> If your solution to some problem relies on “If everyone would just...” then you do not have a solution. Everyone is not going to just. At no time in the history of the universe has everyone just, and they’re not going to start now.
> If your solution to some problem relies on “If everyone would just...” then you do not have a solution. Everyone is not going to just. At no time in the history of the universe has everyone just, and they’re not going to start now.
* Brushing their teeth, about a hundred years ago
* Regularly washing their hands, maybe 150 years? Less?
Etc.
Of course you can find people who still don't/do all of these and any other examples you come up with. But the point is that society as a whole has changed their view of these things, and what was abnormal is now normal. Which I'm pretty is what the "if people would just" folk really mean. Nobody is dumb enough to expect 100% of people to change 100% of the time, and it's unfair to their intelligence to assume that's what they mean.
Edit: removed one example that was too emotional and distracted from the point.
With tooth-brushing and hand-washing people actually didn't know it was that good for you. So massive public health education campaigns about how they prevent acute illnesses turned out to be enough to get significant adherence. That both are very low-cost / low-burden / low-effort activities are also reasons that education on the benefits was enough.
(And educating the next generation of children to instill proper tooth-brushing and hand-washing as habits remains a perpetual ongoing effort; kids do not "just" either, they need to be educated the same way.)
Compare this to many "why won't everyone just" issues where the information is already out - merely re-proclaiming stuff already known by the audience that-will-not-just, and expecting that to turn the needle, is nonsensical.
* I don't think there's actually any scientific studies proving brushing works, but the toothbrush definitely sheds microplastics into your body. Same with flossing.
* I don't see the need to completely obliterate all bacteria living on the surface of a part my body just because I touched my penis for a minute.
* I don't use shampoo either, it was brought from India just 200 years ago. Anti-dandruff shampoo isn't real and we don't even know exactly what causes it.
Outwardly I'm a pretty normal person.
> but the toothbrush definitely sheds microplastics into your body
You can use miswak, which is a type of twig.
Alcogel for hands and alcoholic mouthwash are things to be sure but they aren't nearly as common.
It's not because you touched your penis, it's because you're going to touch things in the world that other people will also touch and you respect other people's preference not to touch your penis bacteria because you're not a sociopath. Right?
Vs putting a hand on their bare hip, then shaking your hand.
Also, groin sweat smells different and probably has extra hormones/pheromones in it
Maybe that didn't just remove their KFC-greased, butthole-stinky finger from their nose before we shook hands, or maybe they did.
It isn't that hard to make an agar plate and put it under a lamp for a few days. Why you try a swab of crotch juice and a swab of face juice and incubate them each and see what you get?
Assuming you go to the bathroom 3-7 times a day, that's that many opportunities to wash off the dirt you were digging in, trash you picked up off the street or someone else's hand you shook.
I think I spotted the flaw in your line of thinking.
"If everyone would just wash their hands."
"Why can't you just..."
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/william-gillis-the-c...
> The argument for voting is very Kantian: “act so that if everyone acted so…” and “if no literally one voted then voting would matter again” but if literally no one voted the government wouldn’t maintain legitimacy. And in any case this is not an actual causality. When you vote you don’t magically cause everyone else like you to vote, you are a distinct agent with distinct internal thoughts. Your individual actions have only very weak externalities beyond the direct consequences of your choice/vote.
> Unfortunately the delusional thinking behind voting crops up in leftist inclinations in general. They want to build giant organizations, giant armies, with individuals all acting in low return-on-investment ways, in hopes of aggregate impact. They don’t search for opportunities of high impact individual direct action.
I was getting into an argument with some people who were yelling at me for voting third party in the USA federal election. Because I'm a Texas voter it's my fault the state won't turn blue. "If all Texas non voters voted, and if all third party voters voted democrat, the state would turn blue." And if only people would just stop committing crime, if only people would just not steal from their employees, if only people would just Do The Right Thing...
>but if literally no one voted the government wouldn’t maintain legitimacy
This is why no one takes anarchists seriously.
Now, the problem is not voting for first parties. It's lack of mandatory voting, and FPTP voting. Change it to ranked choice and suddenly third party votes wouldn't be wasted votes.
Though I will say that if you didn’t vote, then you don’t get to complain about the system because after all by not voting you’re rejecting a core tenet of the system. I gotta read more things out of this library, this is fun to noodle on.
As a previous water-carrier for this form of “if you don’t vote you don’t get to complain” propaganda, it’s crap. If there isn’t one single person you want to vote for on the ballot, you’re fully entitled to not vote and complain loudly about it. Making the choice to not exercise the one right does not preclude anyone’s use of the other.
That said there are more than people on ballots to vote for, and some of those things (open space, conceal and carry laws, abortion restrictions, school choice) are possibly more important than the people at the top of the ticket because as local measures they have a higher chance to directly affect you.
All of that is irrelevant.
Choosing not to exercise your right to vote is a valid choice, and choosing not to exercise that right does not preclude you from complaining about electoral outcomes and the policies of the extant and future governments.
Sure. But it means I take you as seriously as I would any arm chair quarterback complaining about sports.
Ultimately, I find the supposed "principled non-voter" to simply just be selfish.
Voting someone into office is inherently about electing them into a position of power. Generally that means voters are going to prefer someone who is aligned with their interests. If you examine a ballot and determine that that is no one running, then it is fine to draw the conclusion that you would prefer to skip this election.
Voting also has consequences. If your world view is not developed enough to determine who that person would be, it is also fine to wait until you’re older before you begin voting in elections. Elections are recurring, it isn’t necessary to vote in every single one of them, and on every single item on the ballot until you have an interest in doing so.
Why not?
It is just a relevant riff on the tired if you don't vote, don't complain BS.
Soap box mode = 1
Yes you do get to complain same as anyone does whether you or anyone voted or not.
Never let anyone tell you otherwise.
In the US, voting is not mandatory.
Casting voting as a condition of redressing ones grievances with government is actually just a psyops version of manufactured consent.
If you are inclined to consent, and you feel a vote is worth casting, by all means vote!
Maybe you think the whole thing lacks legitimacy? And you want to vote indie or third party or maybe even participate in ratfucking by voting for the very worst candidate a given party could get stuck with?
By all means vote.
Otherwise you are not required to vote and not voting is just fine.
You remain a citizen. The Constitution still applies and all that stuff we know and expect is exactly the same whether we vote or not.
Encouraging others to vote for many other reasons is fine too. Don't get me wrong there.
I am very specifically calling out the idea of ones participation in this US society being predicated on a vote.
That is just not true, and I really dislike advocacy rooted in falsehoods like this kind of advocacy always is.
Soap box mode = 0
Maybe I will take a look at this library myself!
You should vote in a way that moves the needle the way you want it to move.
Not true.
That said, Lopatin below also makes a valid counterpoint.