DomeGuy

joined 1 week ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

It's not really "established" becaue there isnt any formal body declaring what names different voting systems have.

Are you unclear about what recognition other demcracies give to parties, how there is no prize for 2nd place in America, or why that lack of such a prize gives rise to a two-party system?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 17 hours ago

The elecrelically semi-literate side, obviously.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

1: FPTP is a terrible term as its literally not an accurate way to describe a "single-vote plurality wins" systrm like most of the USA has. When you use the phrase to someone who doesn't already agree that there are better ways its just inaccurate enough to sabatoge any point you might make.

2: the UK and other parliamentary systems have embedded rewards just for being "a party". There are only two parties in the USA becaue parties on their own have institutional recognition, and in our politocal contests there is no prize for second place.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 20 hours ago (8 children)

I mean, isn't it a usb_c cable that the manufavtuer claims can handle 10 amps of current at once? (which i think may be on the low side)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

It's not a question of wanting competition or not. Political parties by nature will attempt to get as strong a coalition as they can, until they reach a size large enough that bisecting the party still leaves one half in power and some internal disagreememt triggers the split.

Fringe parties in America, like the Green and Libertarian parties, arent oppressed by some conspiracy between Rs and Ds. Rather, they are left at the fringe because they do not have any power worth pledging to, for the simple fact that in the american single-rep plurality-wins system tbere is no prize for second place.

Voters who like the current office holder work to keep them in power and those who do not work with the opposition to remove the incumbent from power. Anyone not joining one of these sides serves only as a tool for one side against the other, since anything but a vote for the runner up is an effective endorsrment of the eventual winner.

The American system is imperfect and could be a lot better, but fringe parties and vanity campaigns do nothing to actually encourage systemic change.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago

I think rhe voting age should be the lower of the minimum age to labor or the age of potential conscription less the age of the longest-term official whoss job includes sending people to war.

In the USA, that would put the voting age all the way down to 12. And having both been 12 myself once and having close family who were recently 12, I'm entirely OK with that.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 days ago (4 children)

"they" has always been proper, it just used to be incorrectly taught agaist like split infinitives and ending a sentence with a proposition.

Wikipedia dates its first usge as over 500 years ago, and complaints less than 300.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 days ago

Does this imply that the rapture won't happen on any day any man or angel predicted it, and suggest that these crackpots are either delivering a "no rapture today" message from the Lord Almighty or else embarrassing Her into putting it off?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Neither the image posted nor "dismantling the gender binary" are feminist. And while the latter seems a worthwhile cause that deserved its own name and slogans, the former is a piece of art which echos hateful stereotypes about men and thus causes some.very real revulsion from viewers outraged by those stereotypes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Maybe on your half. Like I said, I'm only here for grammar, rhetoric, and understanding.

I dont want to argue about whether or not the pain of children who happen to resemble the elite of the patriarchy is less urgent than the pain of children who do not. Both sides of that fight are very passionate and have good-sounding arguments and in other contexts I might argue either side.

Right now, here, in this thread, I just want to stand up for language and rhetoric and the need to be mindful that unspoken messages can still be heard and cause harm.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

There are plenty of white-appearing men who suffer oppression, just not from the civil society of the USA on account of their gender or apparent ancestry.

Plenty of "white men" are gay, trans, left-handed, Jewish, atheist, nearsigjted, handicapped, neurodivergent, or mentally ill. It is absolutely racist to assume that a "white man" is not oppressed just because they are white and a man.

(Unless of course you hold fast to Patricia Bidol-Padva's thesis, in which case it would merely be "racially prejudical.".)

(edit: wrote "autistic" twice and said sex when I meant gender.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (5 children)

The plane rules of rhetoric do not change simply because a thing is not oppression. I'm just a rando adding comment to down vote to express what I think was done wrong.

Thosen two quotes are an excellent example of my principle, actually. The second one when given as a response to the first carries all the factionalist racism and denial of your last line.

view more: next ›