The baffling thing is that the other side didn’t even file an argument against the measure in the voter guide… and it still lost!
Like, if your side can’t even be bothered to come up with an argument for or against particular legislation, I’m voting with the other side, full stop.
Edit: As roscoe comments below, I’m a bit stupid, tho I still feel like the logic used in the latter part is a bit faulty. The following is the original bullshit I wrote.
Lol, that’s some serious “I’m not a fascist” cope. Really? If you want people to debate you over why slavery is bad, you’re part of the problem, or like really young, which I’m hopefully doubtful of. It’s like me pointing a gun to your head, asking why I shouldn’t shoot you and then pulling the trigger because instead of making a sound argument, you just got mad at me.
Ballot measures have an “arguments for” and “arguments against” sections in the voter guide. I’d say over 95% of measures have an argument logged for both sides.
If one side of an issue decides not to log an argument, it’s my personal opinion that that’s a strong indicator I shouldn’t be taking that position.
There was a long argument as to why we should amend the state constitution to eliminate involuntary servitude as punishment, but no one bothered to defend keeping it as is….
A “yes” vote means no slavery. This was a prop to make forced prison labor illegal. Our voter guides contain arguments for and against propositions and rebuttals to those arguments, usually. No group even bothered to make an argument against the prop or a rebuttal to the argument for. They’re also saying, in general not just this prop, if no one can even be bothered to make an argument for one side, they’ll probably go with the only side that did make one. In this case that would be no slavery.
This was weird. There are always arguments both ways unless it’s just some editorial change to some law that for whatever reason has to go before the voters. This was totally non-controversial, or at least it seemed that way. I don’t understand how it didn’t pass.
There are artifacts organisations that refuse to argue against fascist organisations in order to not give them attention. Instead they argue in favor of others. So in a convoluted (and contrived) sense you just voted for a fascist.
Edit: This refers to your generalisation in the last paragraph and was meant as a joke and reference to a meme.
Don’t blame me! I voted Yes!
The baffling thing is that the other side didn’t even file an argument against the measure in the voter guide… and it still lost!
Like, if your side can’t even be bothered to come up with an argument for or against particular legislation, I’m voting with the other side, full stop.
Edit: As roscoe comments below, I’m a bit stupid, tho I still feel like the logic used in the latter part is a bit faulty. The following is the original bullshit I wrote.
Lol, that’s some serious “I’m not a fascist” cope. Really? If you want people to debate you over why slavery is bad, you’re part of the problem, or like really young, which I’m hopefully doubtful of. It’s like me pointing a gun to your head, asking why I shouldn’t shoot you and then pulling the trigger because instead of making a sound argument, you just got mad at me.
Ballot measures have an “arguments for” and “arguments against” sections in the voter guide. I’d say over 95% of measures have an argument logged for both sides.
If one side of an issue decides not to log an argument, it’s my personal opinion that that’s a strong indicator I shouldn’t be taking that position.
There was a long argument as to why we should amend the state constitution to eliminate involuntary servitude as punishment, but no one bothered to defend keeping it as is….
TIL it’s fascist to not want prison slavery
I think you’re misunderstanding them.
A “yes” vote means no slavery. This was a prop to make forced prison labor illegal. Our voter guides contain arguments for and against propositions and rebuttals to those arguments, usually. No group even bothered to make an argument against the prop or a rebuttal to the argument for. They’re also saying, in general not just this prop, if no one can even be bothered to make an argument for one side, they’ll probably go with the only side that did make one. In this case that would be no slavery.
This was weird. There are always arguments both ways unless it’s just some editorial change to some law that for whatever reason has to go before the voters. This was totally non-controversial, or at least it seemed that way. I don’t understand how it didn’t pass.
There are artifacts organisations that refuse to argue against fascist organisations in order to not give them attention. Instead they argue in favor of others. So in a convoluted (and contrived) sense you just voted for a fascist.
Edit: This refers to your generalisation in the last paragraph and was meant as a joke and reference to a meme.
Voting against prison slavery is a vote for fascism, apparently.
This refers to your generalisation in the last paragraph and was meant as a joke and reference to a meme
A “yes” vote means no slavery. See my comment in reply to lanik2000.
This refers to your generalisation in the last paragraph and was meant as a joke and reference to a meme