Yeah but, option a) someone who supports genocide but wants to make your life more difficult or option b) someone who supports genocide but what’s to try and make your life better?
“Why are people struggling with this choice?!”
edit to change the strikeout to bold to make it look less like i was being reductive
If they both believe the same thing on one topic, then you can cancel that topic out and only look at the other policies…it’s really not that difficult of a concept to get. Obviously, no genocide would be great, but if that literally isn’t an option, then just vote for the one that isn’t also actively trying to screw you’re over personally.
Look I’m not American so I don’t really have a horse in this race. But it seems to me, unless you have a revolution and burn the entire system to the ground and build it back up, it makes 0 sense to “boycott” the democrats because then you will just end up with right wing genocide instead of centerist genocide. (If you can even say democrats are Center, where I’m from they are still right wing!)
Of course not. But allowing their political rival (who also supports the thing you want to protest against) to win because you get apathetic and don’t vote is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard of.
Dems like to point that this is the most important election ever. We can’t even vote our way out of a genocide and you’re questioning the apathy toward voter engagement. I’m looking around and seeing a vastly different political landscape than you and wondering what you are looking at.
I’m not advocating people decide not to vote, i’m defending the apathy most voters feel because democrats have given them ample reason to feel apathetic.
If banging the drum of genocidal complicity is me acting against my selfish desire to end the genocide, then I think banging the drum of ‘vote for biden or else’ is also acting against our collective desire to end the genocide.
In my opinion, we should all be banging the same ‘stop the genocide’ drum so that in November everyone can feel better about voting instead of having to do genocide math to figure out what to do.
If they both believe the same thing on one topic, then you can cancel that topic out and only look at the other policies
This isn’t a math equation, it’s a negotiation between human beings. You’re saying that opposition to genocide is off the table because neither politician is offering it. But what happens if a sufficiently high number of voters say that genocide is off the table? In the short term, yes, it may mean a worse candidate wins. But if your goal is to stop genocide then it’s necessary to create that impasse and maintain it until the other side caves. The fact is that we have something they apparently want, and there’s no reason to hand over our votes if they open with the complete non-starter of supporting genocide.
You can either try to nudge it towards the better asshole or you can whine about it or whatever
for a second I thought you had it, but then you landed on the wrong note.
I was looking for ‘you can try to nudge them toward the better policy’, but people here are either so black pilled that they don’t see a point in trying or they believe that democrats doing the right thing (even just not doing the evil thing) will certainly cost them an election. I think the latter perspective is the most black-pilling opinion i’ve ever seen, and possibly the best argument i’ve ever seen against liberal democracies at all.
I appreciate the acknowledgement, but i’m of the opinion that politicians don’t respond to cold calls and emails, but do respond to relentless bad press.
But so long as I can do both at the same time, i will continue doing so.
A thought just occurred to me that I could send the memes directly to their offices…
“Why are people struggling with this choice?!”
edit to change the strikeout to bold to make it look less like i was being reductive
If they both believe the same thing on one topic, then you can cancel that topic out and only look at the other policies…it’s really not that difficult of a concept to get. Obviously, no genocide would be great, but if that literally isn’t an option, then just vote for the one that isn’t also actively trying to screw you’re over personally.
Look I’m not American so I don’t really have a horse in this race. But it seems to me, unless you have a revolution and burn the entire system to the ground and build it back up, it makes 0 sense to “boycott” the democrats because then you will just end up with right wing genocide instead of centerist genocide. (If you can even say democrats are Center, where I’m from they are still right wing!)
Does it make 0 sense to protest against the genocide to pressure them to stop?
Of course not. But allowing their political rival (who also supports the thing you want to protest against) to win because you get apathetic and don’t vote is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard of.
Dems like to point that this is the most important election ever. We can’t even vote our way out of a genocide and you’re questioning the apathy toward voter engagement. I’m looking around and seeing a vastly different political landscape than you and wondering what you are looking at.
They have a two party system, if both of those parties support genocide then what other options are there except a revolution?
I’m not advocating people decide not to vote, i’m defending the apathy most voters feel because democrats have given them ample reason to feel apathetic.
If banging the drum of genocidal complicity is me acting against my selfish desire to end the genocide, then I think banging the drum of ‘vote for biden or else’ is also acting against our collective desire to end the genocide.
In my opinion, we should all be banging the same ‘stop the genocide’ drum so that in November everyone can feel better about voting instead of having to do genocide math to figure out what to do.
This isn’t a math equation, it’s a negotiation between human beings. You’re saying that opposition to genocide is off the table because neither politician is offering it. But what happens if a sufficiently high number of voters say that genocide is off the table? In the short term, yes, it may mean a worse candidate wins. But if your goal is to stop genocide then it’s necessary to create that impasse and maintain it until the other side caves. The fact is that we have something they apparently want, and there’s no reason to hand over our votes if they open with the complete non-starter of supporting genocide.
deleted by creator
for a second I thought you had it, but then you landed on the wrong note.
I was looking for ‘you can try to nudge them toward the better policy’, but people here are either so black pilled that they don’t see a point in trying or they believe that democrats doing the right thing (even just not doing the evil thing) will certainly cost them an election. I think the latter perspective is the most black-pilling opinion i’ve ever seen, and possibly the best argument i’ve ever seen against liberal democracies at all.
deleted by creator
I appreciate the acknowledgement, but i’m of the opinion that politicians don’t respond to cold calls and emails, but do respond to relentless bad press.
But so long as I can do both at the same time, i will continue doing so.
A thought just occurred to me that I could send the memes directly to their offices…