Thats something entirely different though. Using votes to show disagreement/agreement makes sense as a tool of democratic communication. This goes for comments that contain statements.

OP describes a “jail” type of usage, where there is nothing to disagree but people downvote amyways (to feel superior maybe), wich sucks cause it reads like hate

Oh god please no, please don’t escalate this war by adding the killer kind of weapons to it

I understand and totally support that in general. I’m gonna try to explain my point of view.

In this case we don’t exactly look at policy-making. Between stating that a majority supports governmental action to ban one use plastics and actual policy is a process.

This process will “forge” the outcome. In it, several conflicting interests will meet/clash and according to the power relations between them, they will be able to enforce their respective will.

Since the power relations are, let’s say, fucked up, we are constantly seeing how profit of few overrule need of many and overall rational solutions.

Thats why the criterion “clearness” seems out of place for me at this point. Certanly, before it comes to the actual policy-making, things like the washabillity of surgical equipment will be processed. You will certanly not end up with a dirty scalpel in your body.

That’s why the scepticism of your initial comment seemed odd to me.

Don’t know if this should be seen as a given standard, or if we (“average lemmy users”) should disclaim it more often, but I don’t mean to be offensive (even though this format of short message discourse provoces a certain sass). I mean to have meaningful conversation about each others POV’s. That’s somewhat the point of lemmy, imo.

The magic about collective action is that the everyday-normal-coorperation of humans comes up with solutions for everyone. The pointer to individual decision-making in lack of collective action thus doesn’t work as a measure of how serious people are.

Also seen in episodes like

“Oh, you are wearing shoes made under unfair conditions?!”

And

“Oh there is fossil fuel in your energy consumption?”

Or

“Oh if you like democracy so much, why do you exist in a not-so-democratic-country?”

Regarding how rushed international policy-making for the environment and against profitability is not at all a problem has never been and won’t be anytime soone, that “scepticism” seems to be the product of “looking for superiority” here, imho

1. Tiniest fraction of single use plastic
2. Could be recycled or reused/resterilized
3. What flavour of skepticism are you trying to perform rn?

And “helping” is still a major understatement

Ok imma try to get my point across one more time: There are two different layers of reality about the war.

Both layers contain meaningful information.

A bit of info in layer 1: The war is bad.

A bit of info in layer 2: Not all people see that.

We agree on both. Now my point is: We should understand the nuances on layer 2.

Your answer is: “Layer 1 has no nuances”

The war is not the same thing as the opinions about the war.

To influence the discourse, i.e. opinions, it’s better to understand the opinions specifically (“in nuances”).

To close the discrapancy between misguided public opinion and actual reality, we need to understand the opinions, not confuse its object with its (ideologically structured) representation.

Have you read that I said “of course they should condemn putin …”?

What I’m doing is not relativizing the invasion, but the opinions about it.

It’s a meta level. I’m not talking about nuances of the war, but nuances of political views. The article and the discussion is on that level.

I agree with your call for clear (and plain coherent/realistic) condemnation of the war. Nevertheless this should not be confused with analyzing how many and how and why people don’t see it that way.

Otherwise we give up a better understanding of what people think, which we need in order to find strategies to influence the discours on realities terms. (Reality meaning the reality of conciousness(es) about the war, not the war. That part we already agree on)

To answer that: political view has more options than condemn and support.

Of course, imo, they should condemn putin, his supporters, trum, biden, scholz, macron and the whole idea of those beeing the options of development of our societies.

But its not helpfull for us to tune in on 2 dimensional, under-complex concepts of social development/politics

Oops wrong pic. But I think it also shows how far from this study the claim “30% support putin” is

Support seems to plainly be the wrong word. “Not as an enemy, as a competitor” is definetly not “support”. In my opinion calling it that is more than misleading

I’d love some sauce on that Ü

Yeah lets get some social science running in this b**** Ü Perspective this techie fest (<3) could use some of