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 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
Yes, it has, fundamentally. Your whole argument rests on the decision to do the thing being inconsequential to the outcome. If changing the thing you do has some effect on the outcome, then the whole thing falls apart. If doing some other thing raises the chances of a better outcome, then the whole āmay as wellā argument fundamentally doesnāt work anymore.
If you canāt see that then this is a waste of time.
opposing genocide is also valid (you canāt seem to accept this, I donāt know why)
I oppose genocide. I also oppose actions which make genocide worse, obviously, because I oppose genocide. It does not matter to me that the person helping to make the genocide worse was trying to make it better, if their actions help to make it worse then I oppose those actions. I feel like Iām repeating myself .
Again, the people protesting for civil rights before it was an effective movement were doing a good thing.
And, again, I didnāt say they werenāt. They used effective methods, I applaud them. You are suggesting ineffective, and in fact counterproductive, methods. Do not equate your mealy-mouthed performative protest vote to the real action and sacrifice that actually accomplished something in the fight for civil rights.
Tory Vs Labour then Reform
Different country, different system, still irrelevant no matter how many times you repeat it.
They were very much criticised for it, all the same critisms youāre making now.
No? I never criticized them at all. Where are you getting this?
You support direct action done with the intention to oppose genocide?
I support direct action that opposes genocide. Intent is unimportant to me. Actions with intent, but without the ability to actually oppose, are materially performative. I oppose the substitution of performative grandstanding for actual strategy, especially when itās actively counterproductive to achievable progress.
I feel weāve gone full circle a couple times now.
I feel you have. That tends to happen when you ignore the other half of a conversation in favor of repetition.
I obviously dont feel like youāve granted me the same courtesy of empathy, and Iām sure you think Iām as confused as ever.
Iām not sure youāve extended the courtesy of empathy that you think you have.
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.
For all our sakes, I sincerely hope they do not. I hope they are intelligent enough to understand the American electoral system, and choose an effective means to establish something good.
we blame leadership (the people with the power) in every field. Except politics for some reason, then itās the little guyās fault.
Politics is the one field where the little guys are the ones who elect leadership. No one said it was their fault, but it is their responsibility. Thereās plenty of propaganda to influence their decision, but it is still their decision.
What I thing is not fine is that this comment was me just re-stating what Iāve already said.
I agree. The fact that you havenāt changed your approach to consider any of my responses, and instead have attempted to change my responses to support your approach, displeases me. It always displeases me to encounter deeply counterproductive leftists.
Iām a leftist, I want leftism to prevail, and every counterproductive leftist is two steps back in accomplishing that goal. It gives me no pleasure to have these disagreements. To be honest it fills me with a sort of malaise, a sad realization that the people on my side are so often so incompetent that they get in their own way. I had a naĆÆve hope that I might see real leftist progress in my life. But seeing my comrades Iām less hopeful by the day.
perhaps voting for a party that, by your own admission, is bad (genocidily so) might not be in your best interest
When the alternative major party is not more genocidal, and also much worse in many other ways, or it loses its status as a major party, I can easily be convinced. Before that, voting for the slightly less bad option is still the only rational choice. Let me know if you wanna help it lose that status.
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.
Oh sure! Women, immigrants, LGBT, anyone who isnāt a white male millionaire really. Theyād all be better off under the other party. No one I care about is better off right now than they wouldāve been under the alternative.
because you wonāt vote for them you donāt think theyāll win
No? Because they donāt poll well. Because pretending Duvergerās Law doesnāt exist doesnāt make it so.
Stop trying to make voting do things it doesnāt do. Vote strategically, and redirect this energy to direct action. Join your local DSA, talk to your co-workers about unionizing, engage with your community, participate in local politics. There are many options available to you. The option you are promoting is not only ineffective, it is counterproductive. I feel like Iām trusting myself.
I referred you to ChatGPT. After I entirely told you what was going to happen: you were going to focus on how effective they were, despite you being just as effective. Guess what you spent your whole comment doing? Complaining about how ineffective they were. So thanks, I guess?
After you had the gall to say you ādidnāt criticizeā people who protested genocide, in a comment full of critising them as āineffectiveā and āperformativeā. Even if you didnāt then, you are now. Itās all same-same. Youāre saying the same things now as otherās, if not you, were saying then. Which was my point you asked for a thing, they did that thing already, it isnāt good enough for you because: hypocrisy. So thanks, I guess.
You once again misrepresented me though. Your choice is to shoot for something good, or take bad. Thatās irrelevant of probability. Will/may it doesnāt matter: go for an unknown good, or take one of the known bads. Shoot for the good thing. It has to be deliberate misrepresentatiom at this point.
I donāt think any reply you have will be valuable, I understand your position enough to completely predict its behaviour: them ineffective, performative, you strategic, also ineffective.
Ineffective doesnāt matter to your position, but is everything to theirs. History has no lessons for you. Other FPTP 2 party systems have no lessons for you. Anyone that disagrees with you isnāt valid: theyāre āconfusedā, āineffectiveā, āperformativeā, no lessons there either. No lessons for you anywhere, there are only your values, and thereās no empathy to understand otherās.
Even after all that, I still get it, the devil you know is at least known. āDamage controlā is a valid position to have. I get it, I really do.
Chatgptās reply is a bad one, but my last reply was good enough to predict what you were going to do, and it was wasted on you. Anyway, hope the robot gets through:
Yes, it has, fundamentally. Your whole argument rests on the decision to do the thing being inconsequential to the outcome.
And yet, that is the reality we live in. You act as though voting blue creates material improvement, when we both agree that genocide continues. If doing āthe bad thingā (voting Dem) and not doing it (voting third party) both lead to genocide, then your argument collapses under its own weight ā because the outcome doesnāt change, only the story you tell yourself about it.
You keep treating symbolic dissent as āperformative,ā but voting for genocide because you think itās strategic is the ultimate performance. Itās the act of saying āI hate thisā while continuing to fund, empower, and normalize it. Youāre mistaking participation for influence.
I oppose actions which make genocide worse, obviously, because I oppose genocide.
And yet you vote for a party that continues it. I get the logic of damage control ā Iāve acknowledged it several times. What I donāt get is how you can accept āsome genocideā as a strategy. Thatās not damage control; thatās complicity with a more polite version of the same harm.
They used effective methods, I applaud them.
Those methods werenāt āeffectiveā until they became effective ā after years of being ridiculed, arrested, and told their actions were ācounterproductive.ā Youāre praising history while ignoring the lesson it teaches.
Politics is the one field where the little guys are the ones who elect leadership.
No ā the little guys ratify leadership. They donāt choose it. Youāre describing consent manufacturing as choice. You donāt get to blame voters for a system designed to contain them.
Stop trying to make voting do things it doesnāt do.
Exactly. Voting doesnāt end genocide. Itās a participation checkbox, not a moral shield. You can vote defensively if you like ā thatās your right ā but donāt pretend itās resistance. Resistance is what happens outside the ballot box.
You say you want progress; I do too. But progress doesnāt come from treating moral triage as if it were justice. āLess badā is not a destination. Itās an anaesthetic.
If you ever decide you want to build something genuinely good, not just postpone the next collapse, youāll find me there ā still doing the good thing, even if āthe bad thing may happen anyway.ā
I donāt even know how to parse that rambling, bad faith nonsense. Where you actually engaged with my points, you completely misunderstood them.
This is a waste of my time. Go back and reread until you actually understand, or keep spinning yourself in circles if you want, but Iām not engaging further with someone whoās either arguing in bad faith or literally incapable of understanding basic reasoning.
When you can understand basic reasoning, join the grownups. Bye.
Remember kids, when someone disagrees with you in a way you canāt handle. Itās not the time for introspection; theyāre āconfusedā, āgrandstandingā, āperformativeā, āineffectiveā and ājuvenileā. - The rationalist guide to argument.
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.
Yes, it has, fundamentally. Your whole argument rests on the decision to do the thing being inconsequential to the outcome. If changing the thing you do has some effect on the outcome, then the whole thing falls apart. If doing some other thing raises the chances of a better outcome, then the whole āmay as wellā argument fundamentally doesnāt work anymore.
If you canāt see that then this is a waste of time.
I oppose genocide. I also oppose actions which make genocide worse, obviously, because I oppose genocide. It does not matter to me that the person helping to make the genocide worse was trying to make it better, if their actions help to make it worse then I oppose those actions. I feel like Iām repeating myself .
And, again, I didnāt say they werenāt. They used effective methods, I applaud them. You are suggesting ineffective, and in fact counterproductive, methods. Do not equate your mealy-mouthed performative protest vote to the real action and sacrifice that actually accomplished something in the fight for civil rights.
Different country, different system, still irrelevant no matter how many times you repeat it.
No? I never criticized them at all. Where are you getting this?
I support direct action that opposes genocide. Intent is unimportant to me. Actions with intent, but without the ability to actually oppose, are materially performative. I oppose the substitution of performative grandstanding for actual strategy, especially when itās actively counterproductive to achievable progress.
I feel you have. That tends to happen when you ignore the other half of a conversation in favor of repetition.
Iām not sure youāve extended the courtesy of empathy that you think you have.
For all our sakes, I sincerely hope they do not. I hope they are intelligent enough to understand the American electoral system, and choose an effective means to establish something good.
Politics is the one field where the little guys are the ones who elect leadership. No one said it was their fault, but it is their responsibility. Thereās plenty of propaganda to influence their decision, but it is still their decision.
I agree. The fact that you havenāt changed your approach to consider any of my responses, and instead have attempted to change my responses to support your approach, displeases me. It always displeases me to encounter deeply counterproductive leftists.
Iām a leftist, I want leftism to prevail, and every counterproductive leftist is two steps back in accomplishing that goal. It gives me no pleasure to have these disagreements. To be honest it fills me with a sort of malaise, a sad realization that the people on my side are so often so incompetent that they get in their own way. I had a naĆÆve hope that I might see real leftist progress in my life. But seeing my comrades Iām less hopeful by the day.
When the alternative major party is not more genocidal, and also much worse in many other ways, or it loses its status as a major party, I can easily be convinced. Before that, voting for the slightly less bad option is still the only rational choice. Let me know if you wanna help it lose that status.
Oh sure! Women, immigrants, LGBT, anyone who isnāt a white male millionaire really. Theyād all be better off under the other party. No one I care about is better off right now than they wouldāve been under the alternative.
No? Because they donāt poll well. Because pretending Duvergerās Law doesnāt exist doesnāt make it so.
Stop trying to make voting do things it doesnāt do. Vote strategically, and redirect this energy to direct action. Join your local DSA, talk to your co-workers about unionizing, engage with your community, participate in local politics. There are many options available to you. The option you are promoting is not only ineffective, it is counterproductive. I feel like Iām trusting myself.
I referred you to ChatGPT. After I entirely told you what was going to happen: you were going to focus on how effective they were, despite you being just as effective. Guess what you spent your whole comment doing? Complaining about how ineffective they were. So thanks, I guess?
After you had the gall to say you ādidnāt criticizeā people who protested genocide, in a comment full of critising them as āineffectiveā and āperformativeā. Even if you didnāt then, you are now. Itās all same-same. Youāre saying the same things now as otherās, if not you, were saying then. Which was my point you asked for a thing, they did that thing already, it isnāt good enough for you because: hypocrisy. So thanks, I guess.
You once again misrepresented me though. Your choice is to shoot for something good, or take bad. Thatās irrelevant of probability. Will/may it doesnāt matter: go for an unknown good, or take one of the known bads. Shoot for the good thing. It has to be deliberate misrepresentatiom at this point.
I donāt think any reply you have will be valuable, I understand your position enough to completely predict its behaviour: them ineffective, performative, you strategic, also ineffective.
Ineffective doesnāt matter to your position, but is everything to theirs. History has no lessons for you. Other FPTP 2 party systems have no lessons for you. Anyone that disagrees with you isnāt valid: theyāre āconfusedā, āineffectiveā, āperformativeā, no lessons there either. No lessons for you anywhere, there are only your values, and thereās no empathy to understand otherās.
Even after all that, I still get it, the devil you know is at least known. āDamage controlā is a valid position to have. I get it, I really do.
Chatgptās reply is a bad one, but my last reply was good enough to predict what you were going to do, and it was wasted on you. Anyway, hope the robot gets through:
Yes, it has, fundamentally. Your whole argument rests on the decision to do the thing being inconsequential to the outcome. And yet, that is the reality we live in. You act as though voting blue creates material improvement, when we both agree that genocide continues. If doing āthe bad thingā (voting Dem) and not doing it (voting third party) both lead to genocide, then your argument collapses under its own weight ā because the outcome doesnāt change, only the story you tell yourself about it.
You keep treating symbolic dissent as āperformative,ā but voting for genocide because you think itās strategic is the ultimate performance. Itās the act of saying āI hate thisā while continuing to fund, empower, and normalize it. Youāre mistaking participation for influence.
I oppose actions which make genocide worse, obviously, because I oppose genocide. And yet you vote for a party that continues it. I get the logic of damage control ā Iāve acknowledged it several times. What I donāt get is how you can accept āsome genocideā as a strategy. Thatās not damage control; thatās complicity with a more polite version of the same harm.
They used effective methods, I applaud them. Those methods werenāt āeffectiveā until they became effective ā after years of being ridiculed, arrested, and told their actions were ācounterproductive.ā Youāre praising history while ignoring the lesson it teaches.
Politics is the one field where the little guys are the ones who elect leadership. No ā the little guys ratify leadership. They donāt choose it. Youāre describing consent manufacturing as choice. You donāt get to blame voters for a system designed to contain them.
Stop trying to make voting do things it doesnāt do. Exactly. Voting doesnāt end genocide. Itās a participation checkbox, not a moral shield. You can vote defensively if you like ā thatās your right ā but donāt pretend itās resistance. Resistance is what happens outside the ballot box.
You say you want progress; I do too. But progress doesnāt come from treating moral triage as if it were justice. āLess badā is not a destination. Itās an anaesthetic.
If you ever decide you want to build something genuinely good, not just postpone the next collapse, youāll find me there ā still doing the good thing, even if āthe bad thing may happen anyway.ā
I donāt even know how to parse that rambling, bad faith nonsense. Where you actually engaged with my points, you completely misunderstood them.
This is a waste of my time. Go back and reread until you actually understand, or keep spinning yourself in circles if you want, but Iām not engaging further with someone whoās either arguing in bad faith or literally incapable of understanding basic reasoning.
When you can understand basic reasoning, join the grownups. Bye.
Really? A āno uā? Grown up indeed.
Remember kids, when someone disagrees with you in a way you canāt handle. Itās not the time for introspection; theyāre āconfusedā, āgrandstandingā, āperformativeā, āineffectiveā and ājuvenileā. - The rationalist guide to argument.