• CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    It mostly makes sense. There are infamous examples of voting being de jure or de facto illegal for groups of people where their suffrage would likely cause significant change. Just look at the USA pre-Civil Rights Act, Rhodesia, Apartheid South Africa, and Israel. I’m sure there are others.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Exactly this.

      Indifference is how you know something doesn’t matter. I remember this lesson even from game development: People complaining about your game is still alright. When the feedback stops entirely, that’s when you fucked up.

  • eldavi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    i think it’s misguided because voting can have an impact; but doesn’t since that’s the extent of civic engagement for an overwhelming majority of americans which leads to manipulate-able voters who have to use their emotions to decide on things that they know nothing about.

  • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Pretty obviously false, and I’d genuinely question the social and intellectual capabilities of anybody who truly believes this - originally sarcastic - phrase.

  • pancake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    False in theory, true in practice. It is rare for the political landscape and a majority vote to align in such a way that it really has a disruptive effect. And in those instances wherein it happened, wasn’t uncommon to see a coup afterwards.