Wide partisan divide on whether voting is a right or a privilege

[BronzeCondor]

You keep saying "Marxist" like it's a dirty word, or in any way raises any kinds of warnings signs.

It doesn't.

Marxist criticism, by way of example, has been a major component of literary studies for more than a century, and it isn't going anywhere just because a handful of reactionaries kneejerk themselves in the face whenever they hear Marx' name.

Getting upset over Marxist analysis is just McCarthyist nonsense, and that any of that made it out of the '50s intact is fuckin' ridiculous. McCarthy was a bigoted moron.

Up next; people getting all flustered because someone said "niggardly".

Marxism wouldn't be so bad if socio-political leaders didn't weaponize it to prey on the gullible with false promises in order to gain power.

Until the susceptibility for corruption gets purged from the human condition, it will forever be a vessel to usher in an authoritarian government.

These people on the ground who believe they are fighting for progressive reform are being lied to by wealthy and powerful individuals (Hollywood, Politicians) who also seek to use them as a means to an end. Such is the way of the world, and has been since the inception of man.

As such, I will continue to oppose it wherever possible.

[Endus]

Marxism wouldn't be so bad if socio-political leaders didn't weaponize it to prey on the gullible with false promises in order to gain power.

See, this is the problem. You seemingly have no idea whatsoever the wide swath of ideas that stem from Marx. You're focusing entirely on what he wrote in The Communist Manifesto, which A> was really early in Marx' career, and B> was a frickin' pamphlet. It's not even a proper essay, let alone a full book of analysis and theory.

Case in point; I pointed to Marxist literary criticism, and you went right back to politics, because you apparently cannot grasp the idea that Marxist thought goes way beyond the merely political.

All you're doing is demonstrating you've never read Marx, have no idea what Marx wrote, and have no understanding of what Marxism even is. At any level.

It's like claiming you hate Star Wars because you want action and drama and spectacle, and all Star Wars has is a two minute text crawl. It's that level of "what the hell are you even talking about".

[uuuhname]

Marxism wouldn't be so bad if socio-political leaders didn't weaponize it to prey on the gullible with false promises in order to gain power.

dude you literally described every political ideology to ever exist.

As such, I will continue to oppose it wherever possible.

so to hell with worker's rights, got it.

[Rennadrel]

Voting is without question the right of any citizen of a nation that believes in democracy. With that said though, why is there this constant fighting over voter ID laws? It must be an American thing because we certainly don't have issues with people not being able to vote due to a lack of accepted forms of ID in both federal, provincial and municipal elections. If I recall correctly, there's about 20 different forms of identification that one can use to vote here, everything from bog standard drivers licenses to health cards, boating licenses, hell even a banking form like a direct deposit slip can be used since it has your name and address on it. The whole concept of illegal voters and voting fraud seems foreign to me, but I can understand it being an issue in a nation that has a lot of undocumented immigrants. That said, I do think the Republicans are making a way bigger deal over it than is necessary since there's not near enough information to even prove that it's having an impact on elections.

[Endus]

so to hell with worker's rights, got it.

Like, seriously.

Worker's rights? Marxism.
Evaluating fiction based on the author's time period and social position? Marxism.
An understanding of history based on material conditions? Marxism.

Like, if you have every studied any of these fields;
Anthropology
Art Theory
Criminology
Economics
Education
Ethics
Film Theory
Geography
Historiography
Literary Criticism
Media Studies
Philosophy
Political Science
Psychology
Sociology
Urban Planning

Then Marxism is absolutely integral to their modern understanding. And if you reject anything described as "Marxist", you're gonna have to reject basically the last century and a half of development of all those fields of study. And others. That's not a complete list.

Anyone who hears "Marxism" and thinks "authoritarian communism" does not understand Marx, not even his political revolutionary works, let alone any of his much-more-developed writing. Even the Communist Manifesto itself isn't authoritarian; it's wildly and vehemently anti-authoritarian. The whole thing was a rejection and snub of the authoritarian powers that ruled Europe at the time. You can't even get through the Preamble before that's laid out clearly.

[Sunseeker]

This may shock some people here, but I can actually understand you when you call it a right, a privilege, a responsibility, and a duty, without feeling the need to argue you out of stating any of the four. And I can extend those senses of the word to *gasp* respondents to a poll.

Maybe, but the fundamental difference here is that people who believe it is a fundamental right think of voting as something that can never be taken away. To them, voting is like breathing.

But people who think of it as a privilege think it is not something that could be taken away, say, by a foreign enemy, but that it is something the nation should actively restrict "certain people" from participating in. To some it's the poor, to others it's leftists, to others it's criminals, to a lot it's young people. A fundamental aspect of their ideology is founded on the idea that "Some people shouldn't be allowed to participate."

I've engaged with enough "It's a Republic, not a Democracy!" sort of people to understand that many people simply don't believe that voting is a fundamental right. And they cannot understand or in more extreme cases, will not tolerate the idea that we're a Democratic Federalized Republic, or any subtlety to such arguments. To them America can only be one thing, and that one thing does not include an equal right to participate.

[Specialka]

It's not cringe, we have present day & historical examples to show why it's important (Venezuela being a more recent victim) to allow citizens unrestricted firearms. The more a country moves away from individual citizens being able to protect themselves (as well as losing the right to vote), the more it moves towards a dictatorship.

Your comments regarding standing up to the US military are from an ill-informed perspective. A military functions on logistic capability and firepower. If you disrupt the logistical capability to wage war, which is a paramount objective in any war, then you disrupt their means to deliver firepower. This is heavily inclusive of fuel & supply shipments. US citizens own businesses that service the US military, if those citizens decide to stop supporting the US military, the logistical infrastructure for the military begins to decay. If you begin cutting off resources, like fuel, food, & potable water to the US military, it will decay.

Aside from that very important point, those who don't want to live under a tyrannical government will fight, even giving their life, to protect their freedom. That kind of dedication is one of the very things that makes America so great.

I guess France is a dictatorship then ? Because we have a very strict firearm regulation.

[tehdang]

Maybe, but the fundamental difference here is that people who believe it is a fundamental right think of voting as something that can never be taken away. To them, voting is like breathing.

But people who think of it as a privilege think it is not something that could be taken away, say, by a foreign enemy, but that it is something the nation should actively restrict "certain people" from participating in. To some it's the poor, to others it's leftists, to others it's criminals, to a lot it's young people. A fundamental aspect of their ideology is founded on the idea that "Some people shouldn't be allowed to participate."

I've engaged with enough "It's a Republic, not a Democracy!" sort of people to understand that many people simply don't believe that voting is a fundamental right. And they cannot understand or in more extreme cases, will not tolerate the idea that we're a Democratic Federalized Republic, or any subtlety to such arguments. To them America can only be one thing, and that one thing does not include an equal right to participate.

I’d have to see some polling that looks into why people stray from fundamental right or privilege. For all I know, the partisan lines are around what “malign hyperpartisans from the other side” will do with the language once you sign onto it. “No restrictions” can be used as a weapon to flog people for allegedly being anti-democracy, and maybe that makes people recoil from “fundamental right.” And, like you sort of represent, the idea of privilege in some peoples minds makes people think of rank disenfranchisement and nothing else.

A better designed poll with more probing questions would elucidate the divisions. Usually, the internet exaggerates how many people fit into two camps with at least one being well-defined and otherized.

[Sunseeker]

I’d have to see some polling that looks into why people stray from fundamental right or privilege. For all I know, the partisan lines are around what “malign hyperpartisans from the other side” will do with the language once you sign onto it. “No restrictions” can be used as a weapon to flog people for allegedly being anti-democracy, and maybe that makes people recoil from “fundamental right.” And, like you sort of represent, the idea of privilege in some peoples minds makes people think of rank disenfranchisement and nothing else.

A better designed poll with more probing questions would elucidate the divisions. Usually, the internet exaggerates how many people fit into two camps with at least one being well-defined and otherized.

I can only speak from what I've studied and experienced but the numbers displayed in the poll are not uncommon.

It would be helpful if the poll clarified by defining the difference between "right" and "privilege" for the viewer, but I suspect the inherent mindset and internal definition of "right" vs "privilege" is not so varied between the two camps as to make this necessary. The same folks who think voting is a privilege will tell you gun ownership is a fundamental right. As the their counterparts will say the opposite. The understanding of the difference is clearly there.

I think the poll is clear enough, and the results are not unusual and I don't think "more probing" questions would add much.

[Theodarzna]

JD Vance takes aim at culture wars, childless politicians

"When you go to the polls in this country as a parent, you should have more power, you should have more of an ability to speak your voice in our Democratic republic, than people who don't have kids," he said. "Let's face the consequences and the reality; if you don't have as much of an investment in the future of this country, maybe you shouldn't get nearly the same voice."

(source)

Why not give greater votes to people with a stake in the future? Heck this would do a lot to empower PoC especially.

Then again, does voting matter when your choices are "flavor of Neo-Liberalism" and nothing else. Voting being a right or a privilege is immaterial if you cannot practically vote for anything other than what the wealthy and powerful already wanted to do.

[BronzeCondor]

See, this is the problem. You seemingly have no idea whatsoever the wide swath of ideas that stem from Marx. You're focusing entirely on what he wrote in The Communist Manifesto, which A> was really early in Marx' career, and B> was a frickin' pamphlet. It's not even a proper essay, let alone a full book of analysis and theory.

Case in point; I pointed to Marxist literary criticism, and you went right back to politics, because you apparently cannot grasp the idea that Marxist thought goes way beyond the merely political.

All you're doing is demonstrating you've never read Marx, have no idea what Marx wrote, and have no understanding of what Marxism even is. At any level.

It's like claiming you hate Star Wars because you want action and drama and spectacle, and all Star Wars has is a two minute text crawl. It's that level of "what the hell are you even talking about".

What is Marxism beyond looking at the oppressed vs the unoppressed? It's not as complicated as you make it out to be. It's through that lens that Marxism attempts to transform society.

- - - Updated - - -

dude you literally described every political ideology to ever exist.

so to hell with worker's rights, got it.

You're completely right - that describes every socio-political ideology that ever existed.

It's important for those who are allured by the influence of anything socio-political to have a full understanding of why it's attractive, what the historical similarities are, and who is ultimately responsible for guiding it at the top.

Marxism never works out in favor of the common man because people fail to read or understand history. It is the free candy from dictators so that you get in their van. Using a ground up approach to indoctrinate individuals (like Endus) in an attempt to gain a mainstream acceptance is dangerous. These people have no respect for history, or reality.

[Huehuecoyotl]

JD Vance takes aim at culture wars, childless politicians


(source)

Why not give greater votes to people with a stake in the future? Heck this would do a lot to empower PoC especially.

Then again, does voting matter when your choices are "flavor of Neo-Liberalism" and nothing else. Voting being a right or a privilege is immaterial if you cannot practically vote for anything other than what the wealthy and powerful already wanted to do.

If you want to go down this route, then greater weight should be given to the votes of the young. They're the ones who are going to live in the future for longer, after all.

Stop all those old "naturally conservative" people having their votes count for so much. But of course they wouldn't want that to happen, so instead they suggest their votes should be worth even MORE, because they have children. Fucking nonsense.

[tehdang]

I can only speak from what I've studied and experienced but the numbers displayed in the poll are not uncommon.

It would be helpful if the poll clarified by defining the difference between "right" and "privilege" for the viewer, but I suspect the inherent mindset and internal definition of "right" vs "privilege" is not so varied between the two camps as to make this necessary. The same folks who think voting is a privilege will tell you gun ownership is a fundamental right. As the their counterparts will say the opposite. The understanding of the difference is clearly there.

I think the poll is clear enough, and the results are not unusual and I don't think "more probing" questions would add much.

Fair enough in terms of perspective.

- - - Updated - - -

JD Vance takes aim at culture wars, childless politicians


(source)

Why not give greater votes to people with a stake in the future? Heck this would do a lot to empower PoC especially.

Then again, does voting matter when your choices are "flavor of Neo-Liberalism" and nothing else. Voting being a right or a privilege is immaterial if you cannot practically vote for anything other than what the wealthy and powerful already wanted to do.

He's not that good at articulating the point.

I'd say only look at a childless, rich politician, and if you think they're policies are short sighted, put a little more stock in that apprehension.

[Endus]

What is Marxism beyond looking at the oppressed vs the unoppressed? It's not as complicated as you make it out to be. It's through that lens that Marxism attempts to transform society.

Jesus Christ.

You literally do not understand even the very basic principles of Marxism, and yet you claim to oppose it. You have literally no idea what you're talking about.

Just as a big hint; the majority of Marxist philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with "transforming society". If that's all you're thinking it is, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

There's your Basics 101 introduction.

Marxism never works out in favor of the common man because people fail to read or understand history. It is the free candy from dictators so that you get in their van. Using a ground up approach to indoctrinate individuals (like Endus) in an attempt to gain a mainstream acceptance is dangerous. These people have no respect for history, or reality.

The idea that I'm the one "indoctrinated", even though I am not a Marxist and have never claimed to be a Marxist, as opposed to you, who has clearly never read anything by any Marxist author, let alone Marx himself, but feel completely confident in claiming to understand the full swath of Marxist thinking, is frankly just funny.

Marxism was not about dictatorships. The only way you could be drawing that ridiculous conclusion is by swallowing 70-year-old anti-Soviet propaganda without any critical thought or analysis.

I'm a history grad. History's one of my major fields. Your issue with me, you'll find, is that I'm generally too well read for simple bullshitting about nonsense propaganda to have any effect on me whatsoever.

You can't source any of the garbage you're posting, because you're wrong, and no reputable source would back you on any of this.

[uuuhname]

Marxism never works out in favor of the common man because people fail to read or understand history. It is the free candy from dictators so that you get in their van. Using a ground up approach to indoctrinate individuals (like Endus) in an attempt to gain a mainstream acceptance is dangerous. These people have no respect for history, or reality.

I sincerely doubt you know what Marxist socialism is. none of the people who say this crap have ever read anything about it besides what some talking head on Fox News says. you just fear the idea of working class people having any sort of leverage over their business owning overlords, change my mind.

[Shadowferal]

Pretty sure that "condor" is just one of those libertarian apologists.

[Jastall]

JD Vance takes aim at culture wars, childless politicians


(source)

Why not give greater votes to people with a stake in the future? Heck this would do a lot to empower PoC especially.

Then again, does voting matter when your choices are "flavor of Neo-Liberalism" and nothing else. Voting being a right or a privilege is immaterial if you cannot practically vote for anything other than what the wealthy and powerful already wanted to do.

What an excellent idea! Then the young should also get a bigger voice. More years to live, more future to worry about, more shares!

Oh, and the rich, too. They have more to lose, more literal investments in society's future and continuation. Bigly votes for them as well, leggo. I'm sure we can think of more categories of truly deserving people who need to be given natural authority over their inferiors.

Furthermore, to honor America's history as well the sort of idea you have, let's make the unworthy's votes only count for 3/5th of a superior specimen's vote. T'is only fitting after all.

[Elegiac]

Why not give greater votes to people with a stake in the future?

The fact that you think this is an argument for making your vote count more rather than extending the franchise downwards is hilarious.

Naked self-interest is naked. What's next, arguing that rich people need more of a voice because "they're more invested in the health of society and the economy"?

- - - Updated - - -

What is Marxism beyond looking at the oppressed vs the unoppressed?

You can just say you didn't pay attention at school, bruh.

Marxism never works out in favor of the common man because people fail to read or understand history. It is the free candy from dictators so that you get in their van.

Claiming that all public assistance is an authoritarian trap is as stupid as claiming that all anti-smoking legislation is bad because the Nazis also hated smoking, speaking of failing to pay attention in history.

[Theodarzna]

He's not that good at articulating the point.

I'd say only look at a childless, rich politician, and if you think they're policies are short sighted, put a little more stock in that apprehension.

Given how they govern, it does seem like letting society be ruled by people with zero stake in the future isn't a good plan. Plus if you want to empower say minority voters, especially Hispanic and Black voters, this would be one way to help ensure marginalized voices get heard even louder.

- - - Updated - - -

What an excellent idea! Then the young should also get a bigger voice. More years to live, more future to worry about, more shares!

Oh, and the rich, too. They have more to lose, more literal investments in society's future and continuation. Bigly votes for them as well, leggo. I'm sure we can think of more categories of truly deserving people who need to be given natural authority over their inferiors.

Furthermore, to honor America's history as well the sort of idea you have, let's make the unworthy's votes only count for 3/5th of a superior specimen's vote. T'is only fitting after all.

I mean I'm okay with a system that empowers Hispanic and Black voters to have a much stronger voice.

[jonnysensible]

Given how they govern, it does seem like letting society be ruled by people with zero stake in the future isn't a good plan. Plus if you want to empower say minority voters, especially Hispanic and Black voters, this would be one way to help ensure marginalized voices get heard even louder.

- - - Updated - - -



I mean I'm okay with a system that empowers Hispanic and Black voters to have a much stronger voice.

lol this is concern trolling.

One person, one vote. Doesn't matter if you are 18 or 80.