Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
you haven’t responded to the myriad comments pointing out when we feel it’s justified to kill someone, like defending yourself and others or at times of war.
Even in self defense, to me, killing someone is last resort.
I get robbed at gunpoint: i give them my wallet.
I get attacked for reasons beyond my control (gaybashing for example): i’d try to run, as it’s usually a group of people. I’d cry for help. I’d try to inflict enough pain to get away.
I’m at war. I don’t want to be at war. I also noticed people larping here, like they want to be in a war. To me that’s crazy.
I get wormholed back to baby hitler: Wouldn’t kill him. Would encourage him often to persue arts.
More specific to this case: it’s not self defense if you stalk a person then kill them, in my opinion.
That’s incel turned rapist/murderer thinking, in my opinion.
In the US? No.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
So nothing is changing in january?
how can someone be so lacking in nuance? your world is so black and white lol.
my guy, you really need to think through things more, you’re so simple it’s mind boggling
So black and white that I don’t manage to appreciate murder, apparently :)
In my way, I see that as a good thing.
you haven’t responded to the myriad comments pointing out when we feel it’s justified to kill someone, like defending yourself and others or at times of war.
So, what’s your stance?
Even in self defense, to me, killing someone is last resort.
I get robbed at gunpoint: i give them my wallet.
I get attacked for reasons beyond my control (gaybashing for example): i’d try to run, as it’s usually a group of people. I’d cry for help. I’d try to inflict enough pain to get away.
I’m at war. I don’t want to be at war. I also noticed people larping here, like they want to be in a war. To me that’s crazy.
I get wormholed back to baby hitler: Wouldn’t kill him. Would encourage him often to persue arts.
More specific to this case: it’s not self defense if you stalk a person then kill them, in my opinion.
That’s incel turned rapist/murderer thinking, in my opinion.
Yes but now you’re discussing nuance whereas in your replies to everyone else you’re making a blanket statement that murder is always wrong.
You can’t reject other peoples’ nuanced arguments with a blanket statement then retreat to making your own when confronted.
Your POV is valid, and I’m not telling you you’re wrong to believe it, but you haven’t been engaging with others in good faith.
Stalking someone, to then kill them. That’s incel turned rapist/murderer behaviour, to me.
I’ve genuinely only seen people enjoying murder, saying it’s great because they don’t like the murder victim.
What nuance am I missing, that’s not encompassed by: “they don’t like the murder victim”?
I’m referring to people talking about the trolley problem, defense, war, etc.
When it comes to killing the CEO I’m not gonna argue it because your position is valid.
I agree it’s “wrong” but I won’t hide my smile, I wouldn’t be sad about some other similar incidents either.
When there is no justice, there can be no peace.
but if the president wears different pants than the previous president that goes to show voting can affect change