"informed voters"
Wally_Sconce @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:02 am
Trudeau was quoted for saying " The voters are never wrong....misinformed, but never wrong"
And, he almost got that idea correct.
Here's what I dislike about the self proclaimed "informed":
- they have the arogance to debate with tactics like "you don't know what you are talking about"
- they show signs of contempt for democracy when they imply that an average day citizen should not be voting.
- they think that their knowledge gives them the right to delve into large scale policies and programs with a 'mother knows best' attitude.
- many of them aren't any more informed than the journalists that write the stories that they read. So, if they truly want to take a stance of being well informed, they should actually start getting their information from the source, not someone else's interpretation of it.
Mustang1 @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:16 am
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
Here's what I dislike about the self proclaimed "informed":
How would you know if they are "infomred"? You're the one advocating an anti-intellectual realivistist approach. You should have little to say on the alleged "informed
$1:
- they have the arogance to debate with tactics like "you don't know what you are talking about"
They have the "knowledge" to call ignorance into question. In fact, they eschew the anti-intellectual stance of relativism because it fosters faulty ideas, ignorance and incorrect concslusions
$1:
- they show signs of contempt for democracy when they imply that an average day citizen should not be voting.
They support the idea of an informed electorate because it serves a greater social funtions. Why not tell us about how some major plebescites in Canadian history have been plagued by voter ignorance? I'll wait.
$1:
- they think that their knowledge gives them the right to delve into large scale policies and programs with a 'mother knows best' attitude.
Pure speculation. And you're chastising others?
$1:
- many of them aren't any more informed than the journalists that write the stories that they read. So, if they truly want to take a stance of being well informed, they should actually start getting their information from the source, not someone else's interpretation of it.
In fact, i'd argue that many of them develop some of their ideas from political insiders, politicians, think tanks, policy papers, academic journals and from their own education.
I'll look for you to apply this approach to the many partisan parrots here that ape blogs with little application of the content.
Wally_Sconce @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:27 am
oh thats good stuff, I will respond but I got to get working.
CommanderSock @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:44 pm
Fuck family values.
romanP @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:50 pm
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
How many of you have heard all this vial crap about the need for more 'informed voters'
Hey all, let's vote for the Nazi Party! Maybe it'll be better this time.
Benoit @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:52 pm
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
How many of you have heard all this vial crap about the need for more 'informed voters'
If you ask me, this 'informed voters' nonsense is a bunch of elitist bullshit.
a democracy can not be truly tempered except by including the free and sincere votes of the working man. votes that represent ethics, family values, and dreams. we don't need more 'informed voters' all we need is more free voting citizens.
all you people that think you know better than others are arrogant pricks to assume that you are the ultimate voice for a country.
If you ask me, this 'informed voters' nonsense is a bunch of elitist bullshit.
a democracy can not be truly tempered except by including the free and sincere votes of the working man. votes that represent ethics, family values, and dreams. we don't need more 'informed voters' all we need is more free voting citizens.
all you people that think you know better than others are arrogant pricks to assume that you are the ultimate voice for a country.
A working man is the opposite of a free man.
romanP @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:55 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1:
I think that "informed" voters ARE needed - ones that understand the process, government machinery, party politics, ideology and the issues. There's nothing inherently wrong with an educated electorate. The fact it's railed against screams intellectual insecurity - we wouldn't want the lazy blog apers and cut n' pasters to actually understand what they Xerox, would we? Nah.
This is not to say that they should be the ONLY ones voting - democracy loosely means, especially in our contemporary Canadian context, that an inclusive franchise (devoid of many restrictions) have a say, but i'm not sure why anyone would actually dismiss political education. It seems that this is more about social insecurities rather than political science and the irony is pretty obvious.
This is not to say that they should be the ONLY ones voting - democracy loosely means, especially in our contemporary Canadian context, that an inclusive franchise (devoid of many restrictions) have a say, but i'm not sure why anyone would actually dismiss political education. It seems that this is more about social insecurities rather than political science and the irony is pretty obvious.
I'm of the opinion that if you're ignorant of how the system works and what's going on, you shouldn't vote.
To anyone who would skew this to mean that voting through ignorance should be illegal, stop right there. I am talking about voter responsibility, not the law.
Benoit @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:59 pm
romanP romanP:
I'm of the opinion that if you're ignorant of how the system works and what's going on, you shouldn't vote.
The most important information to possess when one is going to the polls is about the capacity of the candidates to put aside their personal interests.
romanP @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:06 pm
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
Here's what I dislike about the self proclaimed "informed":
- they have the arogance to debate with tactics like "you don't know what you are talking about"
- they have the arogance to debate with tactics like "you don't know what you are talking about"
Well, that is the classical definition of ignorance. Just because someone is arrogant doesn't mean they are incorrect.
$1:
- they show signs of contempt for democracy when they imply that an average day citizen should not be voting.
"They" are talking about voter resonsibility. It is your responsibility to know about the issues before making decisions about them. Would you buy a car for a lot more money than it's worth without bothering to find out if anything is wrong with it?
$1:
- they think that their knowledge gives them the right to delve into large scale policies and programs with a 'mother knows best' attitude.
"They" do know best, because they've done their research. Are you suggesting that we put important policy decisions in the hands of people who don't know anything? Are you really that stupid?
$1:
many of them aren't any more informed than the journalists that write the stories that they read. So, if they truly want to take a stance of being well informed, they should actually start getting their information from the source, not someone else's interpretation of it.
What is "the source", if not journalism? Should we ignore history too? I haven't taken to talking to dogs and cats to find out if it's right to censor books because a few people find them offensive, or if it's wrong for me to smoke pot for some arbitrary reason that was made up fifty years ago.
romanP @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:09 pm
CommanderSock CommanderSock:
Fuck family values.
Damn right. Fucking families. Always getting in the way. I want my ice cream, I don't want to listen to your stupid screaming children.
Benoit @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:10 pm
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
Here's what I dislike about the self proclaimed "informed":
- they have the arogance (sic) to debate with tactics like "you don't know what you are talking about"
- they have the arogance (sic) to debate with tactics like "you don't know what you are talking about"
A teacher doesn't use this tactic with his/her students.
Wally_Sconce @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:21 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
Here's what I dislike about the self proclaimed "informed":
How would you know if they are "infomred"? You're the one advocating an anti-intellectual realivistist approach. You should have little to say on the alleged "informed
$1:
- they have the arogance to debate with tactics like "you don't know what you are talking about"
They have the "knowledge" to call ignorance into question. In fact, they eschew the anti-intellectual stance of relativism because it fosters faulty ideas, ignorance and incorrect concslusions
$1:
- they show signs of contempt for democracy when they imply that an average day citizen should not be voting.
They support the idea of an informed electorate because it serves a greater social funtions. Why not tell us about how some major plebescites in Canadian history have been plagued by voter ignorance? I'll wait.
$1:
- they think that their knowledge gives them the right to delve into large scale policies and programs with a 'mother knows best' attitude.
Pure speculation. And you're chastising others?
$1:
- many of them aren't any more informed than the journalists that write the stories that they read. So, if they truly want to take a stance of being well informed, they should actually start getting their information from the source, not someone else's interpretation of it.
In fact, i'd argue that many of them develop some of their ideas from political insiders, politicians, think tanks, policy papers, academic journals and from their own education.
I'll look for you to apply this approach to the many partisan parrots here that ape blogs with little application of the content.
Personally, I wouldn't use the term "anti-intellectual'. It makes this sound like a smart people versus stupid people debate, which I don't think it is.
Many 'uninformed voters' are educated people with lifetime experience and rational opinions.
And when the 'informed' people debate issues like national childcare, I think the 'uninformed' voters are just as important as the politically smart. In fact, I think that policies that are created with disregard of the populace are less likely to be good policy.
romanP @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:24 pm
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
Many 'uninformed voters' are educated people with lifetime experience and rational opinions.
And when the 'informed' people debate issues like national childcare, I think the 'uninformed' voters are just as important as the politically smart. In fact, I think that policies that are created with disregard of the populace are less likely to be good policy.
And when the 'informed' people debate issues like national childcare, I think the 'uninformed' voters are just as important as the politically smart. In fact, I think that policies that are created with disregard of the populace are less likely to be good policy.
I think we might understand your sulky, snarky point better if you stopped speaking in code.
Benoit @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:26 pm
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
Here's what I dislike about the self proclaimed "informed":
How would you know if they are "infomred"? You're the one advocating an anti-intellectual realivistist approach. You should have little to say on the alleged "informed
$1:
- they have the arogance to debate with tactics like "you don't know what you are talking about"
They have the "knowledge" to call ignorance into question. In fact, they eschew the anti-intellectual stance of relativism because it fosters faulty ideas, ignorance and incorrect concslusions
$1:
- they show signs of contempt for democracy when they imply that an average day citizen should not be voting.
They support the idea of an informed electorate because it serves a greater social funtions. Why not tell us about how some major plebescites in Canadian history have been plagued by voter ignorance? I'll wait.
$1:
- they think that their knowledge gives them the right to delve into large scale policies and programs with a 'mother knows best' attitude.
Pure speculation. And you're chastising others?
$1:
- many of them aren't any more informed than the journalists that write the stories that they read. So, if they truly want to take a stance of being well informed, they should actually start getting their information from the source, not someone else's interpretation of it.
In fact, i'd argue that many of them develop some of their ideas from political insiders, politicians, think tanks, policy papers, academic journals and from their own education.
I'll look for you to apply this approach to the many partisan parrots here that ape blogs with little application of the content.
Personally, I wouldn't use the term "anti-intellectual'. It makes this sound like a smart people versus stupid people debate, which I don't think it is.
Many 'uninformed voters' are educated people with lifetime experience and rational opinions.
And when the 'informed' people debate issues like national childcare, I think the 'uninformed' voters are just as important as the politically smart. In fact, I think that policies that are created with disregard of the populace are less likely to be good policy.
Let's not forget that a self-described redneck should be very proud to be closed minded.
Blue_Nose @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:32 pm
I don't think someone has a damned clue what "informed" actually means - the notion that anyone would be offended by the notion of being informed is laughable.