voting

What's in a question...". Here's a scenario...
I say something. It could be anything but for the sake of argument, "I hope Trump runs for a third term."

People in hearing range are heard to ask (examples):
   - What do you mean by that?
   - Umm, have you read the Constitution?
   - Why?
   - How do you think that benefits the country?

My interest... Which, if any, of those questions might be considered an invitation to dialogue? Which might elicit a defensive or angry response? If we accept a premise that Our country is being damaged by polarization and hostility, how do we engage with one another to explore the why's behind opinions held? What is your base response when someone asks you a question?

I have observed what I think is shift in definition (or perception) regarding the purpose of a question. To some extent, I think the use and nature of questions has been placed in a negative light. And, that is hazardous to Our ability to gather and analyze information as well as Our opportunities communicate about important societal issues.

At a base level, how much does tone of voice matter? Does who asked -how they look- matter? Does the choice of words affect your response? The time or place? How much of your response is determined primarily by how you interpret the question versus how the questioner might have intended it?

Additional circumstances where I wonder about questions and what they mean or do...
   - How often does a politician who represents you ask your opinion before voting on a matter?
   - Are public polls and surveys able to collect opinion fairly? (I.E., Shouldn't there generally be a "None of the above" option for almost everything you've ever been asked? Or, data about who is taking the poll and for what purpose? I am tired of being forced to answer in a way that defines my 'social box' incorrectly.)
   - Particularly with regard to evaluation of programs, we are asked to place ourselves in various classifications. Income, race, faith, address, age - you know what I mean. These "metrics" are quantitative and objective but... Who decides on the ranges?; Who decides on definitions? When we are measuring whether the quality of someones life has improved, do we need more 'humetrics'?

Have I perhaps managed to kindle curiosity in a dark corner ? :-) It seems to me that this is worth thinking and talking about. It may be part of healing and finding our individual agency to affect the world. It might also be a part of solving problems in a way that promotes positive-sum outcomes. 

Could it be ethically ok to not vote? note: I posted this two hours before Biden stepped down. It’s possible that a different Dem candidate could change my choices, but my overall perspective feels the same.

A lot of people I’m close to have very strong opinions that to not vote in this presidential election is wrong. But I have no interest in voting. It genuinely seems to me that things will be perfectly not ideal no matter what happens in the election.

My best guess of what’s happening culturally is that the mean green meme has gotten really far down its negative feedback loop, and red, orange, and amber are swarming on the attack. If that’s right, a breaking point of sorts will have to be hit for teal to get to its tipping point. In 12-step terms, green would have to hit rock bottom to be able to finally admit it has a problem and needs help.

I wouldn’t be surprised if teal’s tipping point would have to be particularly intense because it’s also the tipping point into second tier, and we have no historical reference for what it takes for a culture to begin to get a foothold in a new tier (the big bang, the formulation of simple cells, and the leap from apes to humans might be comparable but difficult to translate…)

This thought process just leaves me trusting what’s happening, and voting just doesn’t feel like one of the ways I want to participate in this happening.

Could it be ethically ok to not vote? note: I posted this two hours before Biden stepped down. It’s possible that a different Dem candidate could change my choices, but my overall perspective feels the same.

A lot of people I’m close to have very strong opinions that to not vote in this presidential election is wrong. But I have no interest in voting. It genuinely seems to me that things will be perfectly not ideal no matter what happens in the election.

My best guess of what’s happening culturally is that the mean green meme has gotten really far down its negative feedback loop, and red, orange, and amber are swarming on the attack. If that’s right, a breaking point of sorts will have to be hit for teal to get to its tipping point. In 12-step terms, green would have to hit rock bottom to be able to finally admit it has a problem and needs help.

I wouldn’t be surprised if teal’s tipping point would have to be particularly intense because it’s also the tipping point into second tier, and we have no historical reference for what it takes for a culture to begin to get a foothold in a new tier (the big bang, the formulation of simple cells, and the leap from apes to humans might be comparable but difficult to translate…)

This thought process just leaves me trusting what’s happening, and voting just doesn’t feel like one of the ways I want to participate in this happening.

Could it be ethically ok to not vote? note: I posted this two hours before Biden stepped down. It’s possible that a different Dem candidate could change my choices, but my overall perspective feels the same.

A lot of people I’m close to have very strong opinions that to not vote in this presidential election is wrong. But I have no interest in voting. It genuinely seems to me that things will be perfectly not ideal no matter what happens in the election.

My best guess of what’s happening culturally is that the mean green meme has gotten really far down its negative feedback loop, and red, orange, and amber are swarming on the attack. If that’s right, a breaking point of sorts will have to be hit for teal to get to its tipping point. In 12-step terms, green would have to hit rock bottom to be able to finally admit it has a problem and needs help.

I wouldn’t be surprised if teal’s tipping point would have to be particularly intense because it’s also the tipping point into second tier, and we have no historical reference for what it takes for a culture to begin to get a foothold in a new tier (the big bang, the formulation of simple cells, and the leap from apes to humans might be comparable but difficult to translate…)

This thought process just leaves me trusting what’s happening, and voting just doesn’t feel like one of the ways I want to participate in this happening.