[brightball]

> People routinely vote for candidates that will worsen their lives

This is a line I see often by people (not you, just to be clear) puzzled because somebody didn't "vote for their own self interest" or at least that is the perception of the person making the statement. I've seen variations of it for at least 30 years. You'd often see it around pressure campaigns to unionize especially.

The shock about the perception is always funny to me, because it reads as shock that someone refused a bribe or was not easily manipulated.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

It has more to do with the psychology of the person who talks about others that "don't vote in their self-interest". That person, invariably, thinks of others as robots that should do what he wants them to do, because of course what he wants is best for everyone. He cannot imagine that people external to himself have any real interests at all. Everyone in the world must, as some precondition of the universe, be interested in all the same things and in all the same ways as he himself does.

So when someone "votes against their self-interest", this person tends to think of those others as malfunctioning. Perhaps they're too stupid to correctly deduce the path to achieving the results they want. Though he might be willing to consider they're mentally ill.

If he were forced (somehow) to consider that other people want things different from what he wants, it could be some sort of existential crisis as far as he's concerned. How could two competing interests even exist in a sane or fair universe, and which should prevail if they are mutually exclusive? What if, somehow, his own interests were destined to lose out?

[throw0101c]

> It has more to do with the psychology of the person who talks about others that "don't vote in their self-interest". That person, invariably, thinks of others as robots that should do what he wants them to do […]

There are examples where "what he wants them to do" can actually be for them to vote to help themselves.

For example, people voting to give themselves, their family, and their friends better access to health care; instead many people prevent themselves from getting better health care because if they did that would mean other people (and specifically the 'wrong kind' of other people) would also get it:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_of_Whiteness

So people are screwing themselves/family to screw other folks over. They are actively harming themselves out of spite.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>There are examples where "what he wants them to do" can actually be for them to vote to help themselves.

This simply isn't the case. It presupposes that you should know what the other person wants. You don't... and even when you know it (because they've told you), you ignore it because it's not what you would prefer that they want. It's a really simply concept, but you're probably incapable of conceiving of it. Other people in the world around you are props that the universe invented so the world could be as you envision it.

>For example, people voting to give themselves, their family, and their friends better access to health care;

I don't want "better access to health care". I know what you mean by that phrase, but I do not want this. My brain doesn't work like yours, I do not have the same preferences or desires that you do. I am not "voting against my interests", it's just that my interests are alien to you. I understand your preferences quite well (to a degree, at least) and I acknowledge that those are different than my own. You, though, can't acknowledge the same of me... the best you can come up with is that I'm somehow mistaken, confused, or brainwashed. Even this comment is likely incomprehensible.

>So people are screwing themselves/family to screw other folks over.

My family wouldn't be better off from this... we're not cattle for the farmer to provide health care for. It is not harming me or mine, we're up to the challenge.

[throw0101c]

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_of_Whiteness

> This simply isn't the case. It presupposes that you should know what the other person wants. You don't... and even when you know it (because they've told you), you ignore it because it's not what you would prefer that they want.

I'm not ignoring it. I do know it (in certain cases) because they've said so: they want to see certain people(s) suffering:

* http://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/...

They often don't want to suffer themselves and are indignant when things come back and bite them in the ass:

* https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Leopards_Eating_People%27s_Fa...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkeys_voting_for_Christmas

Though some don't care how much it costs them as long as it costs someone else more (or perceived as such by them):

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality

But someone's interests/desires of what they believe to be good, and what is actually good can be two different things. (And even if choosing between things that are actually good, one can choose a good that is not as good as what one could choose.)

[SAI_Peregrinus]

The core problem is a difference in values. You value your own health over causing people you dislike to suffer. They value causing people they dislike to suffer over their own health. Which choice is "better" is subjective. I'd say that deliberately increasing the suffering of others is bad, especially if it increases the total amount of suffering in the world, but that too is a subjective value judgement.

[throw0101c]

> I'd say that deliberately increasing the suffering of others is bad, especially if it increases the total amount of suffering in the world, but that too is a subjective value judgement.

Invoking Godwin's law: what the Nazis did was not objectively "bad", but simply something you do not agree with.

[SAI_Peregrinus]

To a conservative, yep! Conservative morality is inherently relativist, those who do not share their world view deserve punishment, and our suffering makes the world better.

[throw0101c]

> Conservative morality is inherently relativist […]

What? Left-leaning folks are stereotypically more secular and less likely to believe in the supernatural, so as materialists would have less of a foundation for any kind of "objective" morality.

[Snow_Falls]

It's funny, because you're essentially doing the exact same thing you're accusing the person you're talking about of doing: declaring the person an idiot incapable of recognising other people have different priorities.

Sorry, but sometimes people really do just vote against there own interests because they've been convinced of things that are wrong, or they misunderstand something. I expect you could even think of some examples if you tried.

And your whole post is just wildly making assumptions about someone you don't know: - "thinks of others as robots..." - "Everyone in the world must, as some precondition of the universe, be interested in all the same things" - "He cannot imagine that people external to himself have any real interests at all" - "this person tends to think of those others as malfunctioning" - "...it could be some sort of existential crisis as far as he's concerned" - "How could two competing interests even exist in a sane or fair universe" -

Perhaps you could have some faith? I doubt you've never voted for something you came to regret.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>It's funny, because you're essentially doing the exact same thing you're accusing the person you're talking about of doing: declaring the person an idiot incapable of recognising other people have different priorities.

Incorrect. I do recognize their differences of preference. They do not want the same thing as me. The reverse isn't true. I do not think they're idiots because they want different things than me... you've mischaracterized what I've said. They are idiots because, they (and you) can't recognize that I want something different than what they (and you) want.

And, in your convoluted way of thinking, you can't even get the argument right. You stoop to accusing me of misunderstanding.

>And your whole post is just wildly making assumptions

What exactly is wild about it? You didn't hear me screaming this, mouth frothing, as 6 cops try to drag me to the ground from where I'd perched up on some platform with a bullhorn. No violence occurred. Nothing uncivilized, just carefully chosen words. My "assumptions" if they can even be called that at all, required decades to form. Nothing wild about that. Really, they were boring words, maybe even timid. I'd be wrong and I would know it if you hadn't even chosen to respond. But it itches in the back of your mind somehow, doesn't it? Just couldn't let it go?

>Perhaps you could have some faith? I

I would like that. I would want to have faith so very much. It's all I've ever wanted, even before I knew to articulate it as that. Why does everyone make that so impossible though?

[Snow_Falls]

"What exactly is wild about it? You didn't hear me screaming this, mouth frothing, as 6 cops try to drag me to the ground from where I'd perched up on some platform with a bullhorn. No violence occurred. Nothing uncivilized, just carefully chosen words" Are you being deliberately obtuse?

"But it itches in the back of your mind somehow, doesn't it? Just couldn't let it go?" You think you're so damn clever don't you?

Every time I comment on any form of social media, I remember why I usually don't. Good day.

[lanstin]

"We do not trust because we have to or because we have a guarantee, we trust because we choose to, knowing the alternatives might be safer but would rule out things we long for: connection, community, vulnerability, and magic."

[FrustratedMonky]

Kind of like someone being all about Free Speech, but when they are in power, then anybody that disagrees should be charged with treason.

The point is, that the 'Right' are living in a bubble of cognitive dissonance, fantasy, simulacrum. Barely able to put one foot in front of the other as far as logic goes...

Literally the same group that were convinced by rich land owners that the having a Civil War for the land owners benefit, was a good idea. Going against their own self interest.

[brightball]

My friend, we all live in bubbles of our algorithms. There are only the people who are aware of it and those who believe it's just the "other side."

[FrustratedMonky]

Sure.

Bush, Obama, Biden. All the same, can't really tell the difference.

This time, it is different. Accepting a Jumbo Jet bribe? with no questions? Manipulating Oil Markets with a war? Having the IRS setup a 1.7 billion fund to pay off friends from a coup attempt?

This is the end.

[brightball]

There are people who still believe the Hunter Biden laptop was fake.

The bubble is not a one side issue.

[FrustratedMonky]

Guess so, since I literally can't tell what side you are talking about.

More false equivalences. Oh no, Hunter Biden had some Porn. That totally justifies going to war to distract from Epstein, and just as a bonus, its ok to make money on manipulating oil markets and make that mooola.