Jump to content

Not registering to vote


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 333 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

She'd just think it was me. We'd probably have to all go on voice...

That's not impossible, just terrible. XD I almost never speak online, and so barely know how to on SL. People might find out I don't sound like a kirin yet. 😹

Edited by Chroma Starlight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

the "commonweal" thing I think you called it awhile back..

You framed these pubic goods as "charity" and not "socialism", and that's what we need to educate people on

 

another essay

yes we can look at how other nations/peoples do things and we can always learn when we do this

from my own pov when I look at nations/peoples then I tend take a more macro approach, whats the big picture and how might that change in the future

a thing is that what is most likely to happen tomorrow is what happened today. And people on the micro-level generally like this. It makes tomorrow more predictable/certain as an effect on their lives personally on a day to day basis

to bring about a big change then for people to accept a less predictable/uncertain tomorrow generally requires a cataclysmic event. Like covid for example. In a cataclysmic event then we expect our leaders, to who we have entrusted our future lives, to be decisive, to be strong, and not to mess about. To hold the line when the going gets rough and people start to get even more anxious than they are already

the Ardern Labour-led government did this. It held the line. The future for people is still uncertain. Ergo, the most likely tomorrow is the same as today. Strong compassionate decisive leadership today indicates strong compassionate decisive leadership tomorrow. Which is what people voted for. A same tomorrow as today

new zealanders as a body didn't vote in the election for big change progressive reform. The people voted for a predictable tomorrow

on things like the commonweal generally in New Zealand. We have had this debate already beginning since the Muldoon National Party led nationalist/populist government in the late 1970s and early 1980s. A debate which culminated in an advance to progressivism by the Clark Labour-led government 1999-2008. A culmination continued by the Key National-led government 2008-2016. Followed by the Ardern Labour-led government 2017-2020 and now again for the next 3 years

today across the political spectrum we as a nation/people have broadly reached a consensus on these matters, particularly on intersectional matters. So is no surprise at this election when areas of the country with historically conservative values voted for Labour and not National. Both Labour and National are centrist parties today. Where the commonweal is accepted as a desirable meritorious civic thing

even Judith Collins the current leader of the National Party, whose nickname is Crusher Collins. Ms Collins is inter-sectionally as liberal as anyone else in the country. Ms Collins never got the nickname Crusher from crushing the poor. She got it from when she was Minister of Police. Got fed up with boyracers creating danger on the roads. Pushed thru a law to confiscate the cars of convicted dangerous boyracers and crush their cars in a scrapyard compactor. Is a photo of her standing on a boyracer car getting compacted. Pretty much saying: bite me you dangerous little hooligans. Which to be fair, pretty much most other road users went yeah!

so is lots of context to how different nations/peoples think about and address the commonweal. A thing is that this doesn't happen overnight. It can take a long time. Generationally long most times

a thing I personally subscribe too. I make the case for the commonweal on its own merits. I am not much into if we just change our leaders then somehow it will all get better. The change has to come from within ourselves. Societally our elected leaders are us as we are, not as they are. Us - same today as we were yesterday, same tomorrow as today

it is a merit when we care for the poor, the sick, the elderly and the young. Nobody in the mainstream, no matter conservative or liberal, disagrees with the merit of this

the thing is tho that the debate isn't that we care about them, it is that we care for them. It is not meritorious to care about the poor, sick, elderly and young, and not actually care for them when we are in a position to do so when nobody else will, including their own families

for sure the dysfunctional parents within some families can annoy us to distraction sometimes. But our distraction/annoyance in itself doesn't actually change the day to day lives of the afflicted children, elderly and sick. We have to care for them when nobody else will, not just care about them, in a civil society. Care for means actually putting in place support - medical, food/clothing, housing, counseling, training/education for the family members, to heal themselves of their dysfunctions as best they can

and also when people become temporarily poor. Which for most people happens when they get laid off from their jobs or when their self-supporting business crumbles. Most people recover from this themselves, but for some period of time then life can get a bit rough. Is a merit when we help them thru this time to get them back on their feet as best they can

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

I noticed.

I also noticed she doesn't seem to understand the word please.

This is where the far leftist has issues with intersectionality to the point their heads explode. They seemingly can only be polite with one minority at a time since common courtesy is not a normal part of their nature.

 

flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.u2.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

This is where the far leftist has issues with intersectionality to the point their heads explode. They seemingly can only be polite with one minority at a time since common courtesy is not a normal part of their nature.

This kind of frankly partisan, belligerent, and unsustainable generalization about an entire group of people really rather damages your credibility, don't you think?

There are a great many things one can say, with careful caveats, about the cultures of left, right, and centre in this and other countries. Some of them might even be broadly accurate. Dismissing an entire portion of the spectrum with this kind of ad homimem is definitely not among those.

If you wish to engage in civil conversation with people of different views, it might help to approach them civilly, and to demonstrate that your understanding of them extends beyond the merely insulting. I don't much like the culture and ideology of conservatism, but I'd never be so foolish, nor so rude, as to dismiss them all as "mindless rednecks." They aren't, and pretending that they are would merely demonstrate how very reductive and incomplete was my understanding of them.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Spending some time reading this Topic this morning and it is very clear it has gotten so off topic that I sense it can never return to the original post. So this topic is now reached the end of  it's time on the SL Forums! While at one point there was some good discussion, alas that is no more!

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 11
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 333 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...