ExecutiveStapler

Absolutely agree. I don’t know what form of doomscrolling leads to such a paranoid view of the world that they believe their neighbors would shoot them for advocating for mere voting reform, but it’s certainly not healthy. It’s also plainly ridiculous for them to advocate for unionizing in the same trigger happy society that’d apparently off them the second they enter a town hall.

It’s true that it’s difficult, but it’s not true that changing the voting system will never or has never happened. Link shows the states where RCV has been enacted on state and local levels. It’s notable that it’s mainly Democrat states that have enacted RCV and it’s only Republican states that have banned it (which is fucking ridiculous). You could be the one to get RCV enacted in your city, which’ll show everyone in your city how cool it is to have more choices, which’ll then snowball into getting it enacted in your state, which long term could snowball into it getting enacted on the federal level.
You’re nearly never more politically powerful than when you’re one of a few dozen people in a city meeting.

Another answer to your question is that it’s fundamentally misguided due to your assumption that good and evil are absolute concepts and that there can’t exist separate and consistent moral worldviews. Consider the historical crusaders joining a brotherhood of Christ to save their holy land from the infidels and secure safe pilgrimages for millions of their fellow Christians, and then consider a Muslim warrior defending his homeland and family in the name of Allah from crazed zealots of an imperfect prophet. Who is good there? If you asked them, they’d both say they’re the good one and the other is the evil one. They’d both say the reason they KNOW they’re the good one is ultimately due to insight into the moral fabric of the universe granted to them by God (the same god, funnily enough). Ultimately, it’s impossible to say absolutely which one is right without appealing to something like divine revelation.

Another assumption I think you should reconsider is your implied stance that good people are necessarily absolutists in their principles. You say the good people wouldn’t use nuclear bombs, but why? Nuclear bombs have ushered humanity into the greatest and longest period of peace in human history. You say the good people would never use torture, but why? I agree with other commenters that for practical purposes torture is nearly always useless and inhumane, but suppose a hypothetical hemophobic (and Evil!) nuclear terrorist that you’d just need to barely cut (light torture!) and then he’d tell you the secrets to his dastardly plan to bomb an orphanage. Are you sure that a good person would be obligated to stand by as the orphans explode instead of giving that guy a pinprick? Suppose the “good person” sticks to their principles and lets the orphans dies, what should they do to the terrorist? This guy’s really evil, he spits on puppies and doesn’t even feel bad about it. You also know with 100% certainty that he’ll never reform, Doctor Strange told you so. If so, wouldn’t it be more moral to just kill him? Why waste resources on his useless imprisonment when it could be spent on thousands of mosquito nets saving thousands of nonevil lives from malaria? Also, why is he evil? Suppose it’s even 1% likely that evilness spreads through genes, if the good guy knew that and let him have kids wouldn’t it be partially the good guy’s fault if his nuclear terrorist baby bombs another orphanage? Perhaps you have satisfying answers to all these questions, but if you don’t you just justified the torture, killing, and eugenics-ing of “evil” people.

Ultimately, the impression I want to leave is that ethics are hard and complicated and most certainly more nuanced than a good and evil divide. There exist counter arguments to some of the things I said in this comment, but I’m guessing exploration of those counter arguments would leave you with a more nuanced view of good and evil regardless.

This is the worst plan possible because of the phenomenon of vote splitting. If your #1 issue you want solved is FPTP voting, vote for the party that’s shown the biggest tendency to reform that, the Democrats.

If you feel your vote is still worthless, stop complaining online and get involved locally and on a state level to enact the voting reform of your choice.

Your summary is certainly not about removing LBTG rights, it’s saying he agrees with the institutions of the United States. I find it interesting however that that’s how you’d choose to summarize the quotes.

The part about removing LGBT rights is where he’s saying that law is / should be god’s will implemented and that god’s will is marriage being purely between a man and a woman. He can say he loves all equally, but he shows that’s not true when he classifies some people’s marriages as being unworthy of legal recognition.

link

Two quotes:
“But let me say on this issue, if we got to know each other, you’d know the Pences love everybody,” Pence continued. “We treat everybody the way we want to be treated. But on this issue, and it’s frankly something that when the Obergefell decision was made which legalized same-sex marriage in America, the Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy wrote at the end, that this decision will likely create an intersection and tension between people in same-sex relationships and people in the exercise of their religious liberty.”

“Look, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, I believe in traditional marriage, and I believe marriage was ordained by God and instituted in the law, but we live in a pluralistic society, and the way we go forward, and the way we come together as a country united, I believe, is when we respect: Your right to believe and my right to believe what we believe,” Pence said.

There’s not exactly a specific law because it was decided by the Supreme Court. He’d most certainly support a law in Congress to overturn the Supreme Court decision though.

Who trampled on the Russian tomatoes? (Don’t say the Nazis, they trampled on everyone’s tomatoes including their own) For Russia, there was some small scale support for the whites during their civil war, but otherwise trade between the Soviets and the west increased year by year during the NEP period until Stalin purposely contracted it (if someone knows more about this period, feel free to correct me. I’m working off of information I learned in classes years ago and this article that matches with what I remember). I’d propose that the Soviet issues were internal due to blindly ideological governance that crippled their economy and society. They didn’t have to make such an insane number of nukes, create the culture that caused Chernobyl, nor invade Afghanistan.

Otherwise, who trampled the Mainland Chinese tomatoes? They basically won their civil war, their only issue was blind allegiance to chairman Mao that resulted in disaster after disaster. The West didn’t force them to try the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, the Down to the Countryside ‘Movement,’ nor the One Child Policy. The CCP did those to themselves, and they only found success once Mao died and they made their economy more capitalistic.

And then once more, who trampled on the North Korean tomatoes? At the beginning of their war, they tried to crush the South’s tomatoes until a UN authorized force pushed them to the Chinese border and then a Chinese force counterbalanced to the current borders, but otherwise the North was economically better off once the stalemate began (the Japanese centered their industrial developments in the north). North Korea failed because of dramatic mismanagement and a ideology of constant militarism while the South, with ups and downs, prospered.

Sure, there were military actions, police actions, and garden trampling that harmed both sides during the Cold War, but you can’t just blame your enemy for beating you, you have to recognize why you lost.

Any rational capitalist (or more realistically, mixed market supporter) should agree that other systems are theoretically possible, and should probably even support small scale scientific tests of whatever people want to realistically propose.

This already happens with tests of UBI occurring all over and examples of coops existing in many places as well. UBI is too new to say but looks promising, and coops seem great in certain areas of the economy if properly supported but not optimal everywhere, as far as I’m aware.

However, if someone thinks their system can only work with absolutely everyone in society participating after a revolution where the sinners (whoever they are) are eliminated, they really ought to recalibrate their beliefs or join a militia if they’re really serious.

Gesturing vaguely at everything is not an argument for anything. Supposing the person you’re talking to agrees that everything is bad, then it’s simply an argument for radicalism, not necessarily anticapitalism or whatever your particular strain of belief is. Someone could, while gesturing vaguely, just as easily argue that it’s because of moral decline, that society isn’t capitalist enough, for race realism, for the need for a strongman to take over, or really anything that’d promise (but almost certainly not deliver) to vaguely fix everything.

You are misusing terms, a stakeholder is anyone affected by a company’s actions while a shareholder is anyone with ownership in a company. All shareholders are stakeholders, not all stakeholders are shareholders.

It seems like this study doesn’t say anything about ADHD or Adderall. All they gave out was caffeine or placebo and they either told the participants they were getting caffeine or Adderall. So all the study really concluded is that if (a neurotypical) college student was fooled into thinking they took Adderall where they really took caffeine they’d perform better than someone who just took caffeine. Which just seems like proving the placebo effect.