You’re on a bus with 9 people. 1 guy takes up 2/3rds of the bus by himself. 3 people take up 90% of what remains, and the last 5 are stacked on top of each other on the last remaining seat.

The one guy with 2/3 of the bus says he wants to throw two of the other passengers off a cliff at random so he can have their seats. 2 of the 3 in the next segment think this is a terrible idea and say we should keep things as they are, with one voting for it because he thinks somehow everyone will benefit from the top guy having more space. The bottom segment votes 3-2 in favor of the idea, because they hate the people in the second group for taking up space they could use, and like the idea of possibly throwing them off a cliff.

Remember, no matter how beautiful, morally righteous, or gratifying your strategy is, you should really look at the results

Yeah… But also, Carlin was right saying this shit is all a stage. We’ve got groups of bullies picking on us, and I’d rather throw bricks than help them decide who to pick on next.

If “harm” and “less harm” are the only two options, then the only question is how quickly you die. There’s the argument that we have to do “harm reduction” in order to buy time to organize for something better, but we’ve been procrastinating for decades apparently. Since all of history informs us that humans act only when inaction is no longer tenable (and sometimes not even then), really the only material difference between “harm reduction” and accelerationism is, again, the timeline.

Chuck Schumer: we beat them at their own game and got them to agree to only drive the buss halfway off the cliff as long as we all stand at the front.

clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap

What everyone forgets is that the actual voting already happened. The bus company, Cliff driving Committee, voted before the bus embarked. They voted for the bus driver to drive off the cliff to cut spending to maintenance and health insurance to the driver and bus. There only so much the riders can say at that point

A vote is not an endorsement, it’s a move.

“I voted for the cliff because I know the ice cream place is down below it and I wanted to get there faster.” - Have to assume this person exists, but I’m not sure who they would be in the analogy. 🤔

Edit: Oh, I just had to scroll down a few more comments to find them.

Is voting for controlled opposition harm reduction?

Like I agree that Kamala was the correct choice, but her inevitably milquetoast liberal policies would keep us stagnant until people voted in the next Republican out of boredom

Well yeah but the one of the people who voted for ice cream downvoted a post about gaza one time so CLEARLY the entire bus sacrificing themselves just in case it might save gaza is the better option. Also there’s an atomic bomb factory in a heavily populated area at the bottom of the cliff so basically the same amount of people as the entire population of gaza are going to die if this happens but protecting Gaza is more important than protecting loved ones apparently.

Everyone’s upset about the vegan ice cream voters not voting for regular ice cream.

No one is upset at the regular ice cream people for being unwilling to vote for a vegan ice cream place because their choice is default in their mind.

Both sides are holding each other hostage. One has a moral reason and the other just doesn’t want to compromise.

And yet.

I just knew the comments were going to be us tearing each other apart.

I’m just thinking out loud here. What if Progressives that are registered as Democrats changed their registration to independent? Also, stop sending them your money. We could organize it to happen over one week. Then keep it that way for 30 days. See how much power we truly have. If we can show the Democratic party that they would never win another election without us, maybe they would be more likely to listen.

We have to be careful though, I know this President is running roughshod over the Constitution with the blessing of SCOTUS and Congress but they don’t have enough votes or State legislatures to amend the Constitution. If they get that, then that truly is the end of this experiment.

im sure the illogical thinkers will start thinking logically any day now

Pugjesus doesnt seem to understand that you can elect people with a D by their name who will vote with republicans on critical votes. But hey as long as the D team wins on election day, thats all that matters I guess, right Pug?

The problem here is having only two choices.

Where I’m from we have coalition governments. It’s very rare for one party to have a majority. So they have to argue for months and come to some kind of agreement with other parties. The good thing is that everyone can vote for what they really want. There’s not really any ‘lost votes’. The bad thing is that the coalition forming process is messy and slow and the result is much watered down. But I’d much rather have this than a two party system.

If I had been a US citizen I’d have voted for Harris though.