You choose, even when you don't vote
You choose, even when you don't vote
https://midwest.social/post/18536008
Edit of yesterday's meme with accounted for non-voters
You're viewing a single thread.
You choose, even when you don’t vote
The problem that we have is that we don’t choose. If we had a free choice to vote for what we wanted, then nobody would need to tie themselves into knots justifying their support for genocide.
If the choice is between Hitler and Hitler+, you better believe that I’m not voting for Hitler, I’m going to be doing everything I can to dismantle the system that forced that choice on everyone. Because that system isn’t democracy.
Good luck dismantling the system with Hitler+ in power. You'd have an easier time dismantling it while 'regular' Hitler is in power.
Hey look, a reason to vote.
Absolutely, we would. You know what makes it really hard to dismantle? Having all these fucking smarmy assholes who will tactically vote for Hitler absolutely refusing to acknowledge that they’re supporting genocide.
Just admit it, and we can actually start working on fixing it.
Am I allowed to call someone a fascist on here if they say, "Vote for Hitler?"
"In this example, your options are:
A. Voting for Hitler. (Hitler wins)
B. Voting for Super Hitler. (Super Hitler wins)
C. Voting 3rd party (Super Hitler wins)
D. Not voting (Super Hitler wins)"
Me: Ok, those options suck, but 'A' I guess?
"OMG, wow, advocating voting for Hitler? Literal fascist."
I can't believe I have to say this, but "being literally Hitler" should be automatically disqualifying. You should not, under literally any circumstances, support Hitler.
This should not be controversial.
It isn't controversial, but voting isn't the same as supporting.
Nowhere in this scenario between Hitler and Super Hitler would I support Hitler, but I would still vote for Hitler out of the two because it would lead to best results out of the possible outcomes at that time.
Your pearl-clutching is saying you're equally fine with both Hitler and Super Hitler, which is objectively worse.
Why are you voting at all? Haven't you figured out yet that elections are a circus designed to make you think you have a choice? How have billions of people been convinced that playing by rules established by 'them' is going to work to benefit justice? Who counts the votes? The very same people you might be voting against command the ones counting the vote. If the electorate is not separate from and superior to the political power, then an election is a farce no matter who votes, and no matter who wins.
All the candidates are Adolf. All the candidates are always Adolf. Adolf Senior, Adolf Junior, Adolf Lite, Fuzzy Adolf, Slimy Adolf, Orange Adolf, Busty Adolf, Regal Adolf, Caesar Adolf, Genghis Adolf, Pope Adolf, King Adolf, Queen Adolf, etc., yada, yada, yada .....
These days it seems that Godwin's Law has been heavy-dosing steroids and meth. Adolf died 70 years ago and went to seed. Now we have 100 thousand Adolfos all in cahoots.
Voting from the pool of candidates chosen, groomed, and funded by the real rulers, is literally slaves voting for the less evil of pre-approved masters.
VOTE HARDER.
If for no other reason, then because the election gives an opportunity to advocate for a socialist platform and ideals. According to Lenin, socialists have a responsibility to participate in bourgeois elections until the people have given up on them and stopped paying attention to them.
Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags.
Our culture considers how you vote to be the defining aspect of your political character. Voting for a specific candidate makes people feel more inclined to defend that candidate's actions. Not voting promotes disengagement from politics altogether. Moreover, a party like PSL can use the attention it gets from the election to promote itself which it can then use to organize in other ways beyond elections.
voting isn’t the same as supporting.
Yes it is, and it's insanity or butchering of the English language to suggest otherwise.
Your pearl-clutching is saying you’re equally fine with both Hitler and Super Hitler
I am equally fine with Hitler and Super-Hitler, which is to say, not fine at all with either of them. They are both fundamentally unacceptable and I would never vote for or support either of them. I am as opposed to both of them as it is possible to be opposed to.
which is objectively worse.
You either have no understanding of what the word "objectively" means or no understanding of philosophy or politics.
"Objectively" in that in the same situation (i.e. being the deciding vote between Hitler and Super Hitler) you would decide to not vote, allowing Super Hitler to win and I would Vote to have Hitler win.
Super Hitler is objectively worse than Hitler because one is made up and the other is dead, so what are you really arguing with me for?
Lesser-evilism is not objectively correct. It is an ideology, a specific strategy and belief system, and one that is supported by neither reason nor evidence.
Your willingness to potentially support Hitler is what destroys the chance of a non-Hitler candidate winning. It also betrays the people Hitler will harm and who find supporting him completely unconscionable and destroys trust. Voting for Hitler is not a tool that you should have at all in your toolbox of tactics, and if I saw that someone had it there, as I'm seeing now, then I would be extremely concerned and suspicious of them.
I shudder to think what other tools and tactics you're prepared to use if you manage to convince yourself it's a "lesser evil" than the alternative. Unexamined consequentialism is an abhorrent belief system.
Lesser-evilism is not correct, however it's the system we currently have.
It's the natural result of a system with a single vote. You might be able to change enough people's minds to impact a single election, but the system will default back to a two-party system eventually. That is not an ideology you can break people out of, it is simply how the system works.
It sure would be nice to vote FOR someone instead of AGAINST someone else, but that's not a choice we have the luxury of making right now. We have to change the system first before that has a chance of succeeding. Otherwise it's just helping elect Super Hitler.
No, it is not. First-Past-the-Post is the system we have. Lesser-evilism is a specific ideology.
Suppose that a gunman has taken 5 people hostage, and gives you a choice. You can either kill one of them for him, and he says he'll let the rest go, or he will kill all of them himself. The ideology of lesser-evilism says that you should do it. But there are plenty of other belief systems that say you shouldn't. Your ideology of lesser-evilism, which you present as an inevitability, is actually a specific philosophical position, and one that is frankly complete nonsense. But regardless, it is impossible to critically examine any ideology if we cannot identify the fact that it is an ideology.
What if you execute a hostage, and then the gunman says, "Great, you work for me now, my first order is to gather up more hostages so I can do this again. If you don't, I'll kill twice as many people." Is that still ethical? That is what your ideology implies.
What if five people are dying and need transplants, and one innocent person happens to have the exact organs all five of them need to live? Is it ethical to kill them? That is what your ideology implies.
You are completely writing off contrary ideologies and belief systems without even recognizing that they exist, while presenting your own unexamined and indefensible ideology as objectively true and not even an ideology.
Everybody knows this. We’re just asking people to make the best choice given the circumstance. A protest vote against Harris isn’t going to teach them anything, a loss isn’t going to teach them anything. We’ll be left with a situation worse than we are in now.
I regularly have arguments with people who refuse to acknowledge that Kamala Harris is genocidal, so no, I wouldn’t say that everyone does know this.
They just can't get this. Even Ross Perot, who had 18% of the vote- far better than any third party candidate since- didn't change things.
He didn't, Nader didn't, Jill Stein didn't, none of the others did either.
But this time... THIS TIME IT WILL BE DIFFERENT!
But this time… THIS TIME IT WILL BE DIFFERENT!
In 90+% of elections people follow your advice and vote along party lines. And they say the same thing then, too.
So your criticism is the same shopworn logic I've heard for five decades. Nothing ever changes, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, the wars continue, and you just keep thinking your can, 'vote your way out'.
VOTE HARDER! Then maybe things will change.
In 90+% of elections people follow your advice and vote along party lines. And they say the same thing then, too.
And yet people like you keep saying this time, it will work.
What do they call it when you repeat the same thing over and over, expecting a different result?
And yet people like you keep saying this time, it will work.
It is actually you that is saying this. That is the very thing I was criticizing. You seem confused and contradictory.
Your team is not the good guys. There are no good guys. There are the masters and the slaves; the rulers and the ruled. And as long as you keep believing in their game and their rules it will always be so.
"People like you ....?" Are you literally illiterate? You read what I wrote, then accused me of saying exactly the opposite of what I wrote. Read my post again. Realize that you are completely delusional and caught up in the usual election cycle hysteria. I've witnessed this same shitshow for nearly half a century. Nothing ever changes, except the rubes and con men want to keep the slaves invested in the fantasy that participating more fully and robustly in their slavery will liberate them. It is you who is demanding to do the same thing over and over expecting a different result. You are projecting your election cycle hysteria on to me.
Just VOTE HARDER. Maybe then things will change.
What team is my team?
What am I delusional about?
I'm looking forward to learning more about Flying Squid from an expert.
Nader and Stein certainly changed things. They made them worse.
Ross Perot also changed things, but arguably for the better.
All by fucking with the election and getting the person on the opposite side of the aisle elected.
Because that's how the spoiler effect works.
[Resolved] Third parties splitting the vote
"Working as intended."
Not really. When the Constitution was adopted, there weren't political parties at all, no one knew what the spoiler effect was. The smartest among them might have had an idea that there had to be a better way, but no one knew what it was.
And remember that as bigoted and racist as the founding fathers were, some even considered such for their time, they were extremely egalitarian towards each other. Most of them truly believed in a nation run by free (white) men. A nation of the people (white men).
A few actually voiced displeasure when candidates won with less than half of the vote, and talked about it with their French counterparts. A man named Condorcet actually came up with a few alternative methods of voting, hoping one of them would allow the best candidate to win, now known as the Condorcet winner.
The Condorcet winner is the candidate who could win in a 1v1 race against every other candidate.
Condorcet had a lot to say about elections and such because he was tasked with writing the French constitution. But then a rival power block gained control of the developing government, and they introduced a new constitution that they had written in secret, then ratified it and had Condorcet thrown in prison, where he died two days later.
Anyway, election science has come a long way since then, and the I'd like to think that at least some of the (white) men who first wrote the American constitution would have advocated for a better voting system had one been available. But not the Montagnards. Fuck them for killing someone as cool as Condorcet.
A quote;
'The rights of men stem exclusively from the fact that they are sentient beings, capable of acquiring moral ideas and of reasoning upon them. Since women have the same qualities, they necessarily also have the same rights. Either no member of the human race has any true rights, or else they all have the same ones; and anyone who votes against the rights of another, whatever his religion, colour or sex, automatically forfeits his own.'
Except, you’re implying that’s not what you’re doing. You want to believe that your vote can accomplish everything you want, as easily snapping your fingers, but that’s not how it works. No positive change in history has happened in a day, but you seem to want to vote as if positive change can happen immediately.
Nope, you’re putting words in my mouth. My point is that, if a system was truly democratic, you wouldn’t need to choose between two pro-genocide candidates. Nothing more.
Well, we demanded to do other things than voting to push the Dems to end their support for genocide. And got heavily attacked for it, daring to dirty the nest. We got insulted as being Trump supporters in disguise.
The idea that a serious threat to Dems voting turnout if they continue genocide would force them to change their stance before the election, was immediately met with hostility and gaslighting at worst and "lets wait until after the election" at best. Well waiting until after the election didnt work the past 25 or so years. Not with Clinton, Obama, Clinton or Biden.
We’re not talking about a threat to Democrats, we’re talking about a threat to democracy. Go back in history, and look at Germany between the mid 1920s to the 1940s. Puritanical votes in the face of authoritarianism didn’t empower people to combat genocide, it decimated their ability to do something about it. RFK, Jr., the environmental advocate was so firm in his beliefs that he went groveling to the guy that pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accords, doesn’t believe in Climate Change, and just generally doesn’t give a shit about anyone or anything unless it benefits him. RFK Jr. wasn’t a serious candidate. Stein? The woman shows up every four years, and didn’t even know how many members of Congress there are — and she’s the one that should be trusted to know the policy and diplomatic complexities to bring peace to an ideological, geo-political battle spanning millennia? Are those the “other things” you demanded? In order to accomplish things in the real world, it takes consensus and working together in order to achieve results without dictatorial power. A vote for Harris isn’t a vote for genocide or a perfect world, it’s a vote for moving forward — or if you want to be super cynical about it, a choice for one of the two candidates that can win who is the least likely candidate to exacerbate tensions and cause the spilling of more innocent blood.
If you can’t understand that, then it just means I can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. There isn’t a third option out there that is coming to save us — it’s up to us to save us, even if we have to do it piece-by-piece because there is no magic snapping of the fingers that is going to fix this.
Well you should do that pissing match during the candidate selection then. Don't drag it out to after the choices are set.
Here’s the problem. You made your position on the issue obvious by referring to the actual problem as a “pissing match”. If you only care about politics when it comes to electing a president, then we’re all fucked.
Leftists are not trying to get you to not vote for Harris. We are trying to get you to DO SOMETHING BEYOND VOTING. And to admit that you’re supporting a genocidal candidate.
Because if y’all continue to just live under this delusion that Kamala isn’t genocidal, then you’ll never see any need to change.
Why was the choice set since like a year already? And we met the same hostility and "reasons" 9 months ago. Truth is not enough people care enough to push for change. They just wanted to feel that their lot is not threatened, solidarity be damned. Well this does not work, as history has infamously shown time and time again. Unless people band together they'll be picked off one by one.
The only time I saw resistance was when people were pitching about Joe or harris without saying, hey vote for candidate x y or z in the primary they are better than Joe or Harris.
If all you do is say so, and so is ship I'm not voting for them, then your just being a nuisance.
And when the context is Trump or Harris being elected, saying "I'm not voting for Harris" means by default you are supporting Trump.
And when the context is Trump or Harris being elected, saying “I’m not voting for Harris” means by default you are supporting Trump.
So if i am saying "I'm not voting for Trump" then what happens? By this logic even if i vote the same third party candidate or not at all, i would be supporting Harris.
The only way this "default" works is if people are expected to vote Democrats. And if that is the default expectation it means they can do whatever they want, with no accountability. Instead of politicians having to win your vote with good politics, the blame gets shifted to the voter for not being loyal to the party. That is gaslighting. And when having these discussions it seems a lot of people were gaslit quite successfully by the party elites.
Well what exactly are you doing to dismantle the system? Posting on Lemmy? How's that working out? Not great?
Now get off your lazy, entitled, privileged ass and vote against Hitler+.
I’m an activist, union rep and collaborate with several co-operatives.
What about you?
So you're someone who pays attention... Then why don't you seem to understand how the system works?
We're one week from the election and we have two choices. Harris and Trump.
Trump is anti-union, anti-democracy, and pro-genocide.
Harris is pro-union, pro-democracy, and anti-genocide (but currently constrained by the law).
That's the two choices. No other choice is valid because the winner will be one of the two.
Vote third party and you have a Jill Stein or Ralph Nader situation where Trump wins.
Don't vote? Well, that too leads to Trump.
If you even admit that Kamala supports genocide, then there’s nothing to talk about. I am only interested in communicating with people who engage with reality as it is. Take your QAnon-adjacent fantasies elsewhere.
What?
What you typed makes no sense. Are you projecting? It seems like you're projecting, but I can't be sure because, again, what you wrote doesn't actually make sense.
I don't remember Hitler lite defending sexual assault victims.
By your logic, you're more genocidal because at least she's publicly asking for a ceasefire.
No, see, it’s quite easy. If I am elected President, I will immediately end all supply of munitions, arms and intelligence to Israel, and I will begin a review of all other forms of state aid provided to Israel with a view to ending all financial support, as soon as possible.
See how easy that is?