R(ul)evenge USA edition
R(ul)evenge USA edition
The discourse on American politics sometimes devolves to "Leftists who won't vote" & "MAGA Republicans" teaming up to "getting revenge on liberals".
You're viewing a single thread.
"Revenge"?
Vindictiveness doesn't have anything to do with it, I just can't bring myself to vote for genocide.
If anything, it's resignation and apathy as everything I predicted back in 2016 continues to come to pass.
Trump is going to win in November because the Democrats care more about preserving their AIPAC financing than representing their constituents.
Okay then vote against genocide.
Donald Trump is Genocide at home and abroad.
Joe Biden is "only" Genocide abroad, and probably less of it.
Therefore, a vote for Joe Biden is a Vote against genocide.
No, it doesn't matter that he's an active participant in the apparatus that's creating the genocide, because if he's in office there's less genocide. Which is the important part, and pretending otherwise is sophistry. By abstaining from voting, you are increasing the likelihood of more genocide, if you discourage others from voting, you are an active participant in the overall social apparatus that is probabilistically increasing the ammount of genocide.
The utility calculation is dead simple: more votes for Biden in key states makes more genocide less likely, and discouraging people from voting for Biden makes more genocide more likely. Therefore, discouraging people from voting for Biden is a pro-genocide strategy and voting for Biden in battleground states is an anti-genocide strategy. I live in a solid blue state, so I reserve the right to vote third party, but I will also encourage other people to vote for Biden.
You should vote for Biden unless you live in a solid blue state, and even then it's not a bad idea.
Offering a sandwich with more and less peanut butter when I am allergic to peanuts still means I will be sick. I'm hungry and I want a sandwich with no peanut butter. There are third party candidates providing sandwiches with no peanut butter. I am sorry demand decreases for the sandwich with less peanut butter, but I am unable to stomach peanuts.
Alright, but it's not really about you, is it? There's untold many hungry people, some of which are allergic to peanuts, and the only crate left has nothing but.
There are several people needed to open the crate. Maybe it can be opened without you, maybe it can't maybe it's stuck regardless. But even if you don't want peanuts, it's incredibly selfish of you to not only refuse to help feed the people who can be fed but also pretend to be of upstanding moral character when you do so. So take an antacid and show up at the ballot.
There's untold many hungry people in the world because our comfort depends on it. In fact, what a wild metaphor to continue using when there's thousands starving to death in Palestine right now with our tax money. Hey, but at least we'll get cheap oil shipped to us through that new India>Saudi Arabia>Palestine trade route that's being set up as a competitor to the "new Silk Road" thing china is doing. Cheap oil might be that peanut butter sandwich that people over here need to stay financially afloat, but it's only a few layers removed from your actions being responsible for genocide. Some people don't like this fact and would rather we had actual representation in our government.
because our comfort depends on it
That's not actually relevant to the discussion; dismantling the United States, capitalism, and/or all imperialism isn't on the table.
If you want to have a birthday cake, and you see Timmy about to start playing with a loaded gun, you should still stop that from happening even if it doesn't get you birthday cake. That's especially true if there's no birthday cake readily available.
Edit: the more I think about it, the better an analogy this is, because if >!little Timmy blows his brains out after you chose not to stop it, it seriously hampers the ammount of birthday cake you eat in the future. Because if there's birthday cake available you probably won't be able to eat it after that, people will be less likely to invite you to a birthday party, and little Timmy won't have any more birthdays.!<
CW: casual discussion of graphic and dark topics.
People are upset they can't vote to dismantle the system and so they don't vote thinking that it somehow withdraws their consent. I feel like that Patrick's wallet meme where we all agree voting doesn't do the things we want, including withdrawing consent.
Oh look, it's another metaphor that ignores the fact that doing what we're doing is actively harming other people (and comparing genocide to "eating cake"). You gave the gun Timmy was playing with to his brown friend and even disengaged the safety for him. And then you're surprised when the little boy's parents are upset you gave him the loaded gun. You're right. This is a good metaphor for this situation we're in.
This reply is so bad I'm comfortable not giving an actual response.
Edit: I should've just said "ratio". 😂
Go back to the trolly metaphor where you at least admit that you're killing someone with your actions.
There is a flaw in making a collective choice individualistic. Helping others is a moral thing to do and I was there in 2020 even though peanut butter sucks. Individually, I will get a sandwich, probably with peanut butter.
However, this crate landed on Palestinians. Helping the people under the crate seems important.
However, this crate landed on Palestinians. Helping the people under the crate seems important.
What does that even mean in the context of the previous metaphor? The crate itself doesn't represent anything; the actions that the crate is subjected to represent acts that are not done to something.
There is a flaw in making a collective choice individualistic.
Yea; that's why talking about yourself doesn't change the ethics of the situation. Good👏 Job!👏
I referenced a news story in which the parachute on an air dropped aid package failed to deploy crushing people underneath.
Genocide is not ethical. Voting for genocide, but less, does not change the ethics of genocide. Part of the coalition that elected Biden in 2020 will not vote for him again due to his support of genocide.
The options for such voters are:
- Being complicite in genocide
- Voting third party or not at all
I understand the two party system created by first-past-the-post. I understand third party candidates are unlikely to win. I understand Democrats are rightfully nervous. If Democrats are nervous enough, they should do something to change the minds of voters that will not vote for genocide.
Voting for a sandwich without peanut butter will result in other people deciding what sandwich you get, and the only realistic options are those with peanut butter.
Also, you'll have to eat the sandwich.
I understand needing to eat the sandwich. I also understand making a collective first-past-the-post choice individual is a flawed argument.
However there is an individual component to saying I really can't eat peanut butter. The decision then becomes stand your ground (no peanut butter), compromise (just a little peanut butter) or protest (full peanut butter; see you in the ER). The claim is the compromise is best.
How do we reach a point where we no longer need to compromise on peanut butter?
Okay then vote against genocide.
Okay, then put it on the ballot.
Therefore, a vote for Joe Biden is a Vote against genocide.
No, it doesn't matter that he's an active participant in the apparatus that's creating the genocide
On the contrary, I think it matters very much.
By abstaining from voting, you are increasing the likelihood of more genocide, if you discourage others from voting, you are an active participant in the overall social apparatus that is probabilistically increasing the ammount of genocide.
By voting, you are prolonging the existence of the United States and guaranteeing that the genocides it supports will continue. You have made yourself an active participant in reifying the implied consent of the governed that entitles the government to act on your behalf, and with your consent it will continue to ship weapons to apartheid regimes.
The utility calculation is dead simple: more votes for Biden in key states makes the governments' dealings with the Israel appear legitimate and discourages people from taking meaningful action which might alter that relationship. Therefore, discouraging people from voting is an anti-genocide strategy.
By voting, you are prolonging the existence of the United States
Sophistry. Half the U.S. doesn't vote in elections, and they're still a global super power. Whoever told you that is an idiot.
makes the governments' dealings with the Israel appear legitimate
More sophistry. The government's legitimacy isn't brought into question by a lack of votes; your actions are no different from someone who is simply politically disengaged and apathetic.
Keeping quiet isn't an effective component of destroying the United States. Engaging in this argument the way that you are is a pro-genocide strategy because you are increasing the probability of more genocide.
Half the U.S. doesn't vote in elections, and they're still a global super power.
You admit that half of the country is already on my side and still call it sophistry?
The government's legitimacy isn't brought into question by a lack of votes
That's because our government isn't democratic. It only pretends to be so that the citizenry doesn't depose it.
Keeping quiet isn't an effective component of destroying the United States.
Hence, this discussion.
Engaging in this argument the way that you are is a pro-genocide strategy because you are increasing the probability of more genocide.
As opposed to engaging in this argument in the way that you are, begging me to vote for more genocide because you're afraid the wrong half of our two-faced, one-party government would be put in charge of it.
on my side
Nope, that's a misrepresentation of my argument and you know it.
because you're afraid
✨ Correct. ✨
I love happy roadkill, and I'm familiar with this comic. I'd have gone with the one where the elephant is reaching down the donkey's pants, though; it gets your message across more poignantly.
The the two parties form a bulwark against mainstream progressive political action. This is an inarguable fact, and if the option were between the DNC and green party, I'd vote green. The GOP is currently in a state of extreme disunity; it's in a condition strikingly similar to the whigs prior to their dissolution and so losing Texas will likely cause the party to fracture as well as giving Biden a guaranteed victory. Once the GOP is made irrelevant, a left-wing electoral movement may be able (with the help of non-electoral leftist activitists) to form a genuine left-wing party, which will make direct action easier and our ultimate victory just that much closer and more likely.
I love happy roadkill
I was looking for a more apropos non-HappyRoadkill one, "They say the next one will be sent by a woman." "Really makes you feel like a part of history" as the drone drops bombs over them. But it must be buried deep in my image collection.
Once the GOP is made irrelevant, a left-wing electoral movement may be able (with the help of non-electoral leftist activitists) to form a genuine left-wing party, which will make direct action easier and our ultimate victory just that much closer and more likely.
I'd certainly hope so, but the more realistic assessment is a split among the Democrats. Half of them will want to keep their current rightward drift in hopes of attracting ex-Republican voters, the other half will break off towards centrism, maybe social democracy if we're really lucky.
I'll admit that I hadn't considered the possibility of the democratic party fracturing. I disagree that it's more likely; the democrats are expecting defeat, don't seem to be as fed up with each other, and I think a victory is likely to strengthen the party rather than strain it. However, it definitely bears consideration and I'll try to figure out likely scenarios with the assumption that it does occur. Thank you for bringing the possibility to my attention.
It seems more likely to me because our first-past-the-post elections make a two-party system a mathematical certainty. If one of the major parties implodes, something else must take its place, and a faction among the other major party is much better equipped to attract the newly unaligned voters than third-party also-rans.
Manchin and the DINOs will go one way, AOC and The Squad go another. Party leadership will align with the former over the latter, so the Democrats become the new right-wing party. Whether the left-wing faction joins with the Green Party or the Greens become a faction of the new left party is a distinction without much difference.
So, don't vote for genocide. Vote for one of the anti-genocide candidates, like Jill Stein or Cornel West.
Might as well stay home and save myself the trouble of wasting my time. Third parties aren't viable in a first-past-the-post election system.
In my state at least if a third party receives at least 5% of the vote they'll get significantly more funding in the next election cycle. Pretty sure that's true across the US.
You mean that thing that hasn't happened since Ross Perot in Texas 30 years ago?
Surely his Reform Party is still around after having their funding boosted, right? Nope, they dissolved in '97 after doing even worse at the polls in '96 than in '92.
That's simply not true. The Reform Party got Jesse Ventura elected governor of Minnesota in '98.
Yet voting 3rd party sends a signal that many are upset instead of apathetically staying at home. Silent consent is the very thing you accuse Democrats of in a sister thread.
Sounds like you want me to write in a vote for Literally Anyone Else, the Texan candidate who would make a perfect protest vote if he had even halfway decent politics.
No, I'm withdrawing my consent, for all the good that does in this abusive relationship between the state and its citizenry. If America was a real democracy then our poor turnout figures would invalidate every election back to the founding.
If America was a real democracy then our poor turnout figures would invalidate every election back to the founding.
Yeah, it would be nice if our system allowed for withdrawing consent.
No, I’m withdrawing my consent, for all the good that does in this abusive relationship between the state and its citizenry.
I don't see how that's consistent with your last sentence. But you do you I guess.
So you’re just throwing up your hand and giving up?
I gave up 14 years ago. American politics is rotten to the core and cannot be saved.
My only hope at this point is to keep as many people alive as possible through the troubles ahead.
I'm much less concerned about the hostility of those who openly demand genocide than the inaction of those who merely pretend to oppose it.
Strong "at least they're honest about it" energy
The worst thing I could wish for you as a person, is that this comment follows you around for the rest of your life.
The complaint is about duplicity, not an acceptance or exoneration of those who openly agitate for it.
An ‘ally’ who goes along to get along, but has a radically different value set is not an ally. “9 people sit a a table with a Nazi and say nothing - how many Nazis are at the table?” We decry the Russians who don’t speak out against Putin, but shuffle uncomfortably when the DNC’s top candidate is pursuing a path that enables atrocities?
It's a bullshit complaint for many reasons, but one of them is that they already stated that they won't participate in an easy activity to help mitigate genocide.
You misspelled "prolong".
When trans kids are being shoved into meat grinders I'll let them know that it's okay because you mastered the peak of internet wit.
I'm trans. My entire childhood and most of my adulthood was spent in a Texas meat grinder.
I tell you what, you hang around here and wait six months to vote against the meat grinders and I'll go back to doing something useful like helping people move from red states to sanctuary cities.
I'm glad that you're taking direct action and using your time to affect positive change. With that said, voting in Texas is particularly important, since the GOP's margin in the state has been thinning every year. Furthermore, if Trump gets elected, there's a decent chance that sanctuary cities could cease to be, and so I again encourage you to vote; it doesn't take very long and can make a literal world of difference. At the very least, you should stop discouraging other people from voting, because that runs counter to our shared stated goal, and is apparently wasting your precious time.
I'd certainly hope so, as I was loosely paraphrasing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham Jail":
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
In your mind, MLK was okay with the right kind of genocide?
Where did that come from? Of course not.
It's easy to know where one stands in relation to enemies. The same can't be said for false allies and fake friends like all the liberals who turn a blind eye to genocide when it's their guy enabling it.
Gives me an idea for a new meme to cover the other half:
"Leftists who won’t vote" 🤝 “Democrats” agree on being “apathetic”.