I’m very well aware, yes, that would be one reason why I’m not voting for that idiot either.
I fundamentally do not subscribe to your lesser-evilist ideology. I didn’t subscribe to it before people started using it to justify genocide, I’m certainly not about to start subscribing to it now. Hell, ten, twenty years ago, I’d be using this exact sort of situation as a hypothetical extreme example of why lesser-evilism is wrong. You know, because I would think that a line of reasoning that ends in “…and that’s why it’s ok to support genocide” would be subject to very heavy scrutiny by most people.
We’ve established how you’ve made no difference in any election.
Have you considered not sitting on your thumb when it’s bad shit versus bad shit plus fascism? That’s basically just “do you want fascism Y/N” and your answer so far is “no preference.”
I wouldn’t have made a difference had I voted for a major party candidate either. Never seen a presidential election decided by one vote.
Have you considered not sitting on your thumb when it’s bad shit versus bad shit plus fascism? That’s basically just “do you want fascism Y/N” and your answer so far is “no preference.”
“…and that’s why it’s ok to support genocide ‘bad stuff.’” Didn’t we just go over this? I do not subscribe to that ideology, precisely because it can be used to make the argument you’re making right now. I didn’t subscribe to before in part because I recognized that the rhetoric could some day get as bad as what you’re telling me right now.
Now that’s an interesting point. I wonder, how could we reach a point where opposition to genocide becomes policy? I’d say one way would be to rhetorically oppose genocide and influence more people in the direction of not tolerating genocide. So yeah, I hope that what I say influences others, because I do care about opposing genocide.
And that’ll stop it. Right? You do nothing, and it doesn’t happen. Because otherwise you’re just jerking off.
While ignoring that the other candidate wants to end democracy.
The part where he tried to overthrow democracy seems kind of important to your plans of voting for the most perfectest candidate ever, who has no evils whatsoever.
Haven’t we been over this multiple times at this point? I don’t subscribe to your lesser-evilist ideology. I never have, and now it’s more clearly a failed idea than ever, in light of the fact that it’s led people to support genocide. I’m not interested in whataboutisms regarding Trump, who I’m also not voting for.
I’m very well aware, yes, that would be one reason why I’m not voting for that idiot either.
I fundamentally do not subscribe to your lesser-evilist ideology. I didn’t subscribe to it before people started using it to justify genocide, I’m certainly not about to start subscribing to it now. Hell, ten, twenty years ago, I’d be using this exact sort of situation as a hypothetical extreme example of why lesser-evilism is wrong. You know, because I would think that a line of reasoning that ends in “…and that’s why it’s ok to support genocide” would be subject to very heavy scrutiny by most people.
We’ve established how you’ve made no difference in any election.
Have you considered not sitting on your thumb when it’s bad shit versus bad shit plus fascism? That’s basically just “do you want fascism Y/N” and your answer so far is “no preference.”
I wouldn’t have made a difference had I voted for a major party candidate either. Never seen a presidential election decided by one vote.
“…and that’s why it’s ok to support
genocide‘bad stuff.’” Didn’t we just go over this? I do not subscribe to that ideology, precisely because it can be used to make the argument you’re making right now. I didn’t subscribe to before in part because I recognized that the rhetoric could some day get as bad as what you’re telling me right now.Your bullshit influences others.
If you didn’t care, you’d shut up.
Now that’s an interesting point. I wonder, how could we reach a point where opposition to genocide becomes policy? I’d say one way would be to rhetorically oppose genocide and influence more people in the direction of not tolerating genocide. So yeah, I hope that what I say influences others, because I do care about opposing genocide.
You are telling people to do nothing to stop fascism or genocide. You want to feel morally superior about this useless inaction.
2020 was decided by thousands of votes. 2000 was decided by hundreds.
You are enabling fascism and patting yourself on the back.
Well then, I guess I’ll be making history as the first time ever that drawing a red line against genocide was the wrong position.
And that’ll stop it. Right? You do nothing, and it doesn’t happen. Because otherwise you’re just jerking off.
While ignoring that the other candidate wants to end democracy.
The part where he tried to overthrow democracy seems kind of important to your plans of voting for the most perfectest candidate ever, who has no evils whatsoever.
Haven’t we been over this multiple times at this point? I don’t subscribe to your lesser-evilist ideology. I never have, and now it’s more clearly a failed idea than ever, in light of the fact that it’s led people to support genocide. I’m not interested in whataboutisms regarding Trump, who I’m also not voting for.