I think the fact that elections are not a randomized lottery party, along the lines of jury duty summons, shows how in the eyes of the law not all persons are created equal.
It’d be an easy fix with free education up to and including university masters and doctorates, making every link as strong as the chain needs it to be and paid for largely by public officials working for minimum wage, but the blunt fact this isn’t reality and nobody is clamoring for it reveals the spectacle as a subversive form of socialized supremacy.
We could anonymize elections even, with merits and merits alone doing all the talking which would dramatically rule out snake oil salespersons. But the public is made to think that identity is the only defining factor for who a person truly is. What constitutes “good” or “evil” is absolutely not dependent on gender or sexuality or ethnicity, whether it’s voting explicitly for or against such things. But it’s politically incorrect to give these less gravitas than brand loyalty or religious zealotry or even actual political partisanship, life decisions which all genders, sexualities and ethnicities without exception are indeed factually subject to. There is room for some distinction, like how I identify as a good person pretty much the same way Uncle Sam identifies as a god-king. Maybe without widely realizing it, when the phrase “identifies as” is used, it’s almost always a derogatory swipe at self-branding, such as how Trump identifies as quite a lot which could not be further from reality. Yet this is never done to question such logic of identifying banners themselves, only to favor a competing banner. The natural proclivity toward avatars and proxies online should have made sexism, homophobia and racism obsolete, because for all anyone knows anybody could be anybody. Their being radicalized instead beyond IRL/AFK cannot possibly be incidental. The means for mistaking a for-profit public platform for a gated community of self-segregated comfort zones, echo chambers and safe spaces is the business model of social media. Information control isn’t just a matter of censorship, but pointedly amplifying certain info for certain audiences while suppressing for others. Radicalizing, stupefying and misguiding. Corporations grow fat on the teat for doing just this, but we the people do it to one another constantly, as though our lives depended on it.
Egos are the most fragile thing in all of creation, which is why our culture gives them exclusive rights to TLC. But I think even more common than egg-shells is ideological inconsistency, everybody shitting themselves whenever scrutiny beyond face value branding is applied. Cowardice is not a medical condition, its a character flaw. Trump is completely incapable of acknowledging his own poor decisions, but the greater issue is that most persons approach life with the exact same logic, the abject denial of doing anything wrong. Praising selfishness is condemning selflessness. Either everyone drops the ego or everyone suffers. It is shallow to criticize someone for their identity alone, and it is every part as shallow to praise them for it. It’s never who they are, but what they do that matters. What they have done and what they will do, which cannot be forecast by identity, as reliance on stereotypes in profiling works both ways, possessing a come-around the same as reverse discrimination. None of it might inform us who a person genuinely is. The presumption that any Jewish candidate is sight unseen worth voting for is for the precise same reasons as ill-informed as presuming a woman must not be voted for simply because she is a female. No matter if a suit is worn daily or not, the clothes do not make the man.
Certainly there are those who vote by policy decisions past or present, by the proven track records of successes and failures and what experiences led candidates to their campaign trail to begin with. But the greater whole have always been another matter, persons who will callously vote for or against someone for no other reason but that they are male or Caucasian or gay or Jewish or black or trans or Christian. None of which definitively tells us if they’re antifa or in favor of supremacy, if they’re anti-Capitalist or fine with profiteering at the cost of life. There is no centrism to these things, no loopholes. All the rationalizing in the world can’t hide the fact that what truly matters really is that simple. Denying this is what breeds the unnecessary complexities of our times. To that effect “moderates” are basically just people who get off on exceptions and exemptions, get out of jail free cards and loopholes. Reality not being as subjective as we wish is kinda why everything is screwy. Packaging generally is a lie, intended or not, as it comes across as a poor indicator for what lies inside, whether it’s the sort of someone who collects canned foods for charity or is a rapist, or both, or something altogether different.
Undesirables finding appeal in you or yours is not itself a form of harassment. If we allowed ourselves to be defined by others, our actions to be judged by others as opposed to our self-definitions merely announced, society would be far more honest, because ego-centrism is the absolute source of all social ills. Everyone insisting life is to be their way or the highway works against group dynamics. Self-perception is just graffiti on the walls of our cells, and we all have our own to fret over. Demanding that others share yours is the root of supremacy. Everybody needs to look outside every chance they get. Elsewise, what we have is the lone alternative, which is ego-centrism. The further right one goes the more they service themselves, wish-fulfillment of their bias and fetishes. The more left, the more ego is dropped to service the hard reality needs of others. If a politician isn’t 100% anti-Capitalism, they’re promising wishes, creating problems rather than solving them. What they look like or who they choose to fuck has nothing to do with that, so there is no manifest reason for those to be factors in voting whatsoever, lest we be fine with persons being products of their environments rather than actual exceptions to the rule.
And besides, arguing over which game-show host most deserves to wield the exploitation controls has not prevented the more inhuman policies from continuing, so maybe everybody should cool it with the silly notion of voting as a solution, and wonder at why the act changes nothing for the better. Because voting is a fucking charade from start to finish. It is the greatest of shallow lies, absorbed fully by those unwilling and unable to look at things any deeper than surface level.