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.
So you’re going to cherry pick what you argue against and the study? Ok let’s go.
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.
So this is talking about two groups of people. It’s saying research has overlooked that people who do collective action inevitably have to confront people who want to keep the status quo.
To keep it simple, I’ll call the people who want collective action Changers and the people who want the status quo Keepers.
When Changers want change they have to, inevitably deal with Keepers. And people haven’t studied that.
This is important because it provides CONTEXT!
So let’s look what’s next.
Using nationally representative data […], 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.
So to break it down, they are saying they are gonna study how the Keepers and Changers interact. They found that Keepers don’t like collective action that challenges the system, BUT are ok with collective action that supports the system. This is for people who are poor and not poor.
So, Keepers wanna keep. They might be fine with collective action as long as it doesn’t mess with the system as is.
Group identification, group-based injustice, group-based anger, and system-based dissatisfaction/anger mediated these relationships.
So there’s ways these two GROUPS OF PEOPLE can get together! From these things!
These findings […] explain[…] when people will act collectively to challenge—and, just as importantly, defend—the status quo.
So this study shows why people will band together as Changers and Keepers.
Neat!
Oh wait. There’s a problem.
NOTHING in this is about voting, nor is it about how we treat voting. It has NOTHING to do with people being compliant because they can vote. It’s a study of why people who want to change a system have to butt heads with people who want to keep a system. It does not have anything to do with turning Changers into Keepers, and you are, again, making an assumption that your theory is right and working backwards from there. You assume how we treat voting makes people comply, but this study doesn’t talk about that. It doesn’t talk about how system participation erodes desire to change it at all, just how Keepers and Changers butt heads and why.
So what I just said still stands.
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.
Are you going to ignore those points and hope I forget about them?
Face it cowbee you don’t have a leg to stand on here with your theory.
I’m just going to copy and paste where I already directly addressed your points at the bottom and related the study to my central point:
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.
Feel free to actually respond to my point this time.
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.
So you’re going to cherry pick what you argue against and the study? Ok let’s go.
So this is talking about two groups of people. It’s saying research has overlooked that people who do collective action inevitably have to confront people who want to keep the status quo.
To keep it simple, I’ll call the people who want collective action Changers and the people who want the status quo Keepers.
When Changers want change they have to, inevitably deal with Keepers. And people haven’t studied that.
This is important because it provides CONTEXT!
So let’s look what’s next.
So to break it down, they are saying they are gonna study how the Keepers and Changers interact. They found that Keepers don’t like collective action that challenges the system, BUT are ok with collective action that supports the system. This is for people who are poor and not poor.
So, Keepers wanna keep. They might be fine with collective action as long as it doesn’t mess with the system as is.
So there’s ways these two GROUPS OF PEOPLE can get together! From these things!
So this study shows why people will band together as Changers and Keepers.
Neat!
Oh wait. There’s a problem.
NOTHING in this is about voting, nor is it about how we treat voting. It has NOTHING to do with people being compliant because they can vote. It’s a study of why people who want to change a system have to butt heads with people who want to keep a system. It does not have anything to do with turning Changers into Keepers, and you are, again, making an assumption that your theory is right and working backwards from there. You assume how we treat voting makes people comply, but this study doesn’t talk about that. It doesn’t talk about how system participation erodes desire to change it at all, just how Keepers and Changers butt heads and why.
So what I just said still stands.
Are you going to ignore those points and hope I forget about them?
Face it cowbee you don’t have a leg to stand on here with your theory.
I’m just going to copy and paste where I already directly addressed your points at the bottom and related the study to my central point:
Feel free to actually respond to my point this time.