Stay informed on breaking news and access diverse perspectives all in one place by subscribing through the link ground.news/wisecrack to get 40% off unlimited access this month with the Vantage Plan.
I HIGHLY recommend watching Beau of the Fifth Column, and his video on the BS media is pulling on Biden to get him to drop out. He has been this way for DECADES, but SUDDENLY it can be used to run an easy ageist story, rather than doing actual journalism, and they do that instead of their jobs. Biden will be fine as president.
@@njdardait shows a lack of credibility. The author believes those 3 should be the protected groups but they included the rest to try to gain sympathy and solidarity from the progressive groups.
For me personally, the big flaw in Žižek's argument is that in the current state of US politics, the empty space has already been primarily taken up by Christian Nationalism. Not voting isn't opening up a synthesis for the left to move forward on, it's just abdication.
@@Krombopulos In American politics, voting is less about promoting your side and more about stopping the other side. For the left, voting becomes about stopping Christian Nationalism since it struggles to promote their policies and positions.
@@Fringe31422auThe big issue in American politics is that the left has a wide range of issues that different people focus on like; education, health care, worker's rights, environmental concerns and social security. Whereas the right has two; how do I get more money and why is the government trying to stop me owning slaves.
@@Fringe31422au Leftist policies are overwhelmingly popular among Americans. The issue is that there are no candidates who actually push through leftist policy once elected. So for the right, it's all about electing people who represent what they want, and for the left, it's all about choosing the candidate that opposes the largest number of policies you don't want knowing full well that they'll never actually put forth anything you do want.
As a Black Man, I don’t hate anyone at all, but I know the country isn’t really built for me. I’m not offended, I just want a little piece of the pie for me and my family. Voting helps on a small level. 🤷🏾♂️
Blacks built this country. There's no good reason for the way they're treated and it should be different. I wouldn't have said anything but this far down the shit pipe voting doesn't matter... If it did wouldn't we have better "representatives" to vote for?
21:00 shoutout to the me and my college roommates 10 years ago who never talked about anyone never doing chores until cockroaches appeared and then continuing to not talk about that. I didn't know that level of passive-aggressiveness could exist, but damn I felt it.
As an Australian living with compulsary voting, I can say it's one of (if not the most) important reasons why our politics has stayed relatively even keeled over the years. That and having the ABS organise electoral boundaries in a scientific, completely non-partisan manner. Voluntary voting is completely nuts when you think about it - causes only the most extreme talking points to gain primacy and incentivises the worst elements in society as well. Little wonder America is descending into a polarised hellhole (politically speaking),
Couldn't agree more. Our media is almost as batshit as the US but because of compulsory voting, preferential voting, the AEC, and not letting states decide how voting works or who can, etc, we are holding much stonger. But our system is very new and unique. We learnt from eveyone else's mistakes.
There are like ten REALLY good amendments we could make to how our democracy works, and that’s one of them. Ranked-choice voting is another. If implemented any one of these changes would RADICALLY improve our discourse, increase faith in the government, and maybe give us a chance of actually getting policy that helps people and the planet. However this country is really just ten corporations in a trench coat at this point, and they hold all the power and KNOW these things would help the people and hurt their profits, so it’s pretty much impossible to fight them and get any of those changes implemented.
@@farmpunk_dan ten corporations seems a little much, don't you think? also, masybe it's my hatred for australians but i don't think i'd want anything australian when there are plenty of better solutions in european discourse.
@@farmpunk_dan Agree on ranked choice voting. We've had it in Aus for a long time, and it's led to a healthier democracy. I'd be interested to see what would happen to US parties if it was introduced. I'd expect the Republican party to split off into a mainstream conservative party and a MAGA party, and for some of the leftist Democrats to split off into a Greens party.
Library cards are free and give you more access to things than you think.. it also helps them justify funding for the community when they can show how much community spaces are used..they even stream audiobooks/digital books/digital comics and manga/shows/movies
We love the library so much. If anyone reading this doesn't have a library card, go get one! And if you haven't checked out your library system's audiobook and streaming options - do it!
That's why voting is absolutely not the end be all of civic engagement, although it is essential and vital. We need to set up communities and electoral systems that people feel they can engage with and make a difference.
BRB writing the next big romance novel based on the plot Michael came up with. Will list you as a co-author. Will call it “A Candidate for Love” or “Red, White, and You” or “Running Mates” or “Heart-shaped Ballot Box” or something
*Voting is like washing your hands;* its the least you can do, its common sense, its harm reduction, its preparation for the real work to be done. You do it and move-on to bigger better and more effective and important things like community building, community education, helping people, community gardens, outreach, medical or other material assistance etc. *We think and talk too much about voting, when we do, we don't vote enough, and never do the daily work afterwards.*
Well. I think the majority of people think like you do and because of that people like me that don’t live in swing states can vote for third parties because we already know our state has been already decided. So…thanks.
@@1massboy Not living in a swing state doesn't mean you don't have the obligation to build local things and join other movements and take part in state politics beyond voting for stuff etc. Where else is the change supposed to come from? "Oh I live in a deep red/blue state" isn't the 'get of doing the work' card you seem to think it is
@@satyasyasatyasya5746 I think you misunderstand me. I’m actively trying to build a green party within my state. It is an alternative to the Democratic Party, which I feel is corrupt. On top of that considering of where I live is a solidly blue state I can vote for the green party at the federal level in order to help them get 5% to help the green party receive matching federal funds. That means unlike a lot of other people I’m willing to vote for green party candidates when available at the local level and on the rare occasion of showing up on a level ballot. By the way, just to mention to you. That a lot of voters really don’t show up for their local level elections nor do a lot show up for their state level elections. So the people that are on your side of the issue are not building what needs to be built. Every two years is not enough.
I'm personally a "Vote - or don't" type of person. I won't convince a non-voter to vote and a voter to not vote and I see this type of convincing work as utterly pointless given how little effort a vote needs (i.e. if a person is convinced to not vote, even though it is effortless to do, then their aversion to it is stronger than my conviction). I would rather go the longer, more fruitful journey of convincing people to get out there and build resilient communities. I share your sentiment in a way, then, but I always have this bad taste in my mouth saying "Vote like it's washing your hands and get out there and do the important work every day after", because, just as Michael pointed out, so many people assign so much moral value to voting that even me telling them to vote just to wash their hands justifies their learned moral preconceptions of voting. It's like they don't want to listen to the second part if they don't have to. So I resort to not discuss voting but instead just say "Do the important work, build resilient communities and build grassroots politics together". I dont want to yield to their moral cushiness.
@@caesurios949 You kinda defeat your own point here. That it takes such little effort is why not voting is silly. Because its asking so little of someone. But people act like its some burden. And would you rather be trying to build communities under Dems or the GOP, because one while not ideal, is much easier than the other, in fact, the other will actively try to stop you. This live and let live approach is self defeating. You have to make the effort to get people voting. It is the least they can do, the least you can do to help them on their way to doing more. I'm not even arguing for this on moral grounds, the washing hands metaphor is rooted in practical, material issues, such as before you start cooking or before a surgeon performs an operation. It takes little effort, you could skip it, but you're not helping yourself and you may be harming others, by not doing it. It is outside your 'preferences/whims' as it were.
I think the discourse over "should you vote, should you not" is less important than the question "what are you doing the rest of the election cycle to change things?" As a country, Americans attribute most of their ability to change things via the voting process because that's where radical and revolutionary sentiment has been siphoned off. We have the power to strike, to protest, to boycott, community action, and if all else fails, to riot. A lot of this discourse frustrates me because it reduces voting to a binary of yes or no, as opposed to a yes, no, or AND. Vote, AND attend city council meetings. Vote AND make a neighborhood watch to replace policing in your area. Vote AND volunteer, do praxis, make social connections and community etc.
@franjkav sure, agreed! Just wish Wisecrack would cover some Howard Zinn, because I know People's History isn't exactly in the philosophy wheelhouse they operate in, but I would love to see their take on the direct action of the labor movement in the Pre-Civil War period and Great Depression. That's what inspires me to try to enact change.
But see, even if people feel change is impossible and they do not feel empowered, the only way change can occur is if people act as if it IS possible. Doomerism and other “there’s no point” attitudes are sometimes accurate. But any time we collectively take those attitudes, it’s always how things turn out. It’s only when we act as if if change is possible that change becomes possible.
@SageWon-1aussie I've seen those events too. But that's the thing, it's not a fight you win or lose, it's one that needs fighting every day, every generation. Just because there have been setbacks (Anti-Union movement prior to the Civil War, the Red Scare part 1 and 2, COINTELPRO, Occupy Wallstreet, BLM movement), we've had a lot of setbacks, but with every setback we have won some ground or learned a lesson, gained leaders, gained experience.
The also rolled my eyes he mentioned Entrepreneurs, Venture Capitalist, Venture Capitalists, and Stock Trade being part of virtue of voting. I mean c'mon dude they hardly care for democracy.
What's wrong with them? People regularly say how small business owners are the back bone of the country and how its important and great to invest if you want to increase your capital (Warren Buffet, etc)
@@TheManinBlack9054 Because there are no small businesses anymore because of Wall Street! The only people who benefit from stocks are the rich, that's a fact! They post record profits while laying people off and lowering pay and fighting unions! No, fuck any business or company!
The biggest problem with voting for President in the United States is the electoral college. As a leftist living in Utah my vote for President means absolutely nothing. The other more local races matter but not who I want for President.
Sooooo you want major cities in America, majority democrats to control elections...being a leftist i understand why 😂😂😂..sorry not how that works snd never will
It's like California..it probably won't brake dem for a very long time because southern California controls elections (high population, majority left). while northern California, mostly red will never have much of a say ..and that's working really well😂😂
The video dives into the complexities and ethics of voting, but it misses a crucial point: the political system is far more intricate and controlled than most people realize. Voting often acts as a facade, giving us the illusion of influence when, in reality, the major parties and their backers hold the true power. They choose candidates who are more beholden to the party and its powers than to their constituents. The absurdity we see in political theatrics is a manifestation of this deeper issue. We're often unaware of the extent to which our political engagement is shaped by forces beyond our control, perpetuating a system that prioritizes profit and power over genuine democracy. Recognizing and addressing these underlying dynamics is essential for meaningful change.
@@SJ-ku7hk Campaign spending sustains the illusion of choice and public engagement in democracy. While it appears aimed at winning voter favor, real influence often comes from behind-the-scenes deals and contributions from powerful interests. These campaigns promote the narrative that every vote counts and the public's voice matters, even as the system favors elite interests. People act within this narrative because they believe in it.
@@SJ-ku7hk I would counter that every vote does matter presently, but per his original point, multimillion-dollar campaigns are the mechanism of control that stifles real choice. It's also not so much campaigning as drowning out the other party's noise with their own.
100% agree. Good idea in theory, but as it is today, it's an illusion that we, the plebs, have any say in anything at a macro level. I would argue it was rigged very early on. Nobody with real power would want randos to have a say in how the world is run.
I like Zizek’s stance theoretically, but in practice I don’t know if I can justify doing nothing. I don’t think a lower turnout of voters is going to stop those in power from abusing their positions, and I don’t think enough people are going to follow through with any useful revolution that would make abstaining really mean something. Plus, our two party system is a prisoners dilemma that would require massive amount of voters on both signs to agree to this kind of civic ceasefire. Like for me, while I hate a lot of what Biden’s done, I think Trump would do the same but worse. And given Trump’s more restrictive policies against LGBT rights and Women’s Reproductive rights, two issues that are really important to me, I can’t justify abstaining from a vote the would help Biden win. I feel that to abstain would be in a small way sacrificing the security of LGBT people and women for the sake of making a point. Again though I realize there’s a lot of nuance here but I just don’t find Zizek’s quotes helpful here, just kind of interesting.
Yea, you lost me. So you dislike Biden but you dislike Trump more. I understood that. But because you dislike Trump more, you can "justify abstaining from a vote that would help Biden win." Wouldn't that help Trump win, whom you dislike more? I'm confused. I think it just comes down to being able to sleep at night with the choices we make. For me, a vote for Biden or Trump would screw this country over and I don't want to be a part of that. I can only control what i have control over. And the candidates available is not one of them. The ultimate problem is the state of the country and citizens are enabled to have a say through the available candidates. But when those candidates are not favorable, then we are no longer empowered. Since I can no longer influence the outcome of our country, then I opt for peace of mind by not participating in this shit show.
@@oscaroscuro oh my bad, there was actually a typo in my comment. It should have said I CAN’T justify abstaining. I’ll fix that. You’re right, it wouldn’t make much sense the way I had it. I appreciate the correction.
Yeah they really aren't helpful. It's a lot of "thought experiment"-type philosophy that has no practical application to a non-psychopath. Like p-zombies. :P If you had to demonstrate philosophy's usefulness, this video would definitely not be the one.
The problem I find with Zizek's "Bartleby Politics" is that the people who still believe in the system will continue to participate in it. I understand abstaining from participating in "pseudoactivities" capitalism creates to foster engagement and further profits; however, abstaining to vote (in my case) means more power going to the far-right. The french NFP has managed (for now) to distance the french far-right from power. To me, this kind of engagement, which is nothing more than damage control, is still necessary. The same goes for fighting climate change (or rather, mitigate its effects).
Well these arguments (and Brennan's papers) tacitly assume that we're voting in a deterministic election (e.g. the US general election), but these arguments do not generalize to all types of elections. The recent philosophical article "Should we vote in non-deterministic elections?" points out that the duty to vote is *stronger* in non-deterministic elections (mostly for instrumental reasons).
14:55 That article also presents another counterargument to this point: " Another objection to Brennan’s argument is its feasibility. Achieving the level of knowledge he deems necessary for voting in a general election seems impractical. General elections involve decisions about diverse aspects of running a society, such as defense, taxation, healthcare, housing, crime rates, public transport, international relations, the environment and much, much more. Even if one is well educated in certain areas, ignorance is inevitable in others. The vast array of topics involved in governance implies that becoming an expert in everything is impossible within the confines of an individual’s lifetime. This raises the question of whether a voter needs expertise or whether a level of knowledge less than expertise suffices."
That leaves out the fact that there are organizations and groups that (theoretically) do have the expertise to analyze each candidate's proposals in at least some specific areas, and the ability to translate them into lay people's language. Of course there's a question of bias, transparency, etc, but such an analysis would be a starting point, and it should naturally be looked at critically. And that's the crux of the issue, I think. Even if full expertise isn't achievable (which it isn't), at the very least it should be expected for voters to have thought critically of the whole thing and to be able to articulate their thoughts in terms that aren't "it sounds cool", "my team vs the other team", "I like this candidate more" or "I just want to watch it all burn" (this was last year in my country... I wonder what Brennan thinks of _that_ lol). I also wonder where the thought of "this is a rehash from policies that were already tried and failed spectacularly" falls. Does this qualify as good voting criteria, or not? Although that could be considered a failure on the citizenry that goes beyond voting, for having a bad memory and allowing politicians to get away with it... Anyways, if you read this far, thank you and have a great rest of your day, cheers! 🖤🩶🤍
White male landowner here. Also someone who pisses people off when it comes to this issue. I've been an activist for years. I'm involved in efforts mostly focused on city planning and organizing labor. I'm also a delegate in the Democratic Party and have been involved in campaigns. Oh, and I'm also working on a project with one of the largest political non-profits in the nation to resurrect journalism in my area. I'm also also voting for Dr. Cornel West. According to some, voting for a black environmentalist socialist philosopher is equivalent to voting for Trump. So our country has lost its mind. I can't even count how many times I've been accused of "letting fascism win" because I support a socialist over a fascist. Anyway, I think people should vote for who they support and not out of fear over what they don't support. That's just coercion. Be the vote you want to see in the world.
@rohavic All caps doesn't make you more correct. It's easy to debate your point. Hilary didn't run a good campaign and wasn't a great candidate. Like it or not, she was a polarizing figure. Your statement implies that Hilary is owed 3rd party votes when Hilary lost because she didn't earn enough votes. It's funny to blame voters for not liking a candidate when it's the candidate's job to get people to vote for them. Also that was 8 years ago. People really need to stop rehashing it.
@@rohavic No, Trump being able to secure the most funding and get the most press exposure leading to people voting for him is how we got Trump in the first place.
In my opinion, voting is only as "good" as varied the options are. What good is a vote if you can only vote between oatmeal, gruel or not eating at all?
Yes, this is why I sorta disagree that the supposed indifference (part of it) is a passive no. Particularly because there isn’t an option to vote for “none” on a ballot such that “none” votes are tallied. The system is effectively an ultimatum and there seems to be a belief or naive expectation (or exploit I suppose) that people will comply with the ultimatum OR ELSE. But clearly people will certainly choose the or else option. The people who do not vote have their voices lost in a nether.
To answer your rhetorical question... not eating at all at least convinces your body to save its nutrients for the long term. That's a positive. There's nothing positive about oatmeal or gruel.
I’m surprised you guys didn’t mention any anarchist critiques! Being exposed to Consensus Decision Making while at a Gaza solidarity encampment has irrevocably changed my conception of what democracy is and can be. Coming out of that experience, and even if my options were more diverse than genocide or genocide, the thought of casting a ballot seems straight up disempowering. I’ll be organizing, thanks!
That could just be because there isn't a remotely interesting devil's advocate position for not voting right now, except maybe accelerationism toward events of major unrest on the assumption that that's the only series of events extreme enough to inspire change in America. Ironically, you'd have to be informed or "virtuous" enough to vote to decide to not vote for that reason, knowing full well that your non-participation is effectively a vote for what's going to happen anyway. In elementary school, we'd sometimes get a class vote on the type of field trip we got to take: swimming pool or skating rink. Not putting your hand up means you're comfortable with either outcome (or more likely that you weren't paying attention and missed your shot). And while at this point our skates may have no wheels and the pool is full of piss and piranhas, one of those options is still a teensy bit easier to swallow. One option leaves you and your neighbors still able to vote on the next field trip, the other a pool of blood and former opinions.
I grew up not being allowed to vote. This will be my first time attempting to vote. I’m new to all this political stuff in general, but i think “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” is the best way to look at things. If the entire population was highly educated, then our voting results would be better. But i can’t see how not voting, even in a “i prefer not to” way would do anything other than allow people with sus motives to control the system entirely. Unless we all could absolutely agree not to vote. It’s like a prisoners dilemma. Philip Defranco is my RU-vidr of choice for news. I’ve watched him for years.
@@Alex_Barbosa I don’t think we can ever be sure of the outcome. But In that case, hope for the best by voting for whoever is most likely to give us the best outcome- and simultaneously prepare for the worst- in whatever realistic way that is for you.
We should have a _None of the Above_ option. That'll solve a lot of voting issues. It delegitimizes the status quo of the two parties, giving rise to better, less garbage candidates. It also lowers percentages a candidate gets, allowing participation. It's what they do in the UK ("spoiling a ballot", technically). It gets counted as a vote for no one, lowering a candidate's total percentafe while allowing civic engagement. In the US we play a game of "Choose which one" between two terrible options and have to choose one or just not play the game.
For 16:26, Some More News, Philosophy Tube, Friendlyjordies, More Perfect Union, and Second Thought have basically been my main digs for news and/or academic discourse about modern events.
Before watching this, and admittedly I’m not particularly interested in changing my opinion on this since I hold it deeply, I would say yes you do have a civil duty to vote.
It's always interesting when people, on either side of the aisle, say "vote, because this is not who we are. This isn't the country I grew up in." Actually, it is and worse. But instead of voting forward while looking backward, the better thing to do is to vote forward while looking forward. We can't change what this nation was, but we can change what this nation could be, and it frustrates me to no end to see people arguing over what generation, decade, or era was better when including politics.
As someone who works in campaigns, I think the biggest value gap that people dont understand is what kind of attention elected officials pay to 'Super Voters' issues. Its not enough to vote once, or even occassionally. Any good campaign will begin its base by targeting only a select group of voters they are absolutely positive will be turning up on election day, and they decide that based on your voting history. The most consistent voters become the voices heard earliest and most often, and often end up shaping what kind of candidates are selected for in that enviorment. You may be surprised to find yourself getting christmas cards in the mail from your congressman or even invitations to attend events. Those things can also lead to individual access to candidates and reps and the chance to voice your opinion directly, which is by far the most effective way to do so. Voting is an investment in your own political capital that builds over time and only has positive returns.
I have every right to complain about a group of people thinking they have control over my life. If you think they do then you support slavery. The end.
As a non-US person, this season of "The US" is kinda shit. It's almost like the writers already know they're being canceled and are just doing crazy shit for the lolz while rewriting their resumes.
Rather than be friends for life by virtue of guessing, I'll just say I'm always happy to see Contra mentioned by the #17 ex-philosopher. Maybe if you were in the top ten, I'd offer some guesses.
I recently read Bartelby the scrivener and I'm not really sure how anyone should take this character as a political model, particularly considering the ending. Maybe Zizek gets into it in the source but in the end Bartelby ends up being physically removed from the office he was squatting in and then after a while thrown in jail by the police after living in the hallway and giving off a bad vibe. Only then does he prefer not to eat and eventually starves to death /prefers to discontinue living. The book is not clear on his motivations but it is implied that these inactions are the result of a deeply depressed man who has lost the will to participate in almost anything. As someone in the queer community with trans friends this inadvertently ends up being a poignet analogy for the election. For me voting is not a matter of ideology but flesh and blood. Checking out of the election no matter how much we don't like it for me and my friends is suicidal. We cannot keep having our fate hang in the balance every election, we just can't. I also can't just stay home.
Yea, the homophobic and anti-trans rhetoric has gotten out of control lately. But what do you plan to do about it really? Voting wise I mean. The Dems haven't been protecting trans people or queer people in any material way. So what are we supposed to do within the election cycle?
@BabyGirlDontEvenPlay It may be business as usual, but it is far from "normal". The U.S. has weathered the economic strain created by international crises due to rhe care of the Democratic party, yet people claim it is being destroyed. T-rump threatens to make the country a dictatorship and people act like that could be a good thing. From the outside it looks bugf3ck insane.
His name is Justin King and he did time for tricking Bulgarian immigrants into a human trafficking ring where he confiscated their passports and pressured them into working 80 hour weeks in a hotel for pennies. The court records are all public. Research your heroes.
Just to inform: Yeah, french people stopped the far-right from winning but the alliance was frail from the start and its already breaking in favor of Macron, who is still a milquetoast right-wing liberal who wont change anything in the near future.
The issue I have with Contrapoints' takes is that when other candidates (Sanders, Stein, Nader et al) offered more, liberals screeched at black folk that "they cant win" among a bunch of other excuses. No matter who steps up or what they stand for, they will inevitably get trashed in the primary b/c the donors have already chosen the candidate. Nader was a Dem, Bernie currently is and they STILL rigged the primary against him. Refusing to acknowledge that that this has been the SOP for the last 35+yrs is in bad faith. The people she is punching at in those tweets are black; she just doesnt want the public blowback for outright saying it so she codes it behind "anti-electoralist left" Dems have literally done almost everything they can to lose this election; When they do, they will blame the "anti-electoralist left" she is punching at here.
They did the same thing in 2016. They nominated an unpopular candidate through openly corrupt means and then blamed the people who didn't like the corruption for their failures.
I agree, especially with the donor class you mentioned. Democracy cannot exist when our reps are chosen and backed by a wealthy elite. That's why the old anarchist saying "if voting worked it would be illegal" stands true. The Dems were terrified of people like Bernie and Nader because they had the working class in mind, amd articulated in policy. A plutocracy cannot have politicians in favor of working class people.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 I’m making a choice based on the information I have and I take full responsibility for the consequences. At least I’ll be standing for something rather than running from it and hiding behind a third party pretending I did something.
@@danielc.b.4537 Have you considered that those who vote third party, or choose not to vote at all, are also making a choice based on the information they have, and taking full responsibility for the consequences? That they also are standing for something rather than hiding behind an excuse to pretend they did something? Personally, I would argue voting against something is inherently not standing for anything. "Not that" is less an idea and more a response. Though I can definitely understand why someone might believe otherwise.
Voting is not a moral imperative. It’s just a tradition that is sold as a moral imperative. Notice how voting is always push every four years. But nobody talks about the constant local and state elections.
@@nerds-nonsense I'm aware they didn't mean literally nobody. I assume it takes at least two people talking to hold a local election. If most of the media you're consuming and the people you're talking to are not concerned with your local elections, it's not a media or people problem, it's a you problem.
Yup - every (s)election is “the most important (s)election of our lifetime” for some reason. Never mind that the options are corporate puppet #1 or corporate puppet #2…
Truth. I live in a city of 200,000 and about 15,000 people voted in our at large city council seat election this April. Like c'mon people. These are the people who directly impact the direction of your community and you just ignore it?
fyi when micheal is talking about the dishes, he means to say dont be passive aggressive, COMMUNICATE WITH WORDS!!!! so many relationships that couldve been saved if people just talked to eachother 🤦♂️
Educated on some things but when it comes to certain topics (like Palestine, NFTs, Argentina to name a few) he isn't the best person to educate people.
I love how he lists "stay at home parents" and "working parents" as in being a parent is not enough but still it doesn't really matter what you do to supplement it 11:31
I don't know why this question needs to have a "philosophical" answer when it's a very simple problem: an election is happening, and it's happening whether or not you vote. Now if the choices are absolutely the same to you, like if you don't care that immigrants are here and you don't care if they get mass deported (I pick that topic because immigration is a worldwide "issue"}, then don't vote. Elections aren't typically on one issue, but several, so you might not care about immigration, but you might care about healthcare or education. And the important thing to remember is that, if your ideal choice isn't available, it doesn't mean it's pointless to vote. If your goal is "free healthcare for all", you don't vote for the party in the pockets of private insurers on healthcare policy because then your healthcare might get even more expensive and unattainable.
@@franjkav Like I said, if someone has reached a level of detachment where they care about nothing and no one, then they shouldn't vote. But I would argue a lot of people do care but the way the issues are framed is too abstract. For instance "Do you think healthcare needs to be fixed?", could mean any number of things: quality of the doctors, health insurance etc... But if you say something like "Do you want to be able to go to the emergency room and not have to pay thousands of dollars?"... Or on the environment "Do you want to drink water that's free of toxic chemicals?" etc...I'm simplifying things a bit because there are many liars trying to shape public opinion, but I'm just saying issues are rarely framed in this very "down to earth" way . If they were, a lot of disengaged citizens would be more inclined to vote.
More brainwashed sewage. You don't have a right to impose your will onto others using the states violence. Oh, and free healthcare is the stealing of others money to fund what you want which is violence!
This was basically my least favourite video on this channel ever. Pretty disappointed by it. You stated that you weren't trying to argue for one position, but in practice this was just a defense of not voting. And a very weak one at that. Obviously everyone should vote. Not voting is an incredibly privileged act, because voting changes things. The fact that Donald Trump won in 2016 directly led to the end of Roe vs Wade. The fact that Obama won in 2008 directly lead to people with pre-existing conditions getting better (though still shitty) acces to healthcare. The fact that Biden won in 2020 directly led to massive investments against climate change. Elected officials have real power, and they matter. It's clear that votes matter, because otherwise, why would so many people try so hard to stop people from voting? It's also just obvious. We see the effects in practice. Not voting will increase the chance of material harm to vulnerable groups. You can try all sorts of rationalizations, but that fundamental fact remains the same. If a few tens of thousands of people had voted for Clinton in 2016, women in the US would today have more rights than they do now. It's as simple as that. And of course voting isn't everything. Your civic duty is not limited to voting. If you're a very active organizer for lots of local good things but don't vote, you can still be doing your civic duty a whole lot better than someone who does nothing except vote. However: The very active organizer who does vote beats both of them. The argument of a "passive" versus an "active" nonvote is also just nonsense. An active and a passive nonvote look exactly the same to the outside world. They have the exact same impact on the world. Exactly nothing. If you want to send a message with your vote, blank votes are a thing. For instance the "vote uncommitted" was very good. That is an actual active no. You actually show your opinion. Not showing up is lazy. Just suck it up and vote blue. It really is as simple as that.
My dad always said "You have the right to free speech, and the right to vote. If you don't exercise the latter, you don't deserve the former" and that always hit kind of hard. These days, though, I would amend it, perhaps to "You have the right to vote, and the right to free speech. If you don't use the latter to create better choices for the former, you're wasting both rights.."
@@cvm6854 I got what he was going for. Basically, if you don't speak up, you can't complain, and there's a validity to that. Maybe a bit privileged, considering how many folks are either forcefully disenfranchised or convinced by bad actors that their vote is worthless.
American citizens have the right to choose whether they wish to vote or not, but for those that do they should at least have a sound reason for their selection.
I don't think voting is merely a show of tacit support for the system, but it is explicit approval. Every election cycle, you get pundits insisting that this is a fight for democracy, a fight for the nation, and a fight for your way of life. So voting for whichever candidate not only signals that their rhetoric/policies are acceptable enough to you that you won't threaten their position; it signals that you truly believe in the system that upholds them.
Some channel recommendations, btws: Hbomberguy, Zoe Bee, Innuendo studios, the cynical historian, ordinary things, not just bikes. More provided if asked. Please clap for my exercise of civic duty to this comment section
The three that made you roll your eyes are defiantly Entrepreneurs, Small Business owners, and venture capitalists. I know because I ALSO rolled my eyes
As a non-voter I’ll win either way. I’ll receive any benefits from either side, I will be 100% blameless on anything non-popular, and I get to laugh at any and all meltdowns. I will.
"Three things you should never talk about; politics, religion, and money." I don't know the history of this but it feels like a method to discourage political participation, questioning your faith, and unionizing and organizing for better working conditions.
It's a great way to not argue with people pal. Also is a great way to have an independent way of thinking not influenced by your social circle (who can pressure you to change it). Is a way of freedom of thinking.
@@rafaxd8178 1. You seem upset, “pal”, chill. You talking about avoiding arguments while getting angry and arguing with me is…iconic. 2. Not talking about things is how you “independently think”? I thought discussion and debate were healthy for a democracy - my bad. All thinking is influenced by your social circle or social environment. There’s no such thing as objectivity. Your beliefs are building blocks from prior experience and prior information. That’s quite literally one of Michael’s points about people wanting the Wisecrack team to have no opinions and just be robots who have never voted before.
@@eiondonnelly9289 I am sorry bro, English is not my mother tongue. I am talking about my point of view: my family have a very defined ideology and also has my close social circle. Mine is quite different, so I can't talk with them without arguing. So, what I suppose to do? Just get abgry with them? Is easier to speak about other things like history, literatura or trivial matters, and only speak of politics or religion (sensible themes) when is strictly required. Also, I don't want for example my boss or his fellas that I have a complete opposite ideology, which can be an issue.
@@rafaxd8178 ah, my bad, sorry I misinterpreted that. But no, you don’t have to constantly talk about politics but never talking about it only upholds the status quo. For things to change people need to hear different ideas. I use to be a conservative, then a libertarian, now I’m just generically left. The only reason I moved was because people talked to me and I listened (over 10+ years).
I was hoping that you would make this video. I could see it both ways based on deontology vs consequentialism, but I don't have the PhD that Daddy Burns has!
As for RU-vidrs I trust more than news organizations, I put Philip DeFranco right up there in reliability and trustworthiness with the Associated Press, the BBC, and Al Jazeera, probably more so than all of them
As a non-USA citizen it brings me no joy to see the “world cop” get even more drunk and rowdy. Also can you win by Bartelby's “I would prefer not to” in a system that being actively gamed by those who'd “I would prefer to do and I will do it”?
@Gen is a good news source I follow on RU-vid with interesting topics. I like how he gets different perspectives and doesn’t seem to place his personal spin on them. Even though he inputs his take it's not in a sense of "I think this but that's just me, what do you think" which I appreciate. I want to hear a non biased open discussion from direct individuals or groups involved in topics with facts rather than spin news attempting to push me towards one side or another
I think for American progressives, voting has always been "voting for the lesser evil", given the lack of political representation for the left. I'm Australian and we have a broader range of parties, and ranked choice voting so I'm happy with the system over all for my country.
@@SageWon-1aussie Participating in the game is a vote to continue playing the game. It's unethical. I know I won't convince anyone, but it is how it is.
@@allisonseamiller Sure, it's a vote to continue the game. The problem is, the game is going to continue anyway. The choice you get is whether you participate, whether you have any influence in the game. Your stake remains the same.
@@SageWon-1aussie Think of it like the Saw film franchise. If Jigsaw put you in a game where you have to kill one of two people, do you try to figure out who deserves to live more and apologize to the other one as you kill them? Or do you refuse to participate knowing Jigsaw will kill all three of you for that choice? It's like the trolley problem. Personally, I refuse to play his game, and he could stop and not kill any of us if he wasn't evil. When he kills all three of us, it's because he's a psycho, not because of any choice I made. Could I have prevented it, yes, so could Jigsaw and he's in full control of the whole situation so he gets 100% of the blame and there's none left for anyone else. If you disagree, that means someone could kidnap you and force you to choose between loved ones and you would be at fault for the consequence of the choice. Personally I don't think you'd be responsible in that situation, I think you would be an innocent victim and the psycho who put you in that situation is responsible no matter what you do.
My go-to channels for getting political content are Wisecrack, Second Thought, Leeja Miller, and Some More News. Highly recommend Some More News for the humor alone.
I don't think any of the anti-electoralists can convincingly demonstrate both that voting is "upholding the system" and the part of the system that it upholds is bad. Like what is not voting supposed to achieve other than giving people who disagree with you more power?
I keep trying to have important conversations with conservatives but end up getting nowhere. I have been trying over and over to get someone to explain why abortion during early pregnancy is murder without saying "I think/I believe...." What makes something alive? Is it a heartbeat? Brain activity? I then try to ask the most basic questions, like if I were to be braindead in the hospital am I alive? I was told that question was completely irrelevant 😂
Have you tried socratic method? Research it. Asking questions to get into what caused this person to develop this conclusion/thought in its brain. It can be effective in changing someone's mind, because it makes it think, about why it's thinking the way it's thinking & how it got to that conclusion. If there are some assumptions that are unfounded, & so on. Something like that. There's some quote from Galileo Galilei: "You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him find it within himself. In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." Let me know if this helped.
@@kepspark3362 even though I already understand what the socratic method is, I appreciate the advice and most of all the quote. I don't believe I've heard it before, or at least I don't remember it, but I feel that it describes a part of the human condition in a way I've never heard before. Thank you for the reply, I'm always open to advice and meaningful quotes.
Anything less than a direct democracy based on geography and nothing else, will equate to an equal voting system. Irregardless, The reality appears that after a certain point of technological individualism….governments as we see them today start to not make much sense. We are in that transition already I believe. We just have to reach the singularity of understanding before society redistributes and ends large metropolitanism.
Thinking to yourself whether it's "right or wrong" for you to NOT vote, the non act has the same outcome. Guys, I'm on the other side of the world and we NEED you to vote. And please please, vote for democracy.
I think the discussion on whether or not we should vote is a great distraction from the actual problems. The 2 party system, the electoral college, etc. It's the classic oil companies making you feel guilty for using plastic bags tactic.
My biggest frustration is with the people who so confidently and openly voice their opinions and believe themselves to be correct when they don't do any of their own research or learning. They are an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I recently realized I can order an original 1914 copy of The Revolt of the Angels by Anatole France from my local Library and take that home to read it for free for 45 days 🤘😎 Of course, I live in Canada though.
Thought provoking video, thanks for all the work put into it by the Wisecrack team. I like the focus on a distinction between passive vs active absence of voting. As a lefty in California who’s fed up with the Democrats and appalled by the Republicans, I’ve been considering a sort of active absence - at least in the presidential race. I will vote for the most progressive local and state candidates I can, but I believe my vote for president would be better used to send the message to Democrats - a message that my vote isn’t automatic. The Democratic nominee will win my state, so I feel like falling in line for someone I didn’t vote for in back-to-back primaries would make my “voice” meaningless. My vote for that office would carry more weight and better represent my views by abstaining or even voting for the other guy (not that I support him in the slightest, but maybe votes like mine could scare the left party into fighting for my views). At any rate, any inaction I may take in November will be rigorously thought through and deliberately enacted. It won’t be out of apathy. The tricky part seems to be enacting and spreading this active disengagement on a macro scale. How could we foster thoughtful, active inaction and how can we be sure that inaction will be direct enough to have its intended impact (whatever that impact may be)?
11:33 I'm going to say Venture Capitalists, Stock Traders, and Chefs (I really want to say Intellectuals but my answer is final.) I hope my boss is monitoring my keystrokes LOL
Good video, but I think it misses a crucial distinction on local versus federal elections. If we look at Chicago (from there, im biased), there were two consequential elections in the last yearish decided by tiny margins. Also, imo, the best way to actively not vote is vote for local offices but leave the top of the ticket blank. Still, overall a minor nitpick, on a good video
