I don’t believe this. People may have multiple agendas. They may hate foreigners or cultures, but people’s allegiances are always first and foremost to their own, to keep living in the most comfortable way they can with the lowest possible eftort. It’s kind of game theoretical in some sense.
Game theory occupies itself with the adversary roles of generosity (a moral principle) and calculation (a purely rational one), and in some way you could say that in a system which only allows one of two outcomes, a lot of assumptions are subsumed under those two separate outcomes.
What if Candidate A is for lower taxes, higher immigration and Candidate B is for higher taxes and lower immigration?
What if both candidates agree on lower taxes and lower immigration, but one of them also proposes reinstating slavery, and the other one wants none of it but instead mandatory abortions?
In a two party state you don’t get enough fine grained resolution to deal with problems that require any complexity beyond perfectly white and perfectly black.
they are systemically undereducated and inundated with propaganda telling them that their problems stem not from the class war but from the culture war, which has long been a dogwhistle for the race war
Most poor world be better off under left wing ideals, yet they vote right wing anyway because they’re scared that brown people will steal their crumbs.
There’s a twisted sort of logic to this. Let’s put ourselves in the position of that worker with one cookie for a second.
Two things are true in America:
the rich don’t pay taxes
benefits cost money
If the worker feels caught between those two things, he has to ask which he can change more easily. And clearly, denying benefits to the poor is easier than taxing the rich. In today’s climate, there is a “deny benefits to the poor” party that is very well mobilized and has delivered numerous victories. And where is the “tax the rich” option? Nowhere.
You vote left because you want the best for the general good of society, you vote right because you want what’s best for yourself, in particular.
Plenty of people also vote right based on hate and fear. They’ll vote against there own best interests because of hate and fear.
They vote right because cable news told them it’s best for themselves. It’s not.
You vote right because you want the people you don’t like to suffer.
I don’t believe this. People may have multiple agendas. They may hate foreigners or cultures, but people’s allegiances are always first and foremost to their own, to keep living in the most comfortable way they can with the lowest possible eftort. It’s kind of game theoretical in some sense.
Game theory occupies itself with the adversary roles of generosity (a moral principle) and calculation (a purely rational one), and in some way you could say that in a system which only allows one of two outcomes, a lot of assumptions are subsumed under those two separate outcomes.
What if Candidate A is for lower taxes, higher immigration and Candidate B is for higher taxes and lower immigration?
What if both candidates agree on lower taxes and lower immigration, but one of them also proposes reinstating slavery, and the other one wants none of it but instead mandatory abortions?
In a two party state you don’t get enough fine grained resolution to deal with problems that require any complexity beyond perfectly white and perfectly black.
I guess you missed the “He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting” thing the other year.
They’re not nice people. They will vote for the leopard and act surprised when it comes for them.
Maybe I’m overthinking it. Maybe they just dumb.
they are systemically undereducated and inundated with propaganda telling them that their problems stem not from the class war but from the culture war, which has long been a dogwhistle for the race war
The sad thing is, that’s not even true.
Most poor world be better off under left wing ideals, yet they vote right wing anyway because they’re scared that brown people will steal their crumbs.
(But actually that guy in the middle doesn’t just have this plate full of cookies. He owns a huge vessel full of cookies)
There’s a twisted sort of logic to this. Let’s put ourselves in the position of that worker with one cookie for a second.
Two things are true in America:
If the worker feels caught between those two things, he has to ask which he can change more easily. And clearly, denying benefits to the poor is easier than taxing the rich. In today’s climate, there is a “deny benefits to the poor” party that is very well mobilized and has delivered numerous victories. And where is the “tax the rich” option? Nowhere.
If this had a next image it would be the old rich guy stealing that last cookie while the other two fight.
There is a version going in this direction