If you vote Democrat [bad thing, genocide is bad no?], a Republican might win [bad thing] anyway, so you might as well throw your vote away on a third party [bad thing]
You see how you have once again either misinterpreted or misrepresented the argument? 2nd time now, how many before we can assume deliberate misrepresentation?
Smoking was a good analogy, why run from it? Voting democrat [chain smoking] is the devil a lot of people know, and it sure as hell beats voting republican [heroin]. No argument from me: chain smoking > heroin.
Butā¦ you could quit smoking and not do heroin either.
Butā¦ you could quit smoking and not do heroin either.
Which is probably where youāre getting confused.
Republicans are cancer.
Voting Democrat is like not smoking.
Voting third party is like smoking.
The probability of getting cancer anyway does not mean that increasing your probability of getting cancer by smoking is smart, it is much better to not smoke. Maybe you still get cancer anyway, but at least youāve improved your odds.
The probability of getting a Republican anyway does not mean that increasing your probability of getting a Republican by voting third party is smart, it is much better to vote Democrat. Maybe you still get a Republican anyway, but at least youāve improved your odds.
Voting third party is not good or virtuous. It is counterproductive and contributes to the greater harm.
Which is probably where youāre getting confused.
[ā¦]
Voting Democrat is like not smoking.
Voting third party is like smoking.
Youāre right, here is where the disconnect is. Seems strange to blame it on me being confused, can you not accept Iām a rational person in any way? Because I donāt 100% agree I have to be āconfusedā?
Anyways, we can drill down to just here. Is genocide bad? To those that think āgenocide=badā voting democrat cannot be a good thing, which is why you struggled so much fitting it into my argument right? You can think itās a necessary thing, but it canāt be a good thing.
So, empathy time:
Can you accept that itās a rational thing to assert: āgenocide=badā?
You can disagree that it is ābad enoughā, damage limitation is also a rational argument right? At least I accept damage limitation to be a valid POV. I donāt think we can move on until you accept āgenocide=badā is a rational POV, not born of confusion.
Once we have āgenocide=badā itās easy to get to ārepublicans=heroinā, ādemocrats=chain smokingā and you now have a few years to quit.
Because I donāt 100% agree I have to be āconfusedā?
No, youāre confused because your logic is bad. Logic isnāt something you can disagree with. You can disagree on the axioms you apply logic to, but you canāt disagree with the logic itself.
Can you accept that itās a rational thing to assert: āgenocide=badā?
Yes, obviously. However, voting for someone who opposes genocide, but stands no chance of winning is not good; it does nothing to curtail the genocide.
No matter who you vote for, the result will be Democrat or Republican for the foreseeable future. If you actually care about the genocide, itās better to choose which of those two is less bad. Additionally there are other issues, so even if the two are identical on genocide, thereās still a rational choice.
Voting third party does not help obstruct genocide in any way. I compared it to smoking because it feels good, it scratches an itch, but long term itās bad.
No, youāre confused because your logic is bad. Logic isnāt something you can disagree with. You can disagree on the axioms you apply logic to, but you canāt disagree with the logic itself.
Ok
Axiom 1. doing a good thing (not supporting a genocide party) might get a bad result (republican power)
Axiom 2. Not doing the good thing (supporting a genocide party, genocide=bad we agree, bad!=good) will get a bad result anyway (republican power)
Therefore, you might as well do the good thing. You might get a good result, not doing so will get the bad result.
You havenāt proven the logic bad. You havenāt proven an axiom incorrect. You have misrepresented the position a couple times as Iāve demonstrated to you. This is a third time, Iām going with āmisrepresentedā. How many times until deliberate misrepresentation. How many until malicious misrepresentation?
I am not confused, your trying to portray me as such is a bad faith attempt to dismiss me. If Iām confused then you donāt have to think about what Iām saying. It would be like dismissing you as āgenocide supporterā right? It doesnāt promote good conversation.
Voting democrat isnāt a good thing, we agree. You think itās the necessary thing, I acknowledged that in my previous comment, thanks for ignoring it. Explaining why you think itās the necessary thing doesnāt make me think you believe itās the necessary thing even more. Explaining why you think itās the necessary thing doesnāt prove itās the good thing. (Genocide=bad, bad!=good) Therefore explaining why you think itās the necessary thing doesnāt show my position to be illogical and was a waste of time. We both agree, you think itās the necessary thing and I think thatās a valid POV. Thereās no argument to be found here.
Voting third party does not help obstruct genocide in any way. I compared it to smoking because it feels good, it scratches an itch, but long term itās bad.
Right, āfeels good, scratches an itch but long term itās badā thatās supporting democrats. Damage limitation is short term feel good, but long term loss, gestures at the current state of things. Instead of damage limitation you have a few years to quit smoking, as it were, and build something better.
Or, you can do what youāve always done (vote Democrat) and hope you donāt get more of what youāve always got (relentless march to fascism)
Axiom 2. Not doing the good thing (supporting a genocide party, genocide=bad we agree) will get a bad result anyway (republican power)
Yes, thatās a bad axiom. It is demonstrably untrue. It may get the worse of the two possible outcomes (Republican power) or it may get the less bad of two possible outcomes (Democrat power). It is false to say that voting will get the worse result.
Doesnāt matter what logic you apply to those axioms, garbage in garbage out.
Therefore, you might as well do the good thing. You might get a good result, not doing so will get the bad result.
How does voting for a candidate with no chance of winning yield a good result?
Good intentions with bad outcomes does not make a good thing. Wasting your vote is a bad thing. You keep calling it good, it is not.
Damage limitation is short term feel good, but long term loss, gestures at the current state of things. Instead of damage limitation you have a few years to quit smoking, as it were, and build something better.
Long term it is still the better of two possible outcomes. āQuittingā is going to require social action. Individual electoral action will not make anything better. The smoker in this analogy is the nation as a whole, doing the good thing would be changing the outlooks of half the country. Voting third party does not accomplish that. It makes you feel good for opposing genocide, while enabling that genocide to get worse. Bad thing.
It may get the worse of the two possible outcomes (Republican power) or it may get the less bad of two possible outcomes
Distinction without difference, I was thoughtless to use the word will. Swapping it to may doesnāt change my argument over much. Options are maybe good, definitely bad, definitely hellsacpe. Doom yourself to flip from bad to hellsacpe eternally? Or try for good?
Regardless, Iāll be more careful when stating the position as less certain in future, youāre right, there is a non zero chance they win an election but, of course, thereās always the election after.
How does voting for a candidate with no chance of winning yield a good result?
For someone who just made a point of non-zero vs zero chance, I thought you would be more careful with your verbage. I made a direct acknowledgement of the mistake, and a sincere commitment to do better, I expect the same from you.
Youāve got a few years to try and increase that chance, or you can try keep people smoking, which have you chosen to do? Which do you intend to do going forward? Genocide is a cancer, one of many that are the symptoms of supporting dem. Everyone believed the UK Tories were the only alternative to UK Labour, āitās a FPTP and therefore two party systemā, then Reform started to take off. 2 party system has always been a lie. To be clear, Reform are fascist as fuck.
Good intentions with bad outcomes does not make a good thing.
Are you talking about supporting Democrats here? Supporting Democrat achieved nothing and so āWasting [their] vote is a bad thing. [They] keep calling it good, it is not.ā Everyone that didnāt vote Republican made an ineffective vote, did you vote for Trump because it would be effective? No, you didnt vote for Trump (I imagine) because it would be a bad thing to do, regardless of the outcome.
I disagree with you, the people fighting for civil rights when it was unpopular to do so were doing good. Perhaps thatās our fundamental disagreement: just because itās unpopular (and therefore ineffective in politics) doesnāt make it not good. A lot of unpopular things are good, and the people doing them are doing good.
Voting [democrats] does not accomplish that. It makes you feel good for opposing [Fascism], while enabling that genocide to get worse. Bad thing.
Ftfy, kinda, I think opposing fascism is a valid priority to have. You acknowledged genocide is bad but canāt seem to accept itās opposition is also a valid priority.
The smoker in this analogy is the nation as a whole, doing the good thing would be changing the outlooks of half the country.
What do you think Iām trying to do if not change your outlook?
Huge content edit to the first paragraph. Normally I just edit without fuss but itās worth mentioning when a paragraph now says the opposite of what it did. Further, I wonāt see a reply telling me which version youāve seen before I have to leave. Hopefully you only see/respond to the edited one, being results minded.
Anyways to the edit: the original had me saying you suggested Dems were a āgoodā, you didnāt, theyāre a bad and thatās always been acknowledged. I changed the tone to be much less confrontational too. Good conversation and all that, Iām getting tired and my natural dickishness is coming (lol) though.
Swapping it to may doesnāt change my argument over much
It fundamentally does. The difference between certainty and possibility is logically massive, especially when it is the core of your argument.
Functionally, Dems stood little chance at winning.
Factually, it was much closer than youāre misrepresenting, which is why protest voting was such a terrible decision.
For someone who just made a point non-zero vs zero chance, I thought you would be more careful with your verbage.
I was careful, third parties stood no chance of winning. Democrats got nearly half the vote, third parties got fractions of a percent. Your insistence on equivocating the two is either wildly misinformed, or totally disingenuous.
Youāve got a few years to try and increase that chance, or you can try keep people smoking, which have you chosen to do?
You keep trying to frame it this way, this is wrong. The analogy doesnāt work with your substitutions. Third parties are smoking, Democrats are not smoking. Switching it around doesnāt work, the conditions are fundamentally different.
Iāve chosen to use my vote in the general election to obstruct fascism, since that is the best use. Iāve chosen to use more effective methods to secure better options.
Supporting Democrat achieved nothing
Supporting Democrats gave us a sporting chance of avoiding our present situation. If youāre talking about achieving nothing, youāre talking about voting third party in general elections. Democrats win presidential races, theyāve won many times in fact, and every time slows down the Republican race to fascism. Third parties do not win presidential races, so voting for them achieves nothing. Unless you want to count splitting the vote against fascism, it certainly achieves that.
I disagree with you, the people fighting for civil rights when it was unpopular to do so were doing good.
I never said they werenāt. But they didnāt do that by voting for unviable candidates. They did that with direct action. I never said anything against direct action.
You acknowledged genocide is bad but canāt seem to accept itāls opposition is also a valid priority.
Just being against something isnāt a priority. Actions that actually oppose genocide are a priority. Voting third party was not such an action.
It fundamentally does. The difference between certainly and possibility is logically massive, especially when it is the core of your argument
It doesnāt:
You can do the good thing and the bad thing may happen. Or not do the good thing and the bad thing may happen anyway. May as well do the good thing. - see, hasnāt changed in tone or content in any meaningful way.
Donāt believe me?
You can do the good thing and the bad thing may happen. Or not do the good thing and the bad thing will happen anyway. May as well do the good thing.
Youāre pettifogging.
You keep trying to frame it this way, this is wrong. The analogy doesnāt work with your substitutions. Third parties are smoking, Democrats are not smoking. Switching it around doesnāt work, the conditions are fundamentally different.
This is an assertion with nothing to back it up.
Axiom 1 Genocide is cancer, we agree genocide is bad.
Axiom 2. Voting for genocide is smoking
Axiom 3. Democrats support genocide.
To get cancer (1) you have to smoke (2) and voting democrrat makes you smoke (3). Therefore in your smoking analogy democrats is the equivalent to chain smoking. Iām granting republican is worse still,
You donāt like it, but itās true. Genocide isnāt even the only ācancerā Dems give you, just an undeniable one. Good news though, you have years to quit.
Am I repeating myself? I feel like Iām repeating myself.
Genocide is a cancer, one of many that are the symptoms of supporting dem. - Me circa 21st century.
Hmm I am repeating myself. This will be a motif the comment. Iāll spare you and me, the finding of the quotes, Iāve provided this one as an example for the rest.
Supporting Democrats gave us a sitting chance of avoiding our present situation. If youāre talking about achieving nothing, youāre talking about voting third party in general elections.
This is called a double standard. When judging others you judge them by the result of their actions and not their intentions. But you, you want to be judged by the intention of your actions and not the results.
People who oppose fascism at all costs inc genocide: well intentioned, it doesnāt matter their result.
People who oppose genocide at all costs inc Fascism: achieved nothing, it doesnāt matter their intention.
Itās plain as day, canāt you see it? Hereās the thing: opposing fascism is valid (you can accept this, you lived this), opposing genocide is also valid (you canāt seem to accept this, I donāt know why). You now have the opportunity to build something that opposes both.
Again, the people protesting for civil rights before it was an effective movement were doing a good thing.
Am I repeating myself, I feel like Iām repeating myself?
Democrats win presidential races, theyāve won many times in fact, and every time slows down the Republican race to fascism.
Doomed to flip from bad to hellscape, to bad to hellscapeā¦ Or shoot for something good. Am I repeating myself? I feel like Iām repeating myself.
[Third] parties do not win presidential races, so voting for them achieves nothing. Unless you want to count splitting the vote against fascism, it certainly achieves that.
Insert me repeating Tory Vs Labour then Reformā¦ Am I repeating myself? I feel like Iām repeating myself.
They did that with direct action. I never said anything against direct action.
Hmm
Direct action
the use of strikes, demonstrations, or other public forms of protest rather than negotiation to achieve oneās demands.
You mean like the protests? Yeah they did that. They were very much criticised for it, all the same critisms youāre making now. Remember? No? Down the memory hole that went I guess.
You support direct action done with the intention to oppose genocide? But not that direct action done with the intention to oppose genocide, Iām guessing. Because of the result of that direct action done with the intention to oppose genocide? Their results, of course, being the same results you achieved. then double standard, and on, and on, weāll go.
Just being against something isnāt a priority. Actions that actually oppose genocide are a priority. Voting third party was not such an action.
They took many actions: they VOTED for a party that didnāt support genocide, that definitivly is an action with the intention to oppose genocide. Gainsaying it doesnāt make it not. Next youāll complain about what they achieved, and they achieved the same results as you, then youāll present the double standards again and on weāll go.
But, before voting and libs (libs is a stand in, I cant be sure you specifically, but probably you specifically, definitely libs though. Phew some LW users went off) complaining about how they did or didnāt vote, they PROTESTED. Also an action with the intention to oppose genocide. Gainsaying it doesnāt make it not. Next youāll complain about what they achieved, and they achieved the same results as you. Then youāll present the double standards again and on weāll go.
But, before protesting and libs (again, stand in) complaining about how they did or didnāt protest they COMMUNICATED that genocide=bad (among other cancers). Also an action with the intention to oppose genocide. Gainsaying it doesnāt make it not. Next youāll complain about what they achieved, and they achieved the same results as you. Then youāll present the double standards again and on weāll go.
Here we are again at the start of the cycle, awareness is being raised. Communication is happening. Here you are again, complaining about it. Next youāll complain about what it might acheiveā¦
Can we call this an impasse? I feel weāve gone full circle a couple times now. Our arguments are well explained to anyone reading our thread (no one is reading our thread).
I have been empathetic to your claims and feel youāve explained yourself well. Fascism=bad, genocide=bad, why you voted what you voted, and why you donāt like what others are doing was all communicated well. For what itās worth, and at risk of repeating myself, I see damage limitation as a valid POV.
I obviously dont feel like youāve granted me the same courtesy of empathy, and Iām sure you think Iām as confused as ever.
Thatās ok, I think people reading after will understand the claim that supporting dem is a cycle of bad-worse-bad-worse, until there is no worse to goā¦ or you change for something āgoodā instead of āleast badā.
I think theyāll see that a new party is a very real option itās happened before (when did UK Labour start, who did they replace) itās happening now (who the fuck were Reform UK last election cycle). UK is a FPTP 2 party system too.
I think theyāll see that opposing genocide is a valid and good priority have. Convincing the electorate to vote the exact right amount of genocide: canāt be too much (republican), canāt be too little (anyone else), the genocide amount has to be just right (dem). That was was a foolish campaign for dem leadership to run, blame those in power.
Thatās a point, it came and went but I think theyāll see that we blame leadership (the people with the power) in every field. Except politics for some reason, then itās the little guyās fault. āSure Elon musk is a cunt, but have you seen the way Jerry sweeps floors, thatās whatās really fucking the stockā, āFacebook maybe designed to be a rage inducing, attention hogging machine by the Zuck, but if we just had more users, maybe weāll reverse the systemic alt-right pipelineā.
We donāt agree thatās fine. What I thing is not fine is that this comment was me just re-stating what Iāve already said. If I wasnt on mobile I think this could have all been quotes from previous comments. I donāt think youāve said anything substantially new either, that must be frustrating too.
Let me know if you can be convinced that: perhaps voting for a party that, by your own admission, is bad (genocidily so) might not be in your best interest. Or let me know if you think of a new reason why voting for a party that, by your own admission, is bad (genocidily so) might be in someone elseās best interest. Weāve covered: theyāre the ābadā in the āworse, bad, worseā cycle, and you donāt want the worse, so take the bad. Weāve covered: you donāt think good will win, so you wonāt vote for them, and because you wonāt vote for them you donāt think theyāll win, so vote bad.
You see how you have once again either misinterpreted or misrepresented the argument? 2nd time now, how many before we can assume deliberate misrepresentation?
Smoking was a good analogy, why run from it? Voting democrat [chain smoking] is the devil a lot of people know, and it sure as hell beats voting republican [heroin]. No argument from me: chain smoking > heroin.
Butā¦ you could quit smoking and not do heroin either.
Which is probably where youāre getting confused.
Republicans are cancer.
Voting Democrat is like not smoking.
Voting third party is like smoking.
The probability of getting cancer anyway does not mean that increasing your probability of getting cancer by smoking is smart, it is much better to not smoke. Maybe you still get cancer anyway, but at least youāve improved your odds.
The probability of getting a Republican anyway does not mean that increasing your probability of getting a Republican by voting third party is smart, it is much better to vote Democrat. Maybe you still get a Republican anyway, but at least youāve improved your odds.
Voting third party is not good or virtuous. It is counterproductive and contributes to the greater harm.
[ā¦]
Youāre right, here is where the disconnect is. Seems strange to blame it on me being confused, can you not accept Iām a rational person in any way? Because I donāt 100% agree I have to be āconfusedā?
Anyways, we can drill down to just here. Is genocide bad? To those that think āgenocide=badā voting democrat cannot be a good thing, which is why you struggled so much fitting it into my argument right? You can think itās a necessary thing, but it canāt be a good thing.
So, empathy time:
Can you accept that itās a rational thing to assert: āgenocide=badā?
You can disagree that it is ābad enoughā, damage limitation is also a rational argument right? At least I accept damage limitation to be a valid POV. I donāt think we can move on until you accept āgenocide=badā is a rational POV, not born of confusion.
Once we have āgenocide=badā itās easy to get to ārepublicans=heroinā, ādemocrats=chain smokingā and you now have a few years to quit.
No, youāre confused because your logic is bad. Logic isnāt something you can disagree with. You can disagree on the axioms you apply logic to, but you canāt disagree with the logic itself.
Yes, obviously. However, voting for someone who opposes genocide, but stands no chance of winning is not good; it does nothing to curtail the genocide.
No matter who you vote for, the result will be Democrat or Republican for the foreseeable future. If you actually care about the genocide, itās better to choose which of those two is less bad. Additionally there are other issues, so even if the two are identical on genocide, thereās still a rational choice.
Voting third party does not help obstruct genocide in any way. I compared it to smoking because it feels good, it scratches an itch, but long term itās bad.
Ok
Axiom 1. doing a good thing (not supporting a genocide party) might get a bad result (republican power)
Axiom 2. Not doing the good thing (supporting a genocide party, genocide=bad we agree, bad!=good) will get a bad result anyway (republican power)
Therefore, you might as well do the good thing. You might get a good result, not doing so will get the bad result.
You havenāt proven the logic bad. You havenāt proven an axiom incorrect. You have misrepresented the position a couple times as Iāve demonstrated to you. This is a third time, Iām going with āmisrepresentedā. How many times until deliberate misrepresentation. How many until malicious misrepresentation?
I am not confused, your trying to portray me as such is a bad faith attempt to dismiss me. If Iām confused then you donāt have to think about what Iām saying. It would be like dismissing you as āgenocide supporterā right? It doesnāt promote good conversation.
Voting democrat isnāt a good thing, we agree. You think itās the necessary thing, I acknowledged that in my previous comment, thanks for ignoring it. Explaining why you think itās the necessary thing doesnāt make me think you believe itās the necessary thing even more. Explaining why you think itās the necessary thing doesnāt prove itās the good thing. (Genocide=bad, bad!=good) Therefore explaining why you think itās the necessary thing doesnāt show my position to be illogical and was a waste of time. We both agree, you think itās the necessary thing and I think thatās a valid POV. Thereās no argument to be found here.
Right, āfeels good, scratches an itch but long term itās badā thatās supporting democrats. Damage limitation is short term feel good, but long term loss, gestures at the current state of things. Instead of damage limitation you have a few years to quit smoking, as it were, and build something better.
Or, you can do what youāve always done (vote Democrat) and hope you donāt get more of what youāve always got (relentless march to fascism)
Yes, thatās a bad axiom. It is demonstrably untrue. It may get the worse of the two possible outcomes (Republican power) or it may get the less bad of two possible outcomes (Democrat power). It is false to say that voting will get the worse result.
Doesnāt matter what logic you apply to those axioms, garbage in garbage out.
How does voting for a candidate with no chance of winning yield a good result?
Good intentions with bad outcomes does not make a good thing. Wasting your vote is a bad thing. You keep calling it good, it is not.
Long term it is still the better of two possible outcomes. āQuittingā is going to require social action. Individual electoral action will not make anything better. The smoker in this analogy is the nation as a whole, doing the good thing would be changing the outlooks of half the country. Voting third party does not accomplish that. It makes you feel good for opposing genocide, while enabling that genocide to get worse. Bad thing.
Distinction without difference, I was thoughtless to use the word will. Swapping it to may doesnāt change my argument over much. Options are maybe good, definitely bad, definitely hellsacpe. Doom yourself to flip from bad to hellsacpe eternally? Or try for good?
Regardless, Iāll be more careful when stating the position as less certain in future, youāre right, there is a non zero chance they win an election but, of course, thereās always the election after.
For someone who just made a point of non-zero vs zero chance, I thought you would be more careful with your verbage. I made a direct acknowledgement of the mistake, and a sincere commitment to do better, I expect the same from you.
Youāve got a few years to try and increase that chance, or you can try keep people smoking, which have you chosen to do? Which do you intend to do going forward? Genocide is a cancer, one of many that are the symptoms of supporting dem. Everyone believed the UK Tories were the only alternative to UK Labour, āitās a FPTP and therefore two party systemā, then Reform started to take off. 2 party system has always been a lie. To be clear, Reform are fascist as fuck.
Are you talking about supporting Democrats here? Supporting Democrat achieved nothing and so āWasting [their] vote is a bad thing. [They] keep calling it good, it is not.ā Everyone that didnāt vote Republican made an ineffective vote, did you vote for Trump because it would be effective? No, you didnt vote for Trump (I imagine) because it would be a bad thing to do, regardless of the outcome.
I disagree with you, the people fighting for civil rights when it was unpopular to do so were doing good. Perhaps thatās our fundamental disagreement: just because itās unpopular (and therefore ineffective in politics) doesnāt make it not good. A lot of unpopular things are good, and the people doing them are doing good.
Ftfy, kinda, I think opposing fascism is a valid priority to have. You acknowledged genocide is bad but canāt seem to accept itās opposition is also a valid priority.
What do you think Iām trying to do if not change your outlook?
Huge content edit to the first paragraph. Normally I just edit without fuss but itās worth mentioning when a paragraph now says the opposite of what it did. Further, I wonāt see a reply telling me which version youāve seen before I have to leave. Hopefully you only see/respond to the edited one, being results minded.
Anyways to the edit: the original had me saying you suggested Dems were a āgoodā, you didnāt, theyāre a bad and thatās always been acknowledged. I changed the tone to be much less confrontational too. Good conversation and all that, Iām getting tired and my natural dickishness is coming (lol) though.
It fundamentally does. The difference between certainty and possibility is logically massive, especially when it is the core of your argument.
Factually, it was much closer than youāre misrepresenting, which is why protest voting was such a terrible decision.
I was careful, third parties stood no chance of winning. Democrats got nearly half the vote, third parties got fractions of a percent. Your insistence on equivocating the two is either wildly misinformed, or totally disingenuous.
You keep trying to frame it this way, this is wrong. The analogy doesnāt work with your substitutions. Third parties are smoking, Democrats are not smoking. Switching it around doesnāt work, the conditions are fundamentally different.
Iāve chosen to use my vote in the general election to obstruct fascism, since that is the best use. Iāve chosen to use more effective methods to secure better options.
Supporting Democrats gave us a sporting chance of avoiding our present situation. If youāre talking about achieving nothing, youāre talking about voting third party in general elections. Democrats win presidential races, theyāve won many times in fact, and every time slows down the Republican race to fascism. Third parties do not win presidential races, so voting for them achieves nothing. Unless you want to count splitting the vote against fascism, it certainly achieves that.
I never said they werenāt. But they didnāt do that by voting for unviable candidates. They did that with direct action. I never said anything against direct action.
Just being against something isnāt a priority. Actions that actually oppose genocide are a priority. Voting third party was not such an action.
It doesnāt:
You can do the good thing and the bad thing may happen. Or not do the good thing and the bad thing may happen anyway. May as well do the good thing. - see, hasnāt changed in tone or content in any meaningful way.
Donāt believe me?
You can do the good thing and the bad thing may happen. Or not do the good thing and the bad thing will happen anyway. May as well do the good thing.
Youāre pettifogging.
This is an assertion with nothing to back it up.
Axiom 1 Genocide is cancer, we agree genocide is bad.
Axiom 2. Voting for genocide is smoking
Axiom 3. Democrats support genocide.
To get cancer (1) you have to smoke (2) and voting democrrat makes you smoke (3). Therefore in your smoking analogy democrats is the equivalent to chain smoking. Iām granting republican is worse still,
You donāt like it, but itās true. Genocide isnāt even the only ācancerā Dems give you, just an undeniable one. Good news though, you have years to quit.
Am I repeating myself? I feel like Iām repeating myself.
Hmm I am repeating myself. This will be a motif the comment. Iāll spare you and me, the finding of the quotes, Iāve provided this one as an example for the rest.
This is called a double standard. When judging others you judge them by the result of their actions and not their intentions. But you, you want to be judged by the intention of your actions and not the results.
People who oppose fascism at all costs inc genocide: well intentioned, it doesnāt matter their result.
People who oppose genocide at all costs inc Fascism: achieved nothing, it doesnāt matter their intention.
Itās plain as day, canāt you see it? Hereās the thing: opposing fascism is valid (you can accept this, you lived this), opposing genocide is also valid (you canāt seem to accept this, I donāt know why). You now have the opportunity to build something that opposes both.
Again, the people protesting for civil rights before it was an effective movement were doing a good thing.
Am I repeating myself, I feel like Iām repeating myself?
Doomed to flip from bad to hellscape, to bad to hellscapeā¦ Or shoot for something good. Am I repeating myself? I feel like Iām repeating myself.
Insert me repeating Tory Vs Labour then Reformā¦ Am I repeating myself? I feel like Iām repeating myself.
Hmm
You mean like the protests? Yeah they did that. They were very much criticised for it, all the same critisms youāre making now. Remember? No? Down the memory hole that went I guess.
You support direct action done with the intention to oppose genocide? But not that direct action done with the intention to oppose genocide, Iām guessing. Because of the result of that direct action done with the intention to oppose genocide? Their results, of course, being the same results you achieved. then double standard, and on, and on, weāll go.
They took many actions: they VOTED for a party that didnāt support genocide, that definitivly is an action with the intention to oppose genocide. Gainsaying it doesnāt make it not. Next youāll complain about what they achieved, and they achieved the same results as you, then youāll present the double standards again and on weāll go.
But, before voting and libs (libs is a stand in, I cant be sure you specifically, but probably you specifically, definitely libs though. Phew some LW users went off) complaining about how they did or didnāt vote, they PROTESTED. Also an action with the intention to oppose genocide. Gainsaying it doesnāt make it not. Next youāll complain about what they achieved, and they achieved the same results as you. Then youāll present the double standards again and on weāll go.
But, before protesting and libs (again, stand in) complaining about how they did or didnāt protest they COMMUNICATED that genocide=bad (among other cancers). Also an action with the intention to oppose genocide. Gainsaying it doesnāt make it not. Next youāll complain about what they achieved, and they achieved the same results as you. Then youāll present the double standards again and on weāll go.
Here we are again at the start of the cycle, awareness is being raised. Communication is happening. Here you are again, complaining about it. Next youāll complain about what it might acheiveā¦
Can we call this an impasse? I feel weāve gone full circle a couple times now. Our arguments are well explained to anyone reading our thread (no one is reading our thread).
I have been empathetic to your claims and feel youāve explained yourself well. Fascism=bad, genocide=bad, why you voted what you voted, and why you donāt like what others are doing was all communicated well. For what itās worth, and at risk of repeating myself, I see damage limitation as a valid POV.
I obviously dont feel like youāve granted me the same courtesy of empathy, and Iām sure you think Iām as confused as ever.
Thatās ok, I think people reading after will understand the claim that supporting dem is a cycle of bad-worse-bad-worse, until there is no worse to goā¦ or you change for something āgoodā instead of āleast badā.
I think theyāll see that a new party is a very real option itās happened before (when did UK Labour start, who did they replace) itās happening now (who the fuck were Reform UK last election cycle). UK is a FPTP 2 party system too.
I think theyāll see that opposing genocide is a valid and good priority have. Convincing the electorate to vote the exact right amount of genocide: canāt be too much (republican), canāt be too little (anyone else), the genocide amount has to be just right (dem). That was was a foolish campaign for dem leadership to run, blame those in power.
Thatās a point, it came and went but I think theyāll see that we blame leadership (the people with the power) in every field. Except politics for some reason, then itās the little guyās fault. āSure Elon musk is a cunt, but have you seen the way Jerry sweeps floors, thatās whatās really fucking the stockā, āFacebook maybe designed to be a rage inducing, attention hogging machine by the Zuck, but if we just had more users, maybe weāll reverse the systemic alt-right pipelineā.
We donāt agree thatās fine. What I thing is not fine is that this comment was me just re-stating what Iāve already said. If I wasnt on mobile I think this could have all been quotes from previous comments. I donāt think youāve said anything substantially new either, that must be frustrating too.
Let me know if you can be convinced that: perhaps voting for a party that, by your own admission, is bad (genocidily so) might not be in your best interest. Or let me know if you think of a new reason why voting for a party that, by your own admission, is bad (genocidily so) might be in someone elseās best interest. Weāve covered: theyāre the ābadā in the āworse, bad, worseā cycle, and you donāt want the worse, so take the bad. Weāve covered: you donāt think good will win, so you wonāt vote for them, and because you wonāt vote for them you donāt think theyāll win, so vote bad.