Progressive Leaders Warn Biden's Support for Gaza 'Slaughter' Risks Millions of Young Votes
Progressive Leaders Warn Biden's Support for Gaza 'Slaughter' Risks Millions of Young Votes
"Every day Biden chooses to fund genocide, he loses support," said Sunrise Movement.
"Every day Biden chooses to fund genocide, he loses support," said Sunrise Movement.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Not touching the trolley lever is still a choice.
Absofuckinglutely.
okay so you’re making a choice that as long as you’re not involved it’s okay for trump to win
No.
My vote is my chunk of coal.
In a different world, I would be giving my chunk of coal to the person who has a plan to keep all of us warm through the winter, with our collective coal.
In a different world, I would not be giving my chunk of coal to a dude who would use all our coal to keep his mansion toasty.
In this world, I won't toss my chunk of coal into either dumpster fire.
I'll just keep my piece of coal. At least get an hour of warmth before I face the actual winter.
That's a beautiful metaphor but you're still not acknowledging the reality of the situation where by not voting you are making the things you don't like worse for yourself.
It still doesn't quite work though because a vote has no inherent use outside an election. You aren't going to be able to turn it in for free food or rent.
Of course a vote has no use outside an election. What are you on about? Why do you think people have fought so hard for their right to vote in the past if it is so useless?
That's why I'm saying there's no value in withholding a vote.
There are 2 major fires.
I'm not throwing fuel at the base of either.
There are 2 major fires inside your house. You're not throwing water on either, and one is about to hit a gas line.
giving your lump of coal to the guy that keeps his mansion warm is better than giving it to the guy that uses it to light a fire to burn witches
again, it’s the choice between mostly ineffective and actually malicious
Except a chunk of coal has uses. An uncast vote has absolutely zero. Your vote is either +1, 0, or - 1 to a candidate (zero being not voting or third party). Not voting makes you complicit regardless. It could prevent one person from being elected. You're always complicit. If you're paying taxes you're complicit.
As it turns out, we live in a society, and your at least partially responsible for what happens in that society no matter what you do.
Vote in your primaries and get involved with other things too, but not voting is an action that makes you complicit with either side being elected. At least voting for someone has the chance of losing and you not having been a part of it.
You have yet to understand the power of a 0 throw.
I'm not doing nothing. I'm not passively doing the worst.
I'm flipping the monopoly board.
you’re not flipping the monopoly board… you’re passing on your turn and all that does is ensure that someone else decides for you
No, don't you get it? They're absolutely a revolutionary. We will tell tales of their societal impact for generations.
No.. You aren't.. You're saying "I'm okay with either one"
Then don't complain when the trolley goes one way or another.
You can't have it both ways -- if you choose not to vote, you choose to not influence the outcome. And if you aren't trying to change the outcome, you shouldn't bitch about what the outcome is. It's like saying you're fine with going anywhere for dinner, but then you spend the whole night complaining about the restaurant I picked.
Fuck you.
The fact that I didn't vote has a MUCH LARGER impact than being complicit in being forced to choose rapist conman or genocide enthusiasts.
I choose neither. Any sane person would. Any bezos or Musk slave would press a button then hope it let's them pee today.
What impact did you have by not voting then? What did you accomplish, and how did it further your goals? All you did was pat yourself on the back.
To your credit though, I should rephrase -- you have no right to complain about something that could've changed if you voted. If A would get you +$500 and B gets you -$500, and you don't vote for either, then don't complain about losing $500.
Also I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say there at the end.
Broseph, this is word salad.
To meet your vernacular:
We both go to an Atlantic city casino, each cash 500 bucks into chips.
We hit the first rouilette table.
You tell me "so you bet black or red, one has got to win, one has got to lose. That's the game".
I watch you play.
You bet black. Small bets but your civic duty makes you keep 5 on black.
You keep losing.
I talk you away at the table when you have 25 bucks in chips left.
I tell you it only hit 0 or 00 for 12 whole minutes.
You kept 5 on black for those 12 minutes (except the 3 you switched up to red).
There were magnets in the ball and the 0/00 slots. Powerful ones. But you insisted "black is due". For 12 minutes and 475 dollars.
Now I am left to console you and tell you to save your chips to pay for your drinks...
This is the 2 party system.
Stop voting for them.
this is a 2 party system
yes
stop voting
not voting doesn’t stop the game… not voting ensures someone else bet for you
stop talking analogies; they’re all wrong… it’s a damn simple concept
I am not super familiar with roulettes beyond betting on a color, so I'm completely lost here. You had me until after the $25 remaining bit. I think you're describing the gambler's fallacy though? And that's not a good analogy for a two party system either.
I see it like we get $500 in chips at the casino for free, but they have no monetary value outside of the casino. So if you leave without cashing out (which requires a > $500 total value), there's no real benefit.
Actually, not voting shows you don't care one way or another, the exact opposite of your intended effect.