it is?

I'm not really a fan of Pat Condell anymore, but I'm a big fan of this quote from one of his older videos:
"If it takes a hundred arrows to bring down an elephant, they're all necessary and they all count."

I'm not really sure what you mean by your side.

[Red]

I did, guess you just interpreted it in a different way.

huh

In general, these are the policies/views the democrats support vs the republicans, combined with stuff about Bernie. The stuff about Bernie is important because he is running for President, and leans more left than a lot of the democratic party.

Consider me part of the "No fucks given" party.

Pro Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid (Bernie wants to expand these programs, and is pro Universal HC, though Obama actually supports cuts to some of these programs)
Pro action on climate change, like opposing keystone (Bernie actually supports a carbon tax)
Pro raising taxes on rich, pro cutting taxes on the middle class
Pro marriage equality
Anti police brutality
Pro choice
More anti War on Drugs than republicans
Pro addressing racial issues (Bernie was actually apart of the Civil Rights Movement- he organized sit-ins and fought against segregated schools etc.)
Bernie- getting money out of politics (more talked about by democratic politicians than republicans), which is the issue that impacts all the other issues
Pro education
Anti constant personal attacks about who is low energy or a dum-dum/lightweight
Bernie- anti perpetual wars in the Middle East
Pro Iran nuclear deal
Anti bigotry towards Muslims/gays/blacks etc.

So if I believe in half of this shit, that labels me as a democrat/liberal, even though I myself don't identify as either? and you could say you don't label yourself, but I don't care about the political and governmental factors.

I could go on and/or give examples etc. if you want.

sure

I only meant that rhetorically. please don't..

Rules over you? Presidents work for you; they're not Pharaohs.

I never asked to have someone work for me. Plus, they technically run the country so............................................................................................................................

Well, they're supposed to work for you, anyway. Lately they've been working for big business, but we need politics to fix that.

What role does politics play?

Because the alternative would use more vetoes on laws that should be passed etc..

oh that's how you spell vetoes..
anyhow, after watching the SchoolHouse Rock video another time over, it depends on how stupid the president or members of congress are. Or their lack of integrity. To be fair, it could easily be both.

Because if you vote for the best person running, you are helping elect a candidate who will do the best out of both choices.

Unless they're lying.

Do you think it's better for people who support mostly the right policies to let people who support mostly the bad policies take over, because those mostly right policies aren't completely right?

If they aren't completely right, then they aren't so called "right" policies.

That doesn't happen in America now. Still not really sure what your point is. What's the alternative to democracy, dictatorship?

After a long time thinking, I'm skeptical that we live in a democracy. The multinational corporations make these laws for more money, power, or to fuck the 99%. How do they do this under a congressman's name? Why, a lobbyist of course! Not to mention a straight, white, wealthy, American male has a higher chance of becoming a congressman than say a gay, white, wealthy, American male.

Still confused.

I forgot what I even said.

You see a lack of science etc.?

Nevermind

I'm drawing a parallel between you giving up on humanity because you think it's beyond redemption, and the idea of the Allies giving up on WW11 because they thought the situation was beyond help. My point is that if the Allies gave up because they thought that, then the Axis Powers would have been able to do much worse things, like the world will get worse/not get better if you don't try to help it.

So you're saying that if I was at a war, I wouldn't bother defending myself. Then again, America only joined the allies in WWII for defence and resources, not because of Hitler genociding the Jews.

I'm not really a fan of Pat Condell anymore, but I'm a big fan of this quote from one of his older videos:
"If it takes a hundred arrows to bring down an elephant, they're all necessary and they all count."

So what if you had one hundred and one people?

I'm not really sure what you mean by your side.

Me neither at this point.

[knot]

"Is It Bad That I Don't Find Interest In Politics?"

Well if you live in the US that's not too strange, since public opinion has very little influence on policy

[Volenta]

"Is It Bad That I Don't Find Interest In Politics?"

Well if you live in the US that's not too strange, since public opinion has very little influence on policy

That's of course true and a huge problem, but I don't think disinterest and inactivity isn't going to help people get more influence (the opposite is true). The US government needs to feel actual pressure from the people for change to happen.