• OBJECTION!
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    Correct. What they are not concerned about is far-Leftists somehow becoming Republicans. Which is why your game of pressuring them by voting 3rd party in a federal election is ridiculous.

    That doesn’t follow at all. Just because they’re not concerned about leftists becoming republicans, that in no way shows that they’re not concerned about leftists voting third party.

    It doesn’t matter if your analogy is analogous? Gee, that explains a lot.

    I don’t think you understand how analogies work. An analogy doesn’t have to reflect every aspect of reality. It only has to be comparable as far as it’s relevant to the specific point that it’s attempting to establish or explain. The specific point of the analogy is that one option being better than another does not mean that either option is worth considering. That’s not specifically about the election, it’s a general point.

    All analogies deviate from reality in some way, that’s what an analogy is. The question is whether it deviates in a way that’s relevant to the specific point being discussed. I only made the analogy to establish that specific point, and not as a more general reflection of the election, as you’re trying to take it.

    you are stuck with one of those “unacceptable” options no matter what.

    There’s a difference between there being two possible winners and there being two possible choices. Just because Trump and Harris are the only ones likely to be elected doesn’t mean I have to vote for either of them. We’ve been over this, I feel like.

    • null@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Just because they’re not concerned about leftists becoming republicans, that in no way shows that they’re not concerned about leftists voting third party.

      Exactly – I agree that the two are unrelated, so I’m not sure why you used it to support your claim. It makes perfect sense for them to try to steal voters directly from their only other actual opponent. That means they gain a vote and the other side loses a vote.

      I see no reason why they would feel any more pressure to capture 3rd party voters than they would to capture apathetic voters or any other non-Republican-voting group.

      There’s a difference between there being two possible outcomes and there being two possible choices. Just because Trump and Harris are the only ones likely to be elected doesn’t mean I have to vote for either of them. We’ve been over this, I feel like.

      Of course there are more than two possible choices. You could choose to saw your arm off and put it in the ballot box. Choosing to use your vote to prevent the worse of the only two possible outcomes from happening is a better choice than throwing it away.

      • OBJECTION!
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Exactly – I agree that the two are unrelated, so I’m not sure why you used it to support your claim.

        You’re the one who brought up the question of whether democrats are concerned about me voting Republican. The point is that they are concerned about the possibility of gaining or losing voters, which honestly isn’t a point I should even have to argue for, because it’s obvious.

        Choosing to use your vote to prevent the worse of the only two possible outcomes from happening is a better choice than throwing it away.

        I disagree, you haven’t established this. Since neither option is acceptable, it is not correct to accept either.

        • null@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          You’re the one who brought up the question of whether democrats are concerned about me voting Republican.

          Right, in response to your ridiculous assertion that voting 3rd party puts any meaningful pressure on them.

          The point is that they are concerned about the possibility of gaining or losing voters, which honestly isn’t a point I should even have to argue for, because it’s obvious.

          I agree, it’s extremely obvious. I’m not arguing against it. I’m arguing against your claim that voting 3rd party puts any meaningful pressure on Democrats.

          I disagree, you haven’t established this.

          Because it’s obvious. The outlandish claim is that throwing away your vote is better than using it to avoid the worse outcome.

          • OBJECTION!
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            I agree, it’s extremely obvious. I’m not arguing against it. I’m arguing against your claim that voting 3rd party puts any meaningful pressure on Democrats.

            It’s not “outlandish” at all. You can’t agree that it’s “extremely obvious” that democrats care about gaining or losing votes in one case and that it’s “outlandish” in another, it’s completely arbitrary.

            Because it’s obvious. The outlandish claim is that throwing away your vote is better than using it to avoid the worse outcome.

            I don’t consider that obvious at all. First off, I dispute the claim that voting third party is “throwing your vote away,” because I’ve already established the effects it can have regardless of not winning. But I also assert that it’s better to throw away your vote than to support someone who is fundamentally unacceptable.

            I do not subscribe to the ideology of lesser evilism, or to act utilitarianism. It is not ethical to kill a healthy person to get the organs necessary to save five people. It is not ethical to murder someone because someone threatens to murder two people if you don’t. Y’all act like your ethical framework is just “obvious,” objectively true, and the only one that exists, but that’s completely false, and it falls apart as indefensible under scrutiny.

            In addition, it’s just a bad negotiation tactic.

            • null@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              It’s not “outlandish” at all. You can’t agree that it’s “extremely obvious” that democrats care about gaining or losing votes in one case and that it’s “outlandish” in another, it’s completely arbitrary.

              I didn’t say it was “outlandish” to claim they care about gaining votes. I said it’s outlandish to claim that voting 3rd party does anything to meaningfully pressure them into changing their policies to capture your vote. They are more concerned about changing their policies to capture the center-right, like you said.

              I don’t consider that obvious at all. First off, I dispute the claim that voting third party is “throwing your vote away,” because I’ve already established the effects it can have regardless of not winning

              No you have not.

              But I also assert that it’s better to throw away your vote than to support someone who is fundamentally unacceptable.

              That is a ridiculous assertion.

              I do not subscribe to the ideology of lesser evilism, or to act utilitarianism.

              There it is. You don’t care any of the work that has to happen over the next 4 years to push for positive change. You just care about virtue-signaling.

              • OBJECTION!
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                2 hours ago

                more concerned

                I agree that they are more concerned about the center-right (mostly because the center-right is more prone to defecting while the left just falls in line), but that does not mean that they are not at all concerned about losing the left, or that a change in strategy couldn’t make them concerned about that.

                There it is. You don’t care any of the work that has to happen over the next 4 years to push for positive change. You just care about virtue-signaling.

                How does not being an act utilitarian mean that I just care about virtue-signaling? Do you know what act utilitarianism is? Do you think it has something to do with taking actions vs not taking actions?

                Act utilitarianism is an ethical framework that is based around judging specific acts to determine which action produces the most utility, in contrast to rule utilitarianism, which is about judging which general rules tend to produce the most utility.

                • null@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 hours ago

                  I think I see where this is headed.

                  Am I right to say that you view casting a vote as an endorsement of a candidate/party (like MAGA does), rather than as a chess move (like Liberals do)?

                  • OBJECTION!
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 hours ago

                    Obvious, a vote is an endorsement, yes. Whether MAGA does or Liberals don’t, I don’t know anything about that and don’t particularly care.

                    But even if you want to treat it as a chess move, it’s a bad one. It’s tactically wrong as well as ethically.