Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Seriously, if a person thinks they might miss out on voting, what is to stop them from spending the fifteen minutes needed to learn different levels of government and their main functions? If you are going to be a contributing citizen to democracy, you can at least be aware of the very most basic aspects of what federal, state and local governments do. Otherwise, you cannot make an informed vote, and thus undermine democracy.

Is voting a right or a privilege, or both?
Is voting mandatory? If so, what is the penalty for not voting?
What knowledge (if any) must the voter have, and be able to display?

Is the 'wisdom of crowds' applicable to voting?
If we constrain voters, and their reasons for voting, do we lose that 'wisdom'?

In other words, all I'm saying is that these arguments are long known and well-rehearsed by others, I think. Yes?

In Australia voting is compulsory. Last I remember, the punishment is $20 for missing a federal election, $25 for missing a state election and $55 for missing a local government election. Simply, the more important the election, the less you are punished for not voting.

The labels don't matter - "rights and privileges" are the language of the out-of-touch. Is it your right or a privilege to vote when neither major party represents the voters but global interests instead? The current (Albanese) government has increased Australia's population by 1.7 million in the last three years - turning what was already a historic housing squeeze into a full blown housing crisis. The "opposition" was offering to reduce immigration by 10,000 per year.

Not much of a choice when both parties are committed to keeping housing prices artificially high and driving ever more (formerly) middle class people into despair and homelessness. It renders the OP's question somewhat moot.

The wisdom of crowds in such a connected world is now just the wisdom of media owners/oligarchs. The rules are changing faster than academia moves, which is why academics today tend to be so grievously out of touch with reality.

Some intrepid/masochistic types still hold individual opinions, but most people today adopt the ideas of "their side" rather than informing themselves on different policy areas and making their own analyses. Many are too busy to devote time to understanding political issues, so they let the mainstream media tell them what to do.

Tell me, is there a single issue where you disagree with The Guardian?

[Pattern-chaser]

Tell me, is there a single issue where you disagree with The Guardian?

Now let me think... Yes, there is. Lately, when I try to view a Guardian page, it refuses to display because it can't get through my ad-blocker. So I no longer peruse The Guardian. I disagree with their use of anti-ad-blockers.

I'm sure there are other things too.

[Sy Borg]

Tell me, is there a single issue where you disagree with The Guardian?

Now let me think... Yes, there is. Lately, when I try to view a Guardian page, it refuses to display because it can't get through my ad-blocker. So I no longer peruse The Guardian. I disagree with their use of anti-ad-blockers.

I'm sure there are other things too.

Hmm, so you are a Guardian bot?? You are actually an AI playing double bluff with me regarding machine intelligence?

[Pattern-chaser]

Hmm, so you are a Guardian bot?? You are actually an AI playing double bluff with me regarding machine intelligence?

Nearly. I am a human, supposedly gifted with intelligence, rebelling against ignorant misunderstanding when it comes to applying "intelligent" to electronics and software. This is a long-standing misunderstanding, that has been around for years, but only recently applied to so-called AIs. I think this erroneous usage originated with ad-men, seeking to make their product sound more than it was/is. I.e. lying.



Ooops! This topic is about humans, voting. Not computers. Apologies for derail.

[Sy Borg]

Hmm, so you are a Guardian bot?? You are actually an AI playing double bluff with me regarding machine intelligence? :lol:

Nearly. I am a human, supposedly gifted with intelligence, rebelling against ignorant misunderstanding when it comes to applying "intelligent" to electronics and software. This is a long-standing misunderstanding, that has been around for years, but only recently applied to so-called AIs. I think this erroneous usage originated with ad-men, seeking to make their product sound more than it was/is. I.e. lying.



Ooops! This topic is about humans, voting. Not computers. Apologies for derail. 😳

Yep, definitely algorithmic. No relevance, no nuance, just spouting.

And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to have just a tiny modicum of understanding of issues, such as knowing which level of government handles defence, health, education, housing, aged care etc.

Democracy is strongest when people are informed. Currently, it's not possible to be well-informed with just the mainstream media, which is too partisan and focused on $$ to provide true impressions of what's going on.

[Pattern-chaser]

And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to have just a tiny modicum of understanding of issues, such as knowing which level of government handles defence, health, education, housing, aged care etc.

It may not be unreasonable, but I suspect that many or most voters cannot pass this test. So, must they all be prevented from voting? Which brings us back to the question the topic asks us in the first place.

[Sy Borg]

And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to have just a tiny modicum of understanding of issues, such as knowing which level of government handles defence, health, education, housing, aged care etc.

It may not be unreasonable, but I suspect that many or most voters cannot pass this test. So, must they all be prevented from voting? Which brings us back to the question the topic asks us in the first place. 😐

If most voters can't pass this test, then that is by design. It may explain why voters keep electing politicians who represent global interests and have contempt for locals.

[LuckyR]

Hmm, so you are a Guardian bot?? You are actually an AI playing double bluff with me regarding machine intelligence?

Nearly. I am a human, supposedly gifted with intelligence, rebelling against ignorant misunderstanding when it comes to applying "intelligent" to electronics and software. This is a long-standing misunderstanding, that has been around for years, but only recently applied to so-called AIs. I think this erroneous usage originated with ad-men, seeking to make their product sound more than it was/is. I.e. lying.



Ooops! This topic is about humans, voting. Not computers. Apologies for derail.

Yep, definitely algorithmic. No relevance, no nuance, just spouting.

And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to have just a tiny modicum of understanding of issues, such as knowing which level of government handles defence, health, education, housing, aged care etc.

Democracy is strongest when people are informed. Currently, it's not possible to be well-informed with just the mainstream media, which is too partisan and focused on $$ to provide true impressions of what's going on.

So an ideology test? Haven't heard that one before.

[Sy Borg]

Hmm, so you are a Guardian bot?? You are actually an AI playing double bluff with me regarding machine intelligence? :lol:

Nearly. I am a human, supposedly gifted with intelligence, rebelling against ignorant misunderstanding when it comes to applying "intelligent" to electronics and software. This is a long-standing misunderstanding, that has been around for years, but only recently applied to so-called AIs. I think this erroneous usage originated with ad-men, seeking to make their product sound more than it was/is. I.e. lying.



Ooops! This topic is about humans, voting. Not computers. Apologies for derail. 😳

Yep, definitely algorithmic. No relevance, no nuance, just spouting.

And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to have just a tiny modicum of understanding of issues, such as knowing which level of government handles defence, health, education, housing, aged care etc.

Democracy is strongest when people are informed. Currently, it's not possible to be well-informed with just the mainstream media, which is too partisan and focused on $$ to provide true impressions of what's going on.

So an ideology test? Haven't heard that one before.

No, not an ideology test. What makes you think that awareness of the various levels of government and their functions is an ideological issue??

[LuckyR]

Nearly. I am a human, supposedly gifted with intelligence, rebelling against ignorant misunderstanding when it comes to applying "intelligent" to electronics and software. This is a long-standing misunderstanding, that has been around for years, but only recently applied to so-called AIs. I think this erroneous usage originated with ad-men, seeking to make their product sound more than it was/is. I.e. lying.



Ooops! This topic is about humans, voting. Not computers. Apologies for derail.

Yep, definitely algorithmic. No relevance, no nuance, just spouting.

And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to have just a tiny modicum of understanding of issues, such as knowing which level of government handles defence, health, education, housing, aged care etc.

Democracy is strongest when people are informed. Currently, it's not possible to be well-informed with just the mainstream media, which is too partisan and focused on $$ to provide true impressions of what's going on.

So an ideology test? Haven't heard that one before.

No, not an ideology test. What makes you think that awareness of the various levels of government and their functions is an ideological issue??

What? Pretty much this: "Currently, it's not possible to be well-informed with just the mainstream media, which is too partisan", which refers to the partisanship (ideology) of mainstream media.

[Sy Borg]

Yep, definitely algorithmic. No relevance, no nuance, just spouting.

And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to have just a tiny modicum of understanding of issues, such as knowing which level of government handles defence, health, education, housing, aged care etc.

Democracy is strongest when people are informed. Currently, it's not possible to be well-informed with just the mainstream media, which is too partisan and focused on $$ to provide true impressions of what's going on.

So an ideology test? Haven't heard that one before.

No, not an ideology test. What makes you think that awareness of the various levels of government and their functions is an ideological issue??

What? Pretty much this: "Currently, it's not possible to be well-informed with just the mainstream media, which is too partisan", which refers to the partisanship (ideology) of mainstream media.

My point was that the MSM does not provide the kind of information that enables informed voter decision-making. Given that universities have become increasingly nakedly partisan in contentious areas that academia has never been more unreliable in my lifetime. This was highlited by James A. Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian in the Grievance Studies Affair. They published studies about "fat bodybuilding" and "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon". In "Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism," the authors quoted parts of Mein Kampf, swapping Hitler’s rhetoric about the Nazi Party’s mission with arguments for a unified feminist struggle against perceived individualistic feminism.

So academia is not as reliable as it once was. Meanwhile, social media can provide the information one needs to make informed choices, but one must be able to filter out the considerable amount of clickbait noise and partisan rants.

[Pattern-chaser]

My point was that the MSM does not provide the kind of information that enables informed voter decision-making. Given that universities have become increasingly nakedly partisan in contentious areas that academia has never been more unreliable in my lifetime. This was highlited by James A. Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian in the Grievance Studies Affair. They published studies about "fat bodybuilding" and "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon". In "Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism," the authors quoted parts of Mein Kampf, swapping Hitler’s rhetoric about the Nazi Party’s mission with arguments for a unified feminist struggle against perceived individualistic feminism.

So academia is not as reliable as it once was. Meanwhile, social media can provide the information one needs to make informed choices, but one must be able to filter out the considerable amount of clickbait noise and partisan rants.

So we should all abandon our 'experts' and mainstream media, who are all too biased, and turn instead toward social media, where The Truth lies? I'm sorry, but human as 'experts' are, it is my opinion that they remain more reliable and trustworthy than nearly everything ever posted on social media. I'm a little less confident in mainstream media, though. You make your own choices, of course, and so it should be.

[Sy Borg]

My point was that the MSM does not provide the kind of information that enables informed voter decision-making. Given that universities have become increasingly nakedly partisan in contentious areas that academia has never been more unreliable in my lifetime. This was highlited by James A. Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian in the Grievance Studies Affair. They published studies about "fat bodybuilding" and "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon". In "Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism," the authors quoted parts of Mein Kampf, swapping Hitler’s rhetoric about the Nazi Party’s mission with arguments for a unified feminist struggle against perceived individualistic feminism.

So academia is not as reliable as it once was. Meanwhile, social media can provide the information one needs to make informed choices, but one must be able to filter out the considerable amount of clickbait noise and partisan rants.

So we should all abandon our 'experts' and mainstream media, who are all too biased, and turn instead toward social media, where The Truth lies? I'm sorry, but human as 'experts' are, it is my opinion that they remain more reliable and trustworthy than nearly everything ever posted on social media. I'm a little less confident in mainstream media, though. You make your own choices, of course, and so it should be. 👍

That first sentence blithely ignored what I wrote re: "noise".

Mainstream media simply does not provide the information, only what the establishment wants you to know. They deliberately hide information from us.

The best example perhaps is Jimmy Savile, darling of your BBC. You probably though he was wonderful for decades. He was a national hero, beloved by royals and commoners alike. It was only via social media that his violent and chronic paedophilia was found out. The BBC and the rest of the mainstream media were content to let him do what he likes without consequence and let his secret disappear in his grave.

How many other secrets have been forever buried by the MSM?

Social media at least provides the information but there's a lot of noise to sift through, many incorrect and biased claims designed to evoke a reaction (it seems that many social media pundits have learned well the tricks of TV, radio and papers). However, there are people on social media who provide fearless correct information that would otherwise be suppressed. The implications for democracy are clear.

[Pattern-chaser]

My point was that the MSM does not provide the kind of information that enables informed voter decision-making. Given that universities have become increasingly nakedly partisan in contentious areas that academia has never been more unreliable in my lifetime. This was highlited by James A. Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian in the Grievance Studies Affair. They published studies about "fat bodybuilding" and "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon". In "Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism," the authors quoted parts of Mein Kampf, swapping Hitler’s rhetoric about the Nazi Party’s mission with arguments for a unified feminist struggle against perceived individualistic feminism.

So academia is not as reliable as it once was. Meanwhile, social media can provide the information one needs to make informed choices, but one must be able to filter out the considerable amount of clickbait noise and partisan rants.

So we should all abandon our 'experts' and mainstream media, who are all too biased, and turn instead toward social media, where The Truth lies? I'm sorry, but human as 'experts' are, it is my opinion that they remain more reliable and trustworthy than nearly everything ever posted on social media. I'm a little less confident in mainstream media, though. You make your own choices, of course, and so it should be.

That first sentence blithely ignored what I wrote re: "noise".

No, it doesn't. But what it does do is to focus on the words that I've highlighted, above. Essentially, you said that the only source of accurate and useful information is social media, nowhere else. Yes, you pointed out that social media info is shrouded in nonsense, but your base point was that only social media offers this information, obscured or not. And that is what I was responding to.

On social media, there is no fact-checking. E.g. the tweets (or whatever) complaining of the current ME genocide are no more or less convincing than those that defend it. No comparison leads us to the truth, as both seem to be as truthful as each other. Trump's tariffs are the same: no way to see what's true and what isn't.

With MSM, there has always been bias. Lots of it. [Especially the sins of omission that you refer to.] But we knew roughly what it was, and could allow for it. Academia too, can be wrong, but is on the whole still as reliable as it has always been — far from perfect, but fact-checkable, at least.

Mainstream media simply does not provide the information, only what the establishment wants you to know. They deliberately hide information from us.

The best example perhaps is Jimmy Savile, darling of your BBC. You probably though he was wonderful for decades. He was a national hero, beloved by royals and commoners alike. It was only via social media that his violent and chronic paedophilia was found out. The BBC and the rest of the mainstream media were content to let him do what he likes without consequence and let his secret disappear in his grave.

How many other secrets have been forever buried by the MSM?

Oh, loads, I would think. And I think their conduct would be exactly mirrored in any medium-to-large sized company, anywhere in the Western world. I don't excuse it, of course, I only observe that this behaviour is definitely not limited to the MSM. They're all as corrupt as each other, in this respect.

[Sy Borg]

My point was that the MSM does not provide the kind of information that enables informed voter decision-making. Given that universities have become increasingly nakedly partisan in contentious areas that academia has never been more unreliable in my lifetime. This was highlited by James A. Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian in the Grievance Studies Affair. They published studies about "fat bodybuilding" and "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon". In "Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism," the authors quoted parts of Mein Kampf, swapping Hitler’s rhetoric about the Nazi Party’s mission with arguments for a unified feminist struggle against perceived individualistic feminism.

So academia is not as reliable as it once was. Meanwhile, social media can provide the information one needs to make informed choices, but one must be able to filter out the considerable amount of clickbait noise and partisan rants.

So we should all abandon our 'experts' and mainstream media, who are all too biased, and turn instead toward social media, where The Truth lies? I'm sorry, but human as 'experts' are, it is my opinion that they remain more reliable and trustworthy than nearly everything ever posted on social media. I'm a little less confident in mainstream media, though. You make your own choices, of course, and so it should be. 👍

That first sentence blithely ignored what I wrote re: "noise".

No, it doesn't. But what it does do is to focus on the words that I've highlighted, above. Essentially, you said that the only source of accurate and useful information is social media, nowhere else. Yes, you pointed out that social media info is shrouded in nonsense, but your base point was that only social media offers this information, obscured or not. And that is what I was responding to.

On social media, there is no fact-checking. E.g. the tweets (or whatever) complaining of the current ME genocide are no more or less convincing than those that defend it. No comparison leads us to the truth, as both seem to be as truthful as each other. Trump's tariffs are the same: no way to see what's true and what isn't.

With MSM, there has always been bias. Lots of it. [Especially the sins of omission that you refer to.] But we knew roughly what it was, and could allow for it. Academia too, can be wrong, but is on the whole still as reliable as it has always been — far from perfect, but fact-checkable, at least.

What academia knows and what it presents to the public are two very different things. Just ask most academics in Australia today if mass migration has a strong link to the current housing crisis. They will say, "No no, that's too simplistic" and blather on about supply side issues, as if Australia under current conditions can achieve a world record rate of house construction. Yet you can find plenty of good info about this on social media. Partisanship and $$$ have tainted the former beauty and integrity of academia, which is now thoroughly unreliable - no information from them as regards contentious issues can be trusted.

How about the CSIRO report claiming that nuclear power would be too expensive for Australia to implement. Every single case study they used from various countries was the very worst nuclear project in the nation's history. Yet these were presented as normal. That's one way that academia (and MSM) can use accurate information to mislead and misdirect.

Anyway, this is off topic, as usual.