Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You’re smarter than this.

“It’s the best thing we’ve ever done.”

This is one of the funniest interviews I’ve seen: https://news.avclub.com/this-intervi...ful-1833715037

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Yes, and I know people like you want to equate my self interest to racism, but there are people of color in my state, so no.

I didn't say anything about racism, and since you live in a predictably blue state, the Electoral College is a bad deal for you.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Anyone who lives in a swing state should support the Electoral College, unless they have some commitment to democracy above and beyond their own immediate self-interest.

The electoral college makes sense if you have many regionally focused political parties (like in the mid-19th century) or very weak and fluid political parties (like in the early Republic). In a one-against-one system with established parties, which is what you breed when requiring a majority to win election to any position and what we have had since the end of the civil war, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I know you think this is clever but it illustrates why anyone not living in Tx/NY/CA who is against the electoral college is crazy.

Why? Do you think a state like Massachusetts or Michigan has more in common with Kansas and Wyoming or California and NY? What do you think the electoral college does to make it better? How has that worked out?

[Icky Thump]

I’m trying to understand this.

You write someone with a rather specific question about a time-sensitive question, eg, impending dispositive motion. They respond with a question about something unrelated.

Too often to be random. Please explain.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

I’m trying to understand this.

You write someone with a rather specific question about a time-sensitive question, eg, impending dispositive motion. They respond with a question about something unrelated.

Too often to be random. Please explain.

Power move: "I don't need to deal with your issue. Here's mine."

Weak move: "I want to ignore this email, but I feel like I need to reply with something. Maybe if I shift the focus, the thing I don't want to address will go away."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Anyone who lives in a swing state should support the Electoral College, unless they have some commitment to democracy above and beyond their own immediate self-interest.

A pure democracy has a short shelf life.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Power move: "I don't need to deal with your issue. Here's mine."

Weak move: "I want to ignore this email, but I feel like I need to reply with something. Maybe if I shift the focus, the thing I don't want to address will go away."

Yeah. I responded with an obnoxious vacation announcement.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Yes, and I know people like you want to equate my self interest to racism, but there are people of color in my state, so no.

Idk where racism entered this discussion (Ty didn't mention it), but if Ty is suggesting people should put the interests of "democracy" above their own self-interest, I'd say he's stretching the definition of naivete to a point where we're going to need a new term.

Self-interest makes the world go round. Sometimes, it becomes too extreme and it needs to be tempered. But the suggestion one must choose between the doing what's right for "democracy" and what's right for himself is both silly and false. These aren't mutually exclusive all the time, and nobody's going to agree to live under the rules of majority unless those rules benefit him.

The thinking behind majority rule is that most people will get what they want. And what do they want? What's in their self interest.

I think it was de Tocqueville who noted even a democratic republic like ours would only survive until people voting themselves benefits from the treasury had done so for a sustained period of time.

(Don't write some dumb response blaming this all on one party, Ty. That's a dullard's discussion.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You’re smarter than this.

This whole wolf and sheep device is dipshittery.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Power move: "I don't need to deal with your issue. Here's mine."

Weak move: "I want to ignore this email, but I feel like I need to reply with something. Maybe if I shift the focus, the thing I don't want to address will go away."

Is it someone older? They may be using the email as a way to say something, anything, back to the person, like a slower text message where the subject line doesn't matter.

I used to work with a partner who would send me email and then come down the hall to see if I got them.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Yeah. I responded with an obnoxious vacation announcement.

I still call people about stuff. I text re: scheduling meetings, and I'll reply to email if it's something that can be addressed concisely. But on substance, I like to change my mind, or think through a situation as I'm discussing it. Sometimes you call with one idea and realize as a result of the call that another idea is better.

I think some people these days view being called as rude. They're either young and can't hold a useful conversation, or they want to frame the matter at hand as they want it framed.

Fuck you. We'll frame it cooperatively, fairly, and constructively. As polite adults should do.

I do miss the days of working in a larger organization sometimes. Among the amusing moments was walking down to someone's office to reply to a CYA email that framed an issue in a self-serving manner.

"Did you get my email?"

"That's why I'm here. To respond to it in person."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Idk where racism entered this discussion (Ty didn't mention it), but if Ty is suggesting people should put the interests of "democracy" above their own self-interest, I'd say he's stretching the definition of naivete to a point where we're going to need a new term.

Self-interest makes the world go round. Sometimes, it becomes too extreme and it needs to be tempered. But the suggestion one must choose between the doing what's right for "democracy" and what's right for himself is both silly and false. These aren't mutually exclusive all the time, and nobody's going to agree to live under the rules of majority unless those rules benefit him.

The thinking behind majority rule is that most people will get what they want. And what do they want? What's in their self interest.

I think it was de Tocqueville who noted even a democratic republic like ours would only survive until people voting themselves benefits from the treasury had done so for a sustained period of time.

(Don't write some dumb response blaming this all on one party, Ty. That's a dullard's discussion.)

We have a default rule that doesn't make sense, and it remains the default rule because inertia is a powerful thing. Obviously, the Electoral College is good for the few swing states and bad for the rest. No need to pretend there's some principle justifying it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Is it someone older? They may be using the email as a way to say something, anything, back to the person, like a slower text message where the subject line doesn't matter.

I used to work with a partner who would send me email and then come down the hall to see if I got them.

I think you're correct that they're trying to say anything. Anything but what's been asked.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

We have a default rule that doesn't make sense, and it remains the default rule because inertia is a powerful thing. Obviously, the Electoral College is good for the few swing states and bad for the rest. No need to pretend there's some principle justifying it.

There's a huge principle justifying it. The country would collapse if we allowed a few states to control everything.

You can't give people the right to vote for what they want because they'll just keep voting for more and more things that benefit them. Exhibit A on this issue is the corporate control of our economy. The rich get whatever they want, everybody else gets scraps. If we gave NY and CA control of the country, we'd see this reversed. Regular people would vote themselves all sorts of benefits.