That’s some bullshit

Actually have the Christopher Columbus’s crew finish their mutany and go home before reaching the new world

Buddy.

They aren’t down voting you for not knowing something.

They are down voting you for something else.

We should commission one!

The people who got anime to take off in the US are the same people who started the furry fandom.

The Superman symbol was based off of the symbol for a sci fi fan club.

Conventions, and sci fi as we know it, are because of one electronics magazine.

This is dumb.

What you should’ve don’t was use the ashes instead of salt to help grit your sidewalk.

Or make what I like to call “trauma smoke bombs” for the next protest

This some AI bullshit?

You have a real hard time with reading comprehension don’t you

When someone’s using a Nazi strategy to talk about a Nazi talking point, it’s kinda hard not to notice a pattern and point it out.

Why are you mad people are pointing out that phrasing is making it harder to talk about racism? Do you not like it when people talk about racism or say things are racist? Why is that?

There wouldn’t need to be a lifting of general opinion if there wasn’t a widespread negative opinion. Of a race. You know, like racism.

Ya dunce.

Fuckin hilarious

And they are his balls. Technically.

Says your aren’t approaching in good faith

Then does another insult

Ok buddy. You have your day. Let me know when you figure it all out.

So you’re going to cherry pick what you argue against and the study? Ok let’s go.

existing research overlooks the fact that collective action often involves a confrontation between those who are motivated to defend the status quo and those who seek to challenge it.

So this is talking about two groups of people. It’s saying research has overlooked that people who do collective action inevitably have to confront people who want to keep the status quo.

To keep it simple, I’ll call the people who want collective action Changers and the people who want the status quo Keepers.

When Changers want change they have to, inevitably deal with Keepers. And people haven’t studied that.

This is important because it provides CONTEXT!

So let’s look what’s next.

Using nationally representative data […], we address this oversight and demonstrate that system justification is negatively associated with system-challenging collective action, but positively associated with system-supporting collective action, for members of both low-status and high-status groups.

So to break it down, they are saying they are gonna study how the Keepers and Changers interact. They found that Keepers don’t like collective action that challenges the system, BUT are ok with collective action that supports the system. This is for people who are poor and not poor.

So, Keepers wanna keep. They might be fine with collective action as long as it doesn’t mess with the system as is.

Group identification, group-based injustice, group-based anger, and system-based dissatisfaction/anger mediated these relationships.

So there’s ways these two GROUPS OF PEOPLE can get together! From these things!

These findings […] explain[…] when people will act collectively to challenge—and, just as importantly, defend—the status quo.

So this study shows why people will band together as Changers and Keepers.

Neat!

Oh wait. There’s a problem.

NOTHING in this is about voting, nor is it about how we treat voting. It has NOTHING to do with people being compliant because they can vote. It’s a study of why people who want to change a system have to butt heads with people who want to keep a system. It does not have anything to do with turning Changers into Keepers, and you are, again, making an assumption that your theory is right and working backwards from there. You assume how we treat voting makes people comply, but this study doesn’t talk about that. It doesn’t talk about how system participation erodes desire to change it at all, just how Keepers and Changers butt heads and why.

So what I just said still stands.

You have no proof of that.

That study clearly didn’t state the same thing you did.

Voting can actually get people more engaged with organizing than less.

Oh wait here’s a bonus, no one treats voting as the only means of engagement, much less the primary one. People talk about calling and writing to their reps, running for office, filing out positions, etc.

Are you going to ignore those points and hope I forget about them?

Face it cowbee you don’t have a leg to stand on here with your theory.

Ok, so who are you gonna vote for?

Yeah, sure. Totally.

So you’re gonna vote then?

Uh huh, sure.

So if you think the way voting is treated it causes people to check out, my arguments still stand.

You have no proof of that.

That study clearly didn’t state the same thing you did.

Voting can actually get people more engaged with organizing than less.

Oh wait here’s a bonus, no one treats voting as the only means of engagement, much less the primary one. People talk about calling and writing to their reps, running for office, filing out positions, etc.

Watch we’ll get into a semantic debate about what you mean by “primary” next. Either as “the only way” or “the main way”, both of which can be argued against pretty easily.

Further, when people treat voting as their primary means of political engagement, they do check out!

He’s trying to now say that it’s something different but it was pretty obvious in context.