southsamurai

We're kinda talking at cross purposes here.

I agree with you that the current goal has to be stopping the erosion of human and civil rights. It's more important in general, and to me personally, than my long term preferences regarding our government. I could wish it were otherwise, but as my mamaw used to say, if you wish in one hand and shit in the other, you'll only have to wash one of them.

I think every election matters, not just presidential ones. Every election is a chance at change for whatever the person thinks is better.

I just don't agree that voting should be mandatory, nor that everyone voting is better. An engaged, educated, and egalitarian population, I would absolutely want everyone voting. But we don't have that. For me, if a person isn't actually voting their conscience, and/or isn't willing to read for fifteen minutes, it's no better than rolling dice.

I don't particularly care if they're staying out of it from privilege, from apathy, from opposition to the system. It's their choice.

Besides, not voting is voting. It's saying "you guys decide". A non voter is voting for other people to handle things. That's a valid choice.

Dammit! It's like they keep passing go!

How do you determine when to call for proof or not?

It could have "during a discussion" at the end, with or without "online" as further clarification

I kinda assumed that it was either a language/translation issue, or trying to find the best way to express it due to some other difficulty.

Not that it matters really, but it does mean that it's difficult to be certain we're answering the right question

Nothing wrong there :)

Yeah, I said that incremental change is still an important thing, even if someone isn't actually supporting democrats. They might not achieve their goals in that election, but you get a chain of increasingly aligned presidents and senators, it achieves the same goal eventually. Or did my comment not post right? I'll check and make sure, then edit this if it didn't.

As far as someone that doesn't care being privileged, sure, whatever, that's one possibility. But, as I said in response to another comment, if they're in that state of privilege, why would we want them to vote? Are you assuming they'll vote the way you and I prefer? I'm not. Again, I'm repeating myself, but there are people that voted for trump the first time because they thought it was funny.

Humans are not exactly the smartest thing in the universe. We're prone to narcissism, apathy, and outright malice. If someone that's like that wants to stay home, I'm glad. I don't want some chowderhead twit voting for the laugh of it. I don't want people voting by flipping a coin. I don't want people deciding to vote against sanity just because they're contrarian jerks they get tired of being told they have to vote, and have to vote one particular way.

And you can't guarantee protest voters would vote the way you want. I know too many of them, I can promise you that just because they're left wing doesn't mean they'd vote democrat. Judge that as you will, but I'll be glad if they stay home.

I may be voting for what I see as the lesser evil, but I'm also going to be voting sane, and effectively.

So, they're supposed to vote for who?

You do realize there are people that genuinely don't care about presidential elections at all. They have no interest in politics, they just go about their lives and ignore anything like that.

Are they supposed to just flip that coin? I've known people that that is exactly how they would decide who to vote for if voting was mandatory. That seems a lot worse than abstaining.

Or are they supposed to vote for who they're told to vote for? Who are they supposed to listen to?

Privilege or not, there are people like that, and I frankly would rather them stay home than risk them voting "for the joke of it". And there were people that voted for trump for exactly that reason. They thought it would be hilarious.

That kind of person? If them not voting is selfish, I'm okay with that.

I can see him being cast as the immortal.

I'd rather we stage a revolution and do away with the current electoral system in favor of one that allows more than two viable parties.

But, yeah, if you actually care about the outcome, but can't find someone to vote for, there's still a point in voting against the worst case.

Also, I believe that not caring about the outcome is a valid stance. If you genuinely don't have any interest in it, don't have a firm opinion about the candidates, or whatever, it's fine to not vote. You'd essentially be flipping a coin anyway, so let the folks that care have their say instead.

It's also fine to abstain as protest if you really want to, though I'd still say that voting against the candidates least aligned with your conscience would be a better overall move towards the outcome you'd actually prefer. Incremental change is still change, no matter how small the increments.

Hmmm, I kinda agree this is an unpopular opinion to an extent.

I would, however, argue that it's relatively rather than objectivly unpopular, so expect a lot of disagreement.

I also kinda agree. Not for the way you said things (which never actually says why everyone should give her a listen, only general opinions about the recent album and her catalog), but I tend to be in favor of trying any major artist at least once, purely as a way of connecting to other people.

Music can bridge gaps. If there's millions of people into a given artist/band, there's a reason for that, even if it's something that you view as a negative. Sharing the experience, even if you don't enjoy it, at least gives you a chance to share something with others to a limited degree. That's always a good thing, and that's even for objectively bad music/art/literature.

I appreciate it.

And I mostly agree, it isn't really the same band. Can't say I object to the name staying the same since it was never "Chester's band, Linkin Park". It was a group effort, and as much as I love Chester, he was only part of what made them what they were.

As it stands now, there's only one member from the original linkin park lineup not involved, and it seems like he's just done with music entirely, at least as a performer.

If Shinoda had just hired on an entire new group, and used the name, I'd be annoyed. Wouldn't necessarily reject it, but wouldn't be standing in line for the new album either.

And it isn't like there isn't plenty of bands that have moved forward with a band after losing a vocalist, while keeping the original name.

But, yeah, I appreciate you taking the time to respond a lot. Thanks :)

This isn't a shower thought

"we keep people imprisoned and torture them routinely

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9qgq919yl5o

Anyone that does not immediately renounce the religion is no longer eligible for benefit of the doubt, even if they were raised in the religion, even if they tether reject part of the beliefs.

Hate to break it to you, but if scientology is doing this level of horror to people in the name of their beliefs, it hasn't made the news recently.

https://theconversation.com/violent-buddhist-extremists-are-targeting-muslims-in-sri-lanka-92951

Haven't seen any bombings by scientology yet, though I wouldn't be surprised.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-64658648

But, no true Christian would do such a thing.

If you're arguing that scientology is somehow worse than any of that, I would say malarkey.

As nasty as scientology can get, as much as they need to be shut down, they aren't even close you the kind of insanity of any of that.

I don't care what word you want to apply to it. Cult, religion, idgaf. Call it whatever you want. But whatever you want to label things, I object just as much to literal terrorism and murder, no matter who does it.

You know who hasn't done anything like any of this? Emily Armstrong. The worst thing she's done is show up in court with a bunch of other brainwashed members of the group. That's it.

If she is responsible for things she didn't do, just because someone in the same organization did them, then everyone is responsible for the acts of the worst of their organization.

Seriously, how does nobody have anything in the way of proof she did anything illegal, dangerous, or even bad? Everyone is all whiny about her still being associated with scientology, like she's some kind of ringleader instead of someone that's stuck just as much because "we keep people imprisoned and torture them routinely and steal all our members income while we take their children from them". If the cult is that bad, why is she expected to be the one to take a stand?

It's bullshit. And that's the point. I genuinely do not give a stinking shit what kind of semantics you want to fuck with. You do you, I'm done with that part of things because it has never been the point.

You got anything, any shred of proof that Emily Armstrong did any of the illegal acts that scientology has carried out? Because, again, I've gone looking, and there's jack shit online. If anything, she's just another victim of scientology via her parents. I get that the lady that masterson assaulted gets a pass for ranting at the wrong person. She gets that after what she went through. But nobody in this entire thread, nor in the YouTube comments, or on any of the social media platforms currently swamped by people that did not give a flying fuck about scientology two weeks ago have managed to dig up anything Armstrong has done other than sit in a courtroom.

That's it. That's her crime.