no long ago my country got into a plebiscite, the 1% richer only needed to introduce fear using lies and falacies to break it down (owners of the newspaper). They told people this: with the new text anyone could lost his houses, it will change the flag, the national anthem and a lot of nonsense that never was written on the new text. Now almost sure we’re coming back to the old one. And yeah people tried to fight back the poison, but didn’t work.
Comment on I've been wondering for some time
CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Instead of subtly advocating for violence, maybe we should advocate for the election of persons who will make laws that will protect those who labor, as well as advocate for stronger unions.
I think the world has enough violence going on right now, that we don’t need to advocate for more.
underKap@lemm.ee 7 months ago
CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 7 months ago
no long ago my country got into a plebiscite,
May I ask which country?
underKap@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Chile, the long thin country of southamerica, (probably one of the “why didnt work”)
GardeningSadhu@lemm.ee 7 months ago
that’s not working out. time for a new plan… i’m not saying it has to be violence. and i’ll keep voting. But it’s getting to the point where just voting isn’t enough cause they keep changing the rules… again, doesn’t have to be violence. But i’m just saying, i don’t know what other option there is. Fuck the rich. I’m not gonna eat em, but i’ll be happy to watch others do it.
CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 7 months ago
that’s not working out. time for a new plan… i’m not saying it has to be violence. and i’ll keep voting. But it’s getting to the point where just voting isn’t enough cause they keep changing the rules… again, doesn’t have to be violence.
All shitposting aside, honestly what’s needed is for all of us ‘peasants’ to track the votes of each elected representative and then network together via the Internet whenever any of them are running for office; to compare notes. Something like an NRA rating system for gun owners, etc.
Because when it comes down to it, a lot of time people are either lazy or don’t have the time to properly investigate the people they’re voting for, and end up voting on a whim or a feeling.
Blackmist@feddit.uk 7 months ago
Most people seem to vote on “the other side is worse”. Elected officials are alright I guess, but it would be nice to be able to have your own say in complex issues you feel strongly about rather than letting some pampered career politician make decisions that will never effect them.
CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Elected officials are alright I guess, but it would be nice to be able to have your own say in complex issues you feel strongly about rather than letting some pampered career politician make decisions that will never effect them.
Fair enough. But if you feel they are ineffective and or pampered, then you vote them out.
If you can’t vote them out, if the majority is disagreeing with you, then you have to look into the reasons as to why.
Most people seem to vote on “the other side is worse”.
When you see them cutting funds on education, you have to think not just how that affects everyone in that moment, but what does that do to the next generation, when they grow up and become voters that just vote the other side is worse.
I truly get the frustration of feeling held hostage by the popular mindset, but we live in a society where we all get a voice, and I don’t think we have figured out a way of telling someone they’re being nonsensical with their vote and ask them to reconsider, without them getting emotional and overly combative about it. That’s a hard nut to crack.
And now these days we have to also fight bots and shills who are purposely being intellectually dishonest to sway thinking to shape a narrative that is positive to just their interests, and not to argue to a solution that is just for all.
Without truth, the center does not hold.
ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Community. Community is the word.