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 doesnât 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, Iâll be more careful when stating the position as less certain in future, youâre right, there is a non zero chance they win an election but, of course, thereâs 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.
Youâve 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, âitâs a FPTP and therefore two party systemâ, 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 âWasting [their] vote is a bad thing. [They] keep calling it good, it is not.â Everyone that didnât 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 thatâs our fundamental disagreement: just because itâs unpopular (and therefore ineffective in politics) doesnât 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 canât seem to accept itâs 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 Iâm trying to do if not change your outlook?
Huge content edit to the first paragraph. Normally I just edit without fuss but itâs worth mentioning when a paragraph now says the opposite of what it did. Further, I wonât see a reply telling me which version youâve 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 âgoodâ, you didnât, theyâre a bad and thatâs always been acknowledged. I changed the tone to be much less confrontational too. Good conversation and all that, Iâm getting tired and my natural dickishness is coming (lol) though.
Swapping it to may doesnât 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 youâre 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.
Youâve 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 doesnât work with your substitutions. Third parties are smoking, Democrats are not smoking. Switching it around doesnât work, the conditions are fundamentally different.
Iâve chosen to use my vote in the general election to obstruct fascism, since that is the best use. Iâve 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 youâre talking about achieving nothing, youâre talking about voting third party in general elections. Democrats win presidential races, theyâve 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 werenât. But they didnât 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 canât seem to accept itâls opposition is also a valid priority.
Just being against something isnât 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 doesnât:
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, hasnât changed in tone or content in any meaningful way.
Donât 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.
Youâre pettifogging.
You keep trying to frame it this way, this is wrong. The analogy doesnât work with your substitutions. Third parties are smoking, Democrats are not smoking. Switching it around doesnât 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. Iâm granting republican is worse still,
You donât like it, but itâs true. Genocide isnât even the only âcancerâ Dems give you, just an undeniable one. Good news though, you have years to quit.
Am I repeating myself? I feel like Iâm 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. Iâll spare you and me, the finding of the quotes, Iâve provided this one as an example for the rest.
Supporting Democrats gave us a sitting chance of avoiding our present situation. If youâre talking about achieving nothing, youâre 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 doesnât matter their result.
People who oppose genocide at all costs inc Fascism: achieved nothing, it doesnât matter their intention.
Itâs plain as day, canât you see it? Hereâs the thing: opposing fascism is valid (you can accept this, you lived this), opposing genocide is also valid (you canât seem to accept this, I donât 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 Iâm repeating myself?
Democrats win presidential races, theyâve 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 hellscape⊠Or shoot for something good. Am I repeating myself? I feel like Iâm 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 Reform⊠Am I repeating myself? I feel like Iâm 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 oneâs demands.
You mean like the protests? Yeah they did that. They were very much criticised for it, all the same critisms youâre 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, Iâm 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, weâll go.
Just being against something isnât 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 didnât support genocide, that definitivly is an action with the intention to oppose genocide. Gainsaying it doesnât make it not. Next youâll complain about what they achieved, and they achieved the same results as you, then youâll present the double standards again and on weâll 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 didnât vote, they PROTESTED. Also an action with the intention to oppose genocide. Gainsaying it doesnât make it not. Next youâll complain about what they achieved, and they achieved the same results as you. Then youâll present the double standards again and on weâll go.
But, before protesting and libs (again, stand in) complaining about how they did or didnât protest they COMMUNICATED that genocide=bad (among other cancers). Also an action with the intention to oppose genocide. Gainsaying it doesnât make it not. Next youâll complain about what they achieved, and they achieved the same results as you. Then youâll present the double standards again and on weâll 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 youâll complain about what it might acheiveâŠ
Can we call this an impasse? I feel weâve 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 youâve explained yourself well. Fascism=bad, genocide=bad, why you voted what you voted, and why you donât like what others are doing was all communicated well. For what itâs worth, and at risk of repeating myself, I see damage limitation as a valid POV.
I obviously dont feel like youâve granted me the same courtesy of empathy, and Iâm sure you think Iâm as confused as ever.
Thatâs 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 go⊠or you change for something âgoodâ instead of âleast badâ.
I think theyâll see that a new party is a very real option itâs happened before (when did UK Labour start, who did they replace) itâs happening now (who the fuck were Reform UK last election cycle). UK is a FPTP 2 party system too.
I think theyâll see that opposing genocide is a valid and good priority have. Convincing the electorate to vote the exact right amount of genocide: canât be too much (republican), canât 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.
Thatâs a point, it came and went but I think theyâll see that we blame leadership (the people with the power) in every field. Except politics for some reason, then itâs the little guyâs fault. âSure Elon musk is a cunt, but have you seen the way Jerry sweeps floors, thatâs whatâs really fucking the stockâ, âFacebook maybe designed to be a rage inducing, attention hogging machine by the Zuck, but if we just had more users, maybe weâll reverse the systemic alt-right pipelineâ.
We donât agree thatâs fine. What I thing is not fine is that this comment was me just re-stating what Iâve already said. If I wasnt on mobile I think this could have all been quotes from previous comments. I donât think youâve 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 elseâs best interest. Weâve covered: theyâre the âbadâ in the âworse, bad, worseâ cycle, and you donât want the worse, so take the bad. Weâve covered: you donât think good will win, so you wonât vote for them, and because you wonât vote for them you donât think theyâll 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, hasnât 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 âmay as wellâ argument fundamentally doesnât work anymore.
If you canât see that then this is a waste of time.
opposing genocide is also valid (you canât seem to accept this, I donât 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 Iâm repeating myself .
Again, the people protesting for civil rights before it was an effective movement were doing a good thing.
And, again, I didnât say they werenât. 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 youâre 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 itâs actively counterproductive to achievable progress.
I feel weâve 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 youâve granted me the same courtesy of empathy, and Iâm sure you think Iâm as confused as ever.
Iâm not sure youâve 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 go⊠or you change for something âgoodâ instead of âleast badâ.
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 itâs the little guyâs 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. Thereâs 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 Iâve already said.
I agree. The fact that you havenât 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.
Iâm 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 naĂŻve hope that I might see real leftist progress in my life. But seeing my comrades Iâm 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 elseâs best interest.
Oh sure! Women, immigrants, LGBT, anyone who isnât a white male millionaire really. Theyâd all be better off under the other party. No one I care about is better off right now than they wouldâve been under the alternative.
because you wonât vote for them you donât think theyâll win
No? Because they donât poll well. Because pretending Duvergerâs Law doesnât exist doesnât make it so.
Stop trying to make voting do things it doesnât 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 Iâm 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 âdidnât criticizeâ people who protested genocide, in a comment full of critising them as âineffectiveâ and âperformativeâ. Even if you didnât then, you are now. Itâs all same-same. Youâre saying the same things now as otherâs, if not you, were saying then. Which was my point you asked for a thing, they did that thing already, it isnât 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. Thatâs irrelevant of probability. Will/may it doesnât 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 donât 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 doesnât 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 isnât valid: theyâre âconfusedâ, âineffectiveâ, âperformativeâ, no lessons there either. No lessons for you anywhere, there are only your values, and thereâs no empathy to understand otherâs.
Even after all that, I still get it, the devil you know is at least known. âDamage controlâ is a valid position to have. I get it, I really do.
Chatgptâs 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 âthe bad thingâ (voting Dem) and not doing it (voting third party) both lead to genocide, then your argument collapses under its own weight â because the outcome doesnât change, only the story you tell yourself about it.
You keep treating symbolic dissent as âperformative,â but voting for genocide because you think itâs strategic is the ultimate performance. Itâs the act of saying âI hate thisâ while continuing to fund, empower, and normalize it. Youâre 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 â Iâve acknowledged it several times. What I donât get is how you can accept âsome genocideâ as a strategy. Thatâs not damage control; thatâs complicity with a more polite version of the same harm.
They used effective methods, I applaud them.
Those methods werenât âeffectiveâ until they became effective â after years of being ridiculed, arrested, and told their actions were âcounterproductive.â Youâre praising history while ignoring the lesson it teaches.
Politics is the one field where the little guys are the ones who elect leadership.
No â the little guys ratify leadership. They donât choose it. Youâre describing consent manufacturing as choice. You donât get to blame voters for a system designed to contain them.
Stop trying to make voting do things it doesnât do.
Exactly. Voting doesnât end genocide. Itâs a participation checkbox, not a moral shield. You can vote defensively if you like â thatâs your right â but donât pretend itâs resistance. Resistance is what happens outside the ballot box.
You say you want progress; I do too. But progress doesnât come from treating moral triage as if it were justice. âLess badâ is not a destination. Itâs an anaesthetic.
If you ever decide you want to build something genuinely good, not just postpone the next collapse, youâll find me there â still doing the good thing, even if âthe bad thing may happen anyway.â
I donât 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 Iâm not engaging further with someone whoâs 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 canât handle. Itâs not the time for introspection; theyâre âconfusedâ, âgrandstandingâ, âperformativeâ, âineffectiveâ and âjuvenileâ. - The rationalist guide to argument.
Remember kids, when youâre losing an argument, thatâs not time for introspection. It was a âwaste of timeâ - a rationalistâs guide to argument.
Bye
What does it mean when someone says âbyeâ and doesnât leave? I mean you just said bye, and here you are again? What gives?
We donât agree thatâs fine. What I thing is not fine is that this comment was me just re-stating what Iâve already said. If I wasnt on mobile I think this could have all been quotes from previous comments. I donât think youâve 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 elseâs best interest. Weâve covered: theyâre the âbadâ in the âworse, bad, worseâ cycle, and you donât want the worse, so take the bad. Weâve covered: you donât think good will win, so you wonât vote for them, and because you wonât vote for them you donât think theyâll win, so vote bad.
Distinction without difference, I was thoughtless to use the word will. Swapping it to may doesnât 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, Iâll be more careful when stating the position as less certain in future, youâre right, there is a non zero chance they win an election but, of course, thereâs 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.
Youâve 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, âitâs a FPTP and therefore two party systemâ, 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 âWasting [their] vote is a bad thing. [They] keep calling it good, it is not.â Everyone that didnât 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 thatâs our fundamental disagreement: just because itâs unpopular (and therefore ineffective in politics) doesnât 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 canât seem to accept itâs opposition is also a valid priority.
What do you think Iâm trying to do if not change your outlook?
Huge content edit to the first paragraph. Normally I just edit without fuss but itâs worth mentioning when a paragraph now says the opposite of what it did. Further, I wonât see a reply telling me which version youâve 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 âgoodâ, you didnât, theyâre a bad and thatâs always been acknowledged. I changed the tone to be much less confrontational too. Good conversation and all that, Iâm 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 youâre 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 doesnât work with your substitutions. Third parties are smoking, Democrats are not smoking. Switching it around doesnât work, the conditions are fundamentally different.
Iâve chosen to use my vote in the general election to obstruct fascism, since that is the best use. Iâve chosen to use more effective methods to secure better options.
Supporting Democrats gave us a sporting chance of avoiding our present situation. If youâre talking about achieving nothing, youâre talking about voting third party in general elections. Democrats win presidential races, theyâve 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 werenât. But they didnât do that by voting for unviable candidates. They did that with direct action. I never said anything against direct action.
Just being against something isnât a priority. Actions that actually oppose genocide are a priority. Voting third party was not such an action.
It doesnât:
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, hasnât changed in tone or content in any meaningful way.
Donât 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.
Youâre 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. Iâm granting republican is worse still,
You donât like it, but itâs true. Genocide isnât even the only âcancerâ Dems give you, just an undeniable one. Good news though, you have years to quit.
Am I repeating myself? I feel like Iâm repeating myself.
Hmm I am repeating myself. This will be a motif the comment. Iâll spare you and me, the finding of the quotes, Iâve 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 doesnât matter their result.
People who oppose genocide at all costs inc Fascism: achieved nothing, it doesnât matter their intention.
Itâs plain as day, canât you see it? Hereâs the thing: opposing fascism is valid (you can accept this, you lived this), opposing genocide is also valid (you canât seem to accept this, I donât 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 Iâm repeating myself?
Doomed to flip from bad to hellscape, to bad to hellscape⊠Or shoot for something good. Am I repeating myself? I feel like Iâm repeating myself.
Insert me repeating Tory Vs Labour then Reform⊠Am I repeating myself? I feel like Iâm repeating myself.
Hmm
You mean like the protests? Yeah they did that. They were very much criticised for it, all the same critisms youâre 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, Iâm 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, weâll go.
They took many actions: they VOTED for a party that didnât support genocide, that definitivly is an action with the intention to oppose genocide. Gainsaying it doesnât make it not. Next youâll complain about what they achieved, and they achieved the same results as you, then youâll present the double standards again and on weâll 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 didnât vote, they PROTESTED. Also an action with the intention to oppose genocide. Gainsaying it doesnât make it not. Next youâll complain about what they achieved, and they achieved the same results as you. Then youâll present the double standards again and on weâll go.
But, before protesting and libs (again, stand in) complaining about how they did or didnât protest they COMMUNICATED that genocide=bad (among other cancers). Also an action with the intention to oppose genocide. Gainsaying it doesnât make it not. Next youâll complain about what they achieved, and they achieved the same results as you. Then youâll present the double standards again and on weâll 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 youâll complain about what it might acheiveâŠ
Can we call this an impasse? I feel weâve 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 youâve explained yourself well. Fascism=bad, genocide=bad, why you voted what you voted, and why you donât like what others are doing was all communicated well. For what itâs worth, and at risk of repeating myself, I see damage limitation as a valid POV.
I obviously dont feel like youâve granted me the same courtesy of empathy, and Iâm sure you think Iâm as confused as ever.
Thatâs 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 go⊠or you change for something âgoodâ instead of âleast badâ.
I think theyâll see that a new party is a very real option itâs happened before (when did UK Labour start, who did they replace) itâs happening now (who the fuck were Reform UK last election cycle). UK is a FPTP 2 party system too.
I think theyâll see that opposing genocide is a valid and good priority have. Convincing the electorate to vote the exact right amount of genocide: canât be too much (republican), canât 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.
Thatâs a point, it came and went but I think theyâll see that we blame leadership (the people with the power) in every field. Except politics for some reason, then itâs the little guyâs fault. âSure Elon musk is a cunt, but have you seen the way Jerry sweeps floors, thatâs whatâs really fucking the stockâ, âFacebook maybe designed to be a rage inducing, attention hogging machine by the Zuck, but if we just had more users, maybe weâll reverse the systemic alt-right pipelineâ.
We donât agree thatâs fine. What I thing is not fine is that this comment was me just re-stating what Iâve already said. If I wasnt on mobile I think this could have all been quotes from previous comments. I donât think youâve 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 elseâs best interest. Weâve covered: theyâre the âbadâ in the âworse, bad, worseâ cycle, and you donât want the worse, so take the bad. Weâve covered: you donât think good will win, so you wonât vote for them, and because you wonât vote for them you donât think theyâll 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 âmay as wellâ argument fundamentally doesnât work anymore.
If you canât 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 Iâm repeating myself .
And, again, I didnât say they werenât. 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 itâs 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.
Iâm not sure youâve 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. Thereâs plenty of propaganda to influence their decision, but it is still their decision.
I agree. The fact that you havenât 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.
Iâm 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 naĂŻve hope that I might see real leftist progress in my life. But seeing my comrades Iâm 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 isnât a white male millionaire really. Theyâd all be better off under the other party. No one I care about is better off right now than they wouldâve been under the alternative.
No? Because they donât poll well. Because pretending Duvergerâs Law doesnât exist doesnât make it so.
Stop trying to make voting do things it doesnât 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 Iâm 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 âdidnât criticizeâ people who protested genocide, in a comment full of critising them as âineffectiveâ and âperformativeâ. Even if you didnât then, you are now. Itâs all same-same. Youâre saying the same things now as otherâs, if not you, were saying then. Which was my point you asked for a thing, they did that thing already, it isnât 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. Thatâs irrelevant of probability. Will/may it doesnât 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 donât 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 doesnât 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 isnât valid: theyâre âconfusedâ, âineffectiveâ, âperformativeâ, no lessons there either. No lessons for you anywhere, there are only your values, and thereâs no empathy to understand otherâs.
Even after all that, I still get it, the devil you know is at least known. âDamage controlâ is a valid position to have. I get it, I really do.
Chatgptâs 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 âthe bad thingâ (voting Dem) and not doing it (voting third party) both lead to genocide, then your argument collapses under its own weight â because the outcome doesnât change, only the story you tell yourself about it.
You keep treating symbolic dissent as âperformative,â but voting for genocide because you think itâs strategic is the ultimate performance. Itâs the act of saying âI hate thisâ while continuing to fund, empower, and normalize it. Youâre 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 â Iâve acknowledged it several times. What I donât get is how you can accept âsome genocideâ as a strategy. Thatâs not damage control; thatâs complicity with a more polite version of the same harm.
They used effective methods, I applaud them. Those methods werenât âeffectiveâ until they became effective â after years of being ridiculed, arrested, and told their actions were âcounterproductive.â Youâre praising history while ignoring the lesson it teaches.
Politics is the one field where the little guys are the ones who elect leadership. No â the little guys ratify leadership. They donât choose it. Youâre describing consent manufacturing as choice. You donât get to blame voters for a system designed to contain them.
Stop trying to make voting do things it doesnât do. Exactly. Voting doesnât end genocide. Itâs a participation checkbox, not a moral shield. You can vote defensively if you like â thatâs your right â but donât pretend itâs resistance. Resistance is what happens outside the ballot box.
You say you want progress; I do too. But progress doesnât come from treating moral triage as if it were justice. âLess badâ is not a destination. Itâs an anaesthetic.
If you ever decide you want to build something genuinely good, not just postpone the next collapse, youâll find me there â still doing the good thing, even if âthe bad thing may happen anyway.â
I donât 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 Iâm not engaging further with someone whoâs either arguing in bad faith or literally incapable of understanding basic reasoning.
When you can understand basic reasoning, join the grownups. Bye.
Really? A âno uâ? Grown up indeed.
Remember kids, when someone disagrees with you in a way you canât handle. Itâs not the time for introspection; theyâre âconfusedâ, âgrandstandingâ, âperformativeâ, âineffectiveâ and âjuvenileâ. - The rationalist guide to argument.
That is⊠an improbably ironic response. Like I said, a waste of time.
Remember kids, when youâre losing an argument, thatâs not time for introspection. It was a âwaste of timeâ - a rationalistâs guide to argument.
What does it mean when someone says âbyeâ and doesnât leave? I mean you just said bye, and here you are again? What gives?