Yeah, when you argue like a weasel it’s easy to say your stance is different. If that wasn’t your stance, you wouldn’t have looked for evidence. You would’ve said right then it wasn’t your stance. Now that you don’t have evidence you’re trying to say your point was different.
Weird how your goalposts always seem to grow legs under scrutiny.
I’m not arguing like a weasel, I have a very specific point and you seem to despise that I have that point and not the strawman point you want me to have. The evidence I found supports my actual point, that those who believe in the legitimacy of change via a system do not feel pressured to organize against it. You keep trying to invent a point for me, and I have to bring you back to reality each time you do.
That’s not what that study was about, like I said.
You say that what I’m saying isn’t your point when I’m quoting you.
Here, I’ll even quote what you just said:
my actual point, that those who believe in the legitimacy of change via a system do not feel pressured to organize against it.
Which, to boil this down a bit, you believe organizing is good, as this leads to a communist revolution.
You believe voting causes people to organize less, because they will feel like they can change things within the system instead of organize, and then have a communist revolution.
Which means voting leads to less organizing.
Which to put into simple terms, as far as you’re concerned, voting bad. Hurts the revolution effort.
This assumes that dictatorships which don’t let people vote are somehow easier to have communists overthrow, and that it’s better to have an authoritarian government for the sake of the revolution. Because that’ll rile people up and make them more motivated to organize. It’s also assuming that, taking this high minded theory into the current situation, that all the trans people and brown skinned immigrants are acceptable losses while an authoritarian dictator takes over, so people will be more motivated to organize.
This also assumes that people who vote and participate within the system become less motivated for organizing, rather than more. People can start voting, then become more active locally, especially if they start seeing some of the problems within the system first-hand. People who don’t vote, who start voting, I would argue are much more likely to become informed about what’s happening politically, if even by the merit of looking at the ballot they would otherwise ignore.
That study does not prove otherwise, and states that people who are against the system will butt heads with people who want to maintain the system. That’s kinda it. It doesn’t say anything about voting, and certainly doesn’t say anything about people not feeling pressured to organize against a system.
So, again, your whole assumption that I’ll shorthand as “voting bad” is baseless, accelerationist, willing to throw minorites under the bus in the short term and probably long term, and disenfranchises people from what power they have over their government.
And hey, that was all from your quote right there, too.
You’re still lying about my point. I did not say voting hurts organizing. I said funneling people into voting as their primary mechanism for change hurts organizing. The act of voting does not harm, the funneling people into that as a primary means of engaging pollitically does. The study affirms this, by stating that legitimizing the system has a negative correlation with organizing against it.
my actual point, that those who believe in the legitimacy of change via a system do not feel pressured to organize against it.
Not one bit did I say “voting hurts organizing.” This is a lie.
Yes, when people treat voting as their primary means of political engagement, they check out. This does not mean “voting makes people check out.” It is not the act of voting, it’s the way voting is portrayed and treated. I have receipts too, they affirm what I have been stating this entire time. Engage with my actual point, rather than a strawman you concocted.
So if you think the way voting is treated it causes people to check out, my arguments still stand.
You have no proof of that.
That study clearly didn’t state the same thing you did.
Voting can actually get people more engaged with organizing than less.
Oh wait here’s a bonus, no one treats voting as the only means of engagement, much less the primary one. People talk about calling and writing to their reps, running for office, filing out positions, etc.
Watch we’ll get into a semantic debate about what you mean by “primary” next. Either as “the only way” or “the main way”, both of which can be argued against pretty easily.
Social identity, shared grievances, and group efficacy beliefs are well-known antecedents to collective action, but existing research overlooks the fact that collective action often involves a confrontation between those who are motivated to defend the status quo and those who seek to challenge it. Using nationally representative data from New Zealand (Study 1; N = 16,147) and a large online sample from the United States (Study 2; N = 1,513), we address this oversight and demonstrate that system justification is negatively associated with system-challenging collective action, but positively associated with system-supporting collective action, for members of both low-status and high-status groups. Group identification, group-based injustice, group-based anger, and system-based dissatisfaction/anger mediated these relationships. These findings constitute the first empirical integration of system justification theory into a model of collective action that explains when people will act collectively to challenge—and, just as importantly, defend—the status quo.
If someone believes elections are the primary mechanism of change, ie what makes the biggest impact on the direction a country goes in, then they are negatively correlated with organizing against the system. Why, after all, would someone organize to overthrow a system they believed can be reformed into a just system? Calling representatives and asking them nicely to stop bombing children overseas is still believing that change is something asked for from within the system, rather than demanded from outside in the form of general strikes, boycotts, up to and including revolution.
Even when you do quote me, you seem to have a habit of arguing against an entirely different point than the one you quoted.
Yeah, when you argue like a weasel it’s easy to say your stance is different. If that wasn’t your stance, you wouldn’t have looked for evidence. You would’ve said right then it wasn’t your stance. Now that you don’t have evidence you’re trying to say your point was different.
Weird how your goalposts always seem to grow legs under scrutiny.
I’m not arguing like a weasel, I have a very specific point and you seem to despise that I have that point and not the strawman point you want me to have. The evidence I found supports my actual point, that those who believe in the legitimacy of change via a system do not feel pressured to organize against it. You keep trying to invent a point for me, and I have to bring you back to reality each time you do.
That’s not what that study was about, like I said.
You say that what I’m saying isn’t your point when I’m quoting you.
Here, I’ll even quote what you just said:
Which, to boil this down a bit, you believe organizing is good, as this leads to a communist revolution.
You believe voting causes people to organize less, because they will feel like they can change things within the system instead of organize, and then have a communist revolution.
Which means voting leads to less organizing.
Which to put into simple terms, as far as you’re concerned, voting bad. Hurts the revolution effort.
This assumes that dictatorships which don’t let people vote are somehow easier to have communists overthrow, and that it’s better to have an authoritarian government for the sake of the revolution. Because that’ll rile people up and make them more motivated to organize. It’s also assuming that, taking this high minded theory into the current situation, that all the trans people and brown skinned immigrants are acceptable losses while an authoritarian dictator takes over, so people will be more motivated to organize.
This also assumes that people who vote and participate within the system become less motivated for organizing, rather than more. People can start voting, then become more active locally, especially if they start seeing some of the problems within the system first-hand. People who don’t vote, who start voting, I would argue are much more likely to become informed about what’s happening politically, if even by the merit of looking at the ballot they would otherwise ignore.
That study does not prove otherwise, and states that people who are against the system will butt heads with people who want to maintain the system. That’s kinda it. It doesn’t say anything about voting, and certainly doesn’t say anything about people not feeling pressured to organize against a system.
So, again, your whole assumption that I’ll shorthand as “voting bad” is baseless, accelerationist, willing to throw minorites under the bus in the short term and probably long term, and disenfranchises people from what power they have over their government.
And hey, that was all from your quote right there, too.
You’re still lying about my point. I did not say voting hurts organizing. I said funneling people into voting as their primary mechanism for change hurts organizing. The act of voting does not harm, the funneling people into that as a primary means of engaging pollitically does. The study affirms this, by stating that legitimizing the system has a negative correlation with organizing against it.
Not one bit did I say “voting hurts organizing.” This is a lie.
You were talking about organizing when you said people check out.
You said they literally check out of organizing.
Don’t accuse me of lying when I’ve got receipts.
Yes, when people treat voting as their primary means of political engagement, they check out. This does not mean “voting makes people check out.” It is not the act of voting, it’s the way voting is portrayed and treated. I have receipts too, they affirm what I have been stating this entire time. Engage with my actual point, rather than a strawman you concocted.
Uh huh, sure.
So if you think the way voting is treated it causes people to check out, my arguments still stand.
You have no proof of that.
That study clearly didn’t state the same thing you did.
Voting can actually get people more engaged with organizing than less.
Oh wait here’s a bonus, no one treats voting as the only means of engagement, much less the primary one. People talk about calling and writing to their reps, running for office, filing out positions, etc.
Watch we’ll get into a semantic debate about what you mean by “primary” next. Either as “the only way” or “the main way”, both of which can be argued against pretty easily.
Here’s the abstract:
If someone believes elections are the primary mechanism of change, ie what makes the biggest impact on the direction a country goes in, then they are negatively correlated with organizing against the system. Why, after all, would someone organize to overthrow a system they believed can be reformed into a just system? Calling representatives and asking them nicely to stop bombing children overseas is still believing that change is something asked for from within the system, rather than demanded from outside in the form of general strikes, boycotts, up to and including revolution.