|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 07 2024 01:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 01:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 00:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 23:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
No one is saying that Democrats get a pass. It's comparing the only choices available, neither of which have "very good, moral take on the Israel-Palestine conflict" as a quality. It's literally as simple as that. If you want to deter people from voting for Biden, then you're increasing the chance that Trump wins the election, which means that things will get worse for the Palestinians. I would prefer a much, much better situation for the Palestinians, but the only option currently available to me, as a voter, is to vote for Biden over Trump.
[quote]
That's a terrible take, and I suspect that you know this. If Biden shot someone, I'd want him prosecuted and held legally accountable for his actions. That's literally the opposite of what Trump's base wants for when Trump commits crimes, as evident by their faux outrage at his recent felony convictions and their flippant dismissal of all his remaining indictments. Prosecuted and held legally liable sure, but if he's still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", I understand you to be taking the position you'd still vote for him and advocate others do too. If Biden hypothetically committed enough additional evil to the point where Trump became the lesser of two evils, and if those two men were the only candidates for president, then I'd need to switch my vote to Trump. In reality, Biden isn't going to be outdoing Trump in the evil department. It was specific. If Biden shot someone on 5th ave, and was still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", would you (like gors) still vote/advocate for/support him? Only you can determine whether it would meet your metric of "enough additional evil" or not. EDIT: If I'm wrong and any of Biden's advocates/voters/supporters/whatevers wouldn't vote/support/etc for him were he to shoot someone on 5th Ave, I'd happily stand corrected. I don't know. If Biden shot my Mom, I wouldn't vote for him. If he shot Trump, I'd probably vote for him twice. + Show Spoiler +I'm kidding. Voting twice is illegal. I appreciate the virtue of hypotheticals, but not at the expense of reality. We know what a Biden presidency entails, and we know what a Trump presidency entails. I don't think that considering imaginary situations where Biden becomes more and more evil, or where Trump becomes less and less evil, is valuable at this point in time. I know you're saying it in jest, but I'm seriously asking if Biden shooting your mom would actually make you not vote for him? As it stands, I'm of the understanding that you would still vote for him and advocate others do the same. Moreover, that you believe/have argued that you'd have a moral obligation to support Biden anyway. Because not voting for Biden would be "enabling evil". Of course I'd still have to vote for Biden and tell others to do the same. + Show Spoiler +It would be more painful for me to do (given the hypothetical increase in his evilness), but we're assuming that nothing else has changed about Biden and Trump. Trump would still be a much worse president than Biden, in my opinion. And separate from all that, I'd want Biden prosecuted and convicted (if he actually committed a crime). I wouldn't want him to get away with murder or manslaughter, and I definitely wouldn't be fine with the fact that he hypothetically shot my mom. So me saying: isn't a terrible take, but an uncomfortable fact. I'd go a step further and posit that one reason why you took such umbrage is because it is an uncomfortable fact. But the point isn't the moral bankruptcy of supporting someone despite them murdering your family in cold blood as a character flaw, but as a systemic/cultural harbinger of doom. In part, because it is a prolific mindset among the ostensible "left" of the US. No, it's still a terrible take, as I explained the first time around. Your realization that I can compartmentalize and act like an adult, and realize that the proper punishment would be criminal prosecution - as opposed to the destruction of our country (i.e., helping Trump win) - isn't the gotcha you think it is. Even as someone who's emotionally traumatized, I wouldn't be thinking "The best way I can assure retribution is by removing all the rights from American women and people of color and the LGBTQ+ community. That'll show Biden, and that'll bring my mom back to life!" Me advocating for a murderer being brought to justice is also the complete opposite of what Trump supporters would want for Trump, if Trump went on a killing spree. The choice is between Biden and Trump, whether one of them shot your mom or not. It's weird you would call my consideration of the big picture "morally bankrupt", but I guess you can call anything morally bankrupt when you're refusing to deal with real-world consequences. At best you're arguing it is both a terrible take and an uncomfortable fact. I'd say you argue the former because of the latter. But the larger point is the incapacity of (seemingly any) Democrats/their supporters to draw a line, even at not voting for someone that murdered said supporters' families in cold blood, is indicative that they'll never be able to draw a line. It's honestly a bit bewildering to me that you and others don't see the catastrophic problem with you and other Democrats/their supporters being able to rationalize voting for Trump (yes, I mean Trump).
I've told you before that it's a ranking, not a line. You're drawing a line, saying that neither candidate is worthy, and... that's it. Nothing else. That's useless. You can't just pick "no one becomes president". Election Day will come and go, and someone will win the presidency, whether you like it or not. I think that there are too many differences between the candidates to write them off as equally unacceptable, and thinking they're both unacceptable doesn't change the fact that one of them is going to win anyway.
Anyways, we're going around in circles. I think you and I both understand each other's positions, and just fundamentally disagree. I'm going to bow out of the conversation now; feel free to have the last word. Thanks for the discussion 
|
On June 07 2024 01:51 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2024 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 21:00 Razyda wrote:On June 06 2024 20:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 19:48 Razyda wrote:On June 06 2024 17:02 KwarK wrote:On June 06 2024 16:36 BlackJack wrote:On June 06 2024 15:17 KwarK wrote:On June 06 2024 14:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:
There are degrees of apathy/trying to install change, it's not a binary 'either you're doing nothing or you have to bomb capitol'. Tbh I have no idea what GH is doing with his spare time but I have the impression he's been involved in at least some grassroots organization with the aim of inspiring a more revolutionary attitude in people. If you're a revolutionary socialist it's not like you're going to be a believer in lone wolf terrorism anyway - only a massive movement involving millions of people can install the societal change you want to enact, so working towards that goal (convincing people that there's a need for a revolution) is an entirely reasonable approach. You might argue that the messaging is inefficient in achieving that goal (maybe even counter-productive), but that's not really what you're doing here, Kwark.
You're also allowed to be outspokenly concerned with climate change while occasionally eating steak and driving a car, because you can have the opinion that the changes required to combat it must happen at a societal/political level and that single individuals trying to reduce their ecological footprint to 1 might not be all that impactful and will constitute a big sacrifice for relatively little gain. Again, not a binary - and I'll have more respect for the outspokenly concerned vegan than the outspokenly concerned private jet flying bbq master - but I certainly prefer it if people who consume too much (almost everybody) try to influence politics / others towards consuming less rather than just handwaving 'oh well it's futile might as well go out with a bang'. GH attempts to hold everyone to an absurd and impossible moral and political standard and crucifies anyone he feels is taking insufficient direct action to effect change. And yet there is no evidence that he has ever taken any direct action himself. He identifies as a revolutionary socialist for the purpose of sneering at others but he has achieved as many socialist revolutions as I have. He’s actually worse than a militant vegan. He’s a meat eater who self identifies as a militant vegan for the purpose of picking fights with people. I have no time for him anymore. He doesn’t come remotely close to passing his own ridiculous purity tests. What has GH asked anyone to do beyond simply making a post agreeing with him that we should reject both parties and commit to a socialist revolution? I haven't heard him ask anyone to take up arms. As far as I can tell the only direct action he has asked of anyone is to stop stumping for Biden and that's certainly something he has done himself. Rejecting both parties within a two party system is abandoning democracy entirely. Unless you combine it with an overthrow of the state it’s simply non participation. It’s very convenient for him that his morally pure pedestal from which he judges others requires him to do literally nothing. Not even the barest minimum to protect the rights of his trans brothers and sisters by voting against a greater evil. Nothing at all. I proposed bombing a federal building in jest but if he feels that’s too revolutionary he could bomb a state building. If that’s too much then maybe a municipal one. If that’s too much then maybe just break a window. If that’s too much then maybe use their public bathrooms, take a massive shit, and not flush. Any of these active steps would be above roleplaying a revolutionary on the internet. If he can’t manage any of those I really don’t see in what way he’s a revolutionary. It’s like being lectured by a vegan who couldn’t manage to give up bacon.The rejection of the parties is only defensible as part of a larger effort to get where you want to be outside of the political process. If you’re not doing that then you’re not rejecting both parties, you’re just apolitical. Bolded 1: No it is not, it is merely statement that you dont support either of the parties. If for example 80% of voters would took GH position then does government still get to claim being democratically elected? If they do, then thats when overthrow of the state happens. Italic: You literally judging him from your morally pure pedestal for not doing what you would want him to do. Bolded Italic: Whether you voting for smaller evil, or greater evil, you still support evil. GH by not voting doesnt.Bolded 2: It may be revolutionary idea, but some may think that convincing one person on the internet may serve better to his cause than not flushing in public bathroom. I disagree with the assertion that "not voting" means you're not supporting evil, because abstaining from the voting process (or voting third party) can also be seen as being complicit and enabling. ( Everyone is supporting some level of evil, technically and practically and subjectively, even those who don't vote.) How can you disagree?? You literally voting "for" something not "against" something. Just look at the ballot. If you voting for something that means you support it. It also takes some mental gymnastics to believe that someone who didnt vote (eg: supported evil) is being complicit and enabling, rather than someone who actively vote for it. I'll try to rephrase, using a slightly more structured elaboration of my perspective: 1. Someone is going to become the next president of the United States. (That person is almost guaranteed to be Biden or Trump, but even if they both suddenly die and then a third person becomes president, my line of reasoning doesn't change.) 2. Nobody is perfect, which means that the next president will inevitably have some level of moral failing or political shortcoming or point of contention, which apparently we're calling "evil". (Every potential president has some amount of "evil" tied to them; there is no perfect, non-evil candidate.) 3. It is inaccurate to view all possible presidential candidates as equally evil, because each candidate has a different history, a different set of political platforms, and disagreements with each other. (Biden and Trump, for example, are extremely different in many important ways, and their previous words, actions, and presidencies have demonstrated that.) 4. It is therefore possible for each potential voter to rank each presidential candidate by how much "evil" the candidate has (based on agreements/disagreements with political views, failings/shortcomings, etc.). I would prefer the positive spin - ranking by how much good a future president could do for the country - but I'm also trying to work within the bounds of the "evil" semantics that was brought up. 5. This personalized ranking effectively makes a practical list of who - given the current candidates - you would prefer as your first choice, second choice, etc. for president. Your first choice would be the least "evil", in your opinion, using whatever perspectives and metrics and definitions of "evil" you want (which can certainly be different for everyone, based on the policies and values they prioritize). 6. I think voters have a moral obligation to support their preferred candidate. By not voting, you are necessarily not voting for your preferred candidate. You are not helping them win, which means you are not helping to minimize evil. That's enabling evil, and being complicit in allowing more-evil presidential candidates to win. It's similar to this famous quote: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”. I hope that helps to flesh out my position, which you may disagree with or find irrational. There are certainly some points in my 6th line that may warrant further clarification. For example, the question of "What if my vote doesn't count because I don't live in a swing state", would lead me to respond with "Vote anyway for your preferred candidate, and also do what you can to reach out to those who do live in swing states... and, also, vote for ways to make elections fairer, more representative, and more inclusive, such as a national popular vote instead of the electoral college". You also just wrote: "If you voting for something that means you support it." Sure, but if you vote for someone, that doesn't mean you support everything that person says and does. You might agree with most of what they say, or you may just be minimizing evil (compared to the other, worse candidates, based on your personal ranking). 1 - correct 2-5 is basically attempt to present choosing lesser evil as something good, kinda like "if children didnt work in factories economy would collapse, hence we are good making them work there" 6 - I dont think they do, people arent there for politicians, it is actually other way around - politician should represent his/her voters. So if there isnt candidate which you think will represent you, then why on earth should you vote for him? It is like going to shop and livng there money without buying anything. Bolded: actually, the moment you cast the ballot you do, it is kinda package deal.
I'm not presenting "choosing lesser evil as something good". I'm presenting it as the reality of the situation, if you dislike both candidates but also realize that one of them will inevitably become president.
It's also unrealistic and impractical to think that a candidate could/should match every single one of your values and positions identically. Having multiple choices means picking the one who best represents your positions, even if that's only 90% or 70% or 50% (if the other candidates are even lower). With millions of voters, there may very well be millions of slightly different opinions and combinations of opinions, so it makes sense for many of them to consolidate around candidates that are "close enough".
Just because you cast your ballot doesn't mean you necessarily agree with everything your preferred presidential candidate stands for. You can still lobby them to change their positions, vote for Congresspeople who might persuade the president to change their mind, etc.
PS: this came across funny Show nested quote +On June 06 2024 23:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
No one is saying that Democrats get a pass. Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
I know you're saying it in jest, but I'm seriously asking if Biden shooting your mom would actually make you not vote for him?
Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Of course I'd still have to vote for Biden and tell others to do the same. It would be more painful for me to do (given the hypothetical increase in his evilness), but we're assuming that nothing else has changed about Biden and Trump. Trump would still be a much worse president than Biden, in my opinion. And separate from all that, I'd want Biden prosecuted and convicted (if he actually committed a crime). I wouldn't want him to get away with murder or manslaughter, and I definitely wouldn't be fine with the fact that he hypothetically shot my mom.
Okay. Keep in mind that there was a pretty extensive back-and-forth, with more nuance than is just shown by the few quotes you've pulled out. Insisting on criminal prosecution (if Biden were to kill someone) is definitely not "giving Biden a pass", but anyways, I don't wish to rehash it further.
|
I'm curious GH, do you vote or plan to vote? I'm pretty sure there is a socialist party candidate you could vote for if you don't want to vote for Biden. Is this satisfactory for you or do you insist that the change you want to see has to come by way of revolution? Is a violent bloodbath a necessary part of the fantasy? Surely seeing a 3rd party candidate receive a considerable % of the popular vote will do more to convince people we can have something different than talking against a wall on a gaming forum.
|
On June 07 2024 02:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 01:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 01:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 00:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]Prosecuted and held legally liable sure, but if he's still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", I understand you to be taking the position you'd still vote for him and advocate others do too.
If Biden hypothetically committed enough additional evil to the point where Trump became the lesser of two evils, and if those two men were the only candidates for president, then I'd need to switch my vote to Trump. In reality, Biden isn't going to be outdoing Trump in the evil department. It was specific. If Biden shot someone on 5th ave, and was still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", would you (like gors) still vote/advocate for/support him? Only you can determine whether it would meet your metric of "enough additional evil" or not. EDIT: If I'm wrong and any of Biden's advocates/voters/supporters/whatevers wouldn't vote/support/etc for him were he to shoot someone on 5th Ave, I'd happily stand corrected. I don't know. If Biden shot my Mom, I wouldn't vote for him. If he shot Trump, I'd probably vote for him twice. + Show Spoiler +I'm kidding. Voting twice is illegal. I appreciate the virtue of hypotheticals, but not at the expense of reality. We know what a Biden presidency entails, and we know what a Trump presidency entails. I don't think that considering imaginary situations where Biden becomes more and more evil, or where Trump becomes less and less evil, is valuable at this point in time. I know you're saying it in jest, but I'm seriously asking if Biden shooting your mom would actually make you not vote for him? As it stands, I'm of the understanding that you would still vote for him and advocate others do the same. Moreover, that you believe/have argued that you'd have a moral obligation to support Biden anyway. Because not voting for Biden would be "enabling evil". Of course I'd still have to vote for Biden and tell others to do the same. + Show Spoiler +It would be more painful for me to do (given the hypothetical increase in his evilness), but we're assuming that nothing else has changed about Biden and Trump. Trump would still be a much worse president than Biden, in my opinion. And separate from all that, I'd want Biden prosecuted and convicted (if he actually committed a crime). I wouldn't want him to get away with murder or manslaughter, and I definitely wouldn't be fine with the fact that he hypothetically shot my mom. So me saying: isn't a terrible take, but an uncomfortable fact. I'd go a step further and posit that one reason why you took such umbrage is because it is an uncomfortable fact. But the point isn't the moral bankruptcy of supporting someone despite them murdering your family in cold blood as a character flaw, but as a systemic/cultural harbinger of doom. In part, because it is a prolific mindset among the ostensible "left" of the US. No, it's still a terrible take, as I explained the first time around. Your realization that I can compartmentalize and act like an adult, and realize that the proper punishment would be criminal prosecution - as opposed to the destruction of our country (i.e., helping Trump win) - isn't the gotcha you think it is. Even as someone who's emotionally traumatized, I wouldn't be thinking "The best way I can assure retribution is by removing all the rights from American women and people of color and the LGBTQ+ community. That'll show Biden, and that'll bring my mom back to life!" Me advocating for a murderer being brought to justice is also the complete opposite of what Trump supporters would want for Trump, if Trump went on a killing spree. The choice is between Biden and Trump, whether one of them shot your mom or not. It's weird you would call my consideration of the big picture "morally bankrupt", but I guess you can call anything morally bankrupt when you're refusing to deal with real-world consequences. At best you're arguing it is both a terrible take and an uncomfortable fact. I'd say you argue the former because of the latter. But the larger point is the incapacity of (seemingly any) Democrats/their supporters to draw a line, even at not voting for someone that murdered said supporters' families in cold blood, is indicative that they'll never be able to draw a line. It's honestly a bit bewildering to me that you and others don't see the catastrophic problem with you and other Democrats/their supporters being able to rationalize voting for Trump (yes, I mean Trump). I've told you before that it's a ranking, not a line. You're drawing a line, saying that neither candidate is worthy, and... that's it. Nothing else. That's useless. You can't just pick "no one becomes president". Election Day will come and go, and someone will win the presidency, whether you like it or not. I think that there are too many differences between the candidates to write them off as equally unacceptable, and thinking they're both unacceptable doesn't change the fact that one of them is going to win anyway. Anyways, we're going around in circles. I think you and I both understand each other's positions, and just fundamentally disagree. I'm going to bow out of the conversation now; feel free to have the last word. Thanks for the discussion
I'm not saying "and that's it. Nothing else" though... I'm saying embrace revolutionary socialism instead. That when enough of the people claiming to find the various ongoing atrocities committed by people they support "unacceptable" do, we can actually shape our future in the ways those same people ostensibly want (bringing about more equity, justice, freedom, etc).
I encourage everyone to stop being an obstacle to that better future and start being a participant instead. We'd all be better off should you/they choose to.
|
Northern Ireland23837 Posts
On June 06 2024 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2024 15:41 WombaT wrote:
How did we get here from an article DPB posted about a rather worrying piece about another Supreme Court ruling?
Sometimes, when I write a post, I try to privately predict how different TL members will respond. "Introvert would probably disagree with my perspective, because of X"; "BlackJack would probably focus on this particular point, because of Y"; "GH would probably disagree with my premise here, because of Z". That being said, I don't think I would have ever guessed that we'd get here, though in retrospect I suppose it was a natural progression for a GH-KwarK back-and-forth, after an initial reply to my article essentially included something like "Who cares what the Supreme Court says? We can just ignore them." It always depends on who is responding, and who is responding to those responses. Who posts in good faith, who has short fuses, who has certain views or tendencies that are more likely to derail conversations, etc.
Back to ye olde link It’s interesting to me that the legal argument was basically that political gerrymandering is absolutely A-OK, and it was whether it was merely politically expedient fuckery or actually predicated on race.
Even that being the battleground for this particular case seems mad to me, ceding that it does an acceptance of gerrymandering as a practice.
|
On June 07 2024 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 02:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 01:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 01:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 00:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
If Biden hypothetically committed enough additional evil to the point where Trump became the lesser of two evils, and if those two men were the only candidates for president, then I'd need to switch my vote to Trump. In reality, Biden isn't going to be outdoing Trump in the evil department. It was specific. If Biden shot someone on 5th ave, and was still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", would you (like gors) still vote/advocate for/support him? Only you can determine whether it would meet your metric of "enough additional evil" or not. EDIT: If I'm wrong and any of Biden's advocates/voters/supporters/whatevers wouldn't vote/support/etc for him were he to shoot someone on 5th Ave, I'd happily stand corrected. I don't know. If Biden shot my Mom, I wouldn't vote for him. If he shot Trump, I'd probably vote for him twice. + Show Spoiler +I'm kidding. Voting twice is illegal. I appreciate the virtue of hypotheticals, but not at the expense of reality. We know what a Biden presidency entails, and we know what a Trump presidency entails. I don't think that considering imaginary situations where Biden becomes more and more evil, or where Trump becomes less and less evil, is valuable at this point in time. I know you're saying it in jest, but I'm seriously asking if Biden shooting your mom would actually make you not vote for him? As it stands, I'm of the understanding that you would still vote for him and advocate others do the same. Moreover, that you believe/have argued that you'd have a moral obligation to support Biden anyway. Because not voting for Biden would be "enabling evil". Of course I'd still have to vote for Biden and tell others to do the same. + Show Spoiler +It would be more painful for me to do (given the hypothetical increase in his evilness), but we're assuming that nothing else has changed about Biden and Trump. Trump would still be a much worse president than Biden, in my opinion. And separate from all that, I'd want Biden prosecuted and convicted (if he actually committed a crime). I wouldn't want him to get away with murder or manslaughter, and I definitely wouldn't be fine with the fact that he hypothetically shot my mom. So me saying: isn't a terrible take, but an uncomfortable fact. I'd go a step further and posit that one reason why you took such umbrage is because it is an uncomfortable fact. But the point isn't the moral bankruptcy of supporting someone despite them murdering your family in cold blood as a character flaw, but as a systemic/cultural harbinger of doom. In part, because it is a prolific mindset among the ostensible "left" of the US. No, it's still a terrible take, as I explained the first time around. Your realization that I can compartmentalize and act like an adult, and realize that the proper punishment would be criminal prosecution - as opposed to the destruction of our country (i.e., helping Trump win) - isn't the gotcha you think it is. Even as someone who's emotionally traumatized, I wouldn't be thinking "The best way I can assure retribution is by removing all the rights from American women and people of color and the LGBTQ+ community. That'll show Biden, and that'll bring my mom back to life!" Me advocating for a murderer being brought to justice is also the complete opposite of what Trump supporters would want for Trump, if Trump went on a killing spree. The choice is between Biden and Trump, whether one of them shot your mom or not. It's weird you would call my consideration of the big picture "morally bankrupt", but I guess you can call anything morally bankrupt when you're refusing to deal with real-world consequences. At best you're arguing it is both a terrible take and an uncomfortable fact. I'd say you argue the former because of the latter. But the larger point is the incapacity of (seemingly any) Democrats/their supporters to draw a line, even at not voting for someone that murdered said supporters' families in cold blood, is indicative that they'll never be able to draw a line. It's honestly a bit bewildering to me that you and others don't see the catastrophic problem with you and other Democrats/their supporters being able to rationalize voting for Trump (yes, I mean Trump). I've told you before that it's a ranking, not a line. You're drawing a line, saying that neither candidate is worthy, and... that's it. Nothing else. That's useless. You can't just pick "no one becomes president". Election Day will come and go, and someone will win the presidency, whether you like it or not. I think that there are too many differences between the candidates to write them off as equally unacceptable, and thinking they're both unacceptable doesn't change the fact that one of them is going to win anyway. Anyways, we're going around in circles. I think you and I both understand each other's positions, and just fundamentally disagree. I'm going to bow out of the conversation now; feel free to have the last word. Thanks for the discussion I'm not saying "and that's it. Nothing else" though... I'm saying embrace revolutionary socialism instead. That when enough of the people claiming to find the various ongoing atrocities committed by people they support "unacceptable" do, we can actually shape our future in the ways those same people ostensibly want (bringing about more equity, justice, freedom, etc). I encourage everyone to stop being an obstacle to that better future and start being a participant instead. We'd all be better off should you/they choose to.
I think the "left" as a whole became more left-leaning during Trump's presidency. I don't know if that was just due to the general momentum behind leftist ideology recently leading up to 2016-2020, or if left-leaning politicians moved left after Clinton failed to earn the votes of people "further to the left".
What do you think? I don't think the entire dynamic you are describing should be judged by pre-trump vs post-trump. But I do think its a valuable datapoint because it was the perfect example of a candidate failing to earn the votes of left-leaning voters. We ought to examine the impact of voters making their voices heard by not voting for Clinton.
My 2 cents: Democrats thought people would be sufficiently afraid of Trump to hold their noses and vote for Clinton. They were wrong. That burned. They have made more than 0 effort to respond to that. I think that effort has been wildly inadequate. To be clear, I am saying sitting out elections has been effective. But I am not yet convinced it is sufficiently effective to be a net positive. But since you are a big advocate for the "earn my vote" dynamic, I think you're a good person to ask.
|
United States41988 Posts
On June 07 2024 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 02:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 01:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 01:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 00:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
If Biden hypothetically committed enough additional evil to the point where Trump became the lesser of two evils, and if those two men were the only candidates for president, then I'd need to switch my vote to Trump. In reality, Biden isn't going to be outdoing Trump in the evil department. It was specific. If Biden shot someone on 5th ave, and was still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", would you (like gors) still vote/advocate for/support him? Only you can determine whether it would meet your metric of "enough additional evil" or not. EDIT: If I'm wrong and any of Biden's advocates/voters/supporters/whatevers wouldn't vote/support/etc for him were he to shoot someone on 5th Ave, I'd happily stand corrected. I don't know. If Biden shot my Mom, I wouldn't vote for him. If he shot Trump, I'd probably vote for him twice. + Show Spoiler +I'm kidding. Voting twice is illegal. I appreciate the virtue of hypotheticals, but not at the expense of reality. We know what a Biden presidency entails, and we know what a Trump presidency entails. I don't think that considering imaginary situations where Biden becomes more and more evil, or where Trump becomes less and less evil, is valuable at this point in time. I know you're saying it in jest, but I'm seriously asking if Biden shooting your mom would actually make you not vote for him? As it stands, I'm of the understanding that you would still vote for him and advocate others do the same. Moreover, that you believe/have argued that you'd have a moral obligation to support Biden anyway. Because not voting for Biden would be "enabling evil". Of course I'd still have to vote for Biden and tell others to do the same. + Show Spoiler +It would be more painful for me to do (given the hypothetical increase in his evilness), but we're assuming that nothing else has changed about Biden and Trump. Trump would still be a much worse president than Biden, in my opinion. And separate from all that, I'd want Biden prosecuted and convicted (if he actually committed a crime). I wouldn't want him to get away with murder or manslaughter, and I definitely wouldn't be fine with the fact that he hypothetically shot my mom. So me saying: isn't a terrible take, but an uncomfortable fact. I'd go a step further and posit that one reason why you took such umbrage is because it is an uncomfortable fact. But the point isn't the moral bankruptcy of supporting someone despite them murdering your family in cold blood as a character flaw, but as a systemic/cultural harbinger of doom. In part, because it is a prolific mindset among the ostensible "left" of the US. No, it's still a terrible take, as I explained the first time around. Your realization that I can compartmentalize and act like an adult, and realize that the proper punishment would be criminal prosecution - as opposed to the destruction of our country (i.e., helping Trump win) - isn't the gotcha you think it is. Even as someone who's emotionally traumatized, I wouldn't be thinking "The best way I can assure retribution is by removing all the rights from American women and people of color and the LGBTQ+ community. That'll show Biden, and that'll bring my mom back to life!" Me advocating for a murderer being brought to justice is also the complete opposite of what Trump supporters would want for Trump, if Trump went on a killing spree. The choice is between Biden and Trump, whether one of them shot your mom or not. It's weird you would call my consideration of the big picture "morally bankrupt", but I guess you can call anything morally bankrupt when you're refusing to deal with real-world consequences. At best you're arguing it is both a terrible take and an uncomfortable fact. I'd say you argue the former because of the latter. But the larger point is the incapacity of (seemingly any) Democrats/their supporters to draw a line, even at not voting for someone that murdered said supporters' families in cold blood, is indicative that they'll never be able to draw a line. It's honestly a bit bewildering to me that you and others don't see the catastrophic problem with you and other Democrats/their supporters being able to rationalize voting for Trump (yes, I mean Trump). I've told you before that it's a ranking, not a line. You're drawing a line, saying that neither candidate is worthy, and... that's it. Nothing else. That's useless. You can't just pick "no one becomes president". Election Day will come and go, and someone will win the presidency, whether you like it or not. I think that there are too many differences between the candidates to write them off as equally unacceptable, and thinking they're both unacceptable doesn't change the fact that one of them is going to win anyway. Anyways, we're going around in circles. I think you and I both understand each other's positions, and just fundamentally disagree. I'm going to bow out of the conversation now; feel free to have the last word. Thanks for the discussion I'm not saying "and that's it. Nothing else" though... I'm saying embrace revolutionary socialism instead. That when enough of the people claiming to find the various ongoing atrocities committed by people they support "unacceptable" do, we can actually shape our future in the ways those same people ostensibly want (bringing about more equity, justice, freedom, etc). I encourage everyone to stop being an obstacle to that better future and start being a participant instead. We'd all be better off should you/they choose to.
We all have embraced it. We’re not blocking you, we’re right there alongside you. I actually identify as having achieved meaningful change already. Pretty soon we’ll achieve full socialism. For now though it costs nothing to block the worse candidate.
|
Indeed, I have also embraced the imaginary socialist revolution
|
On June 07 2024 04:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 02:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 01:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 01:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 00:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
It was specific.
If Biden shot someone on 5th ave, and was still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", would you (like gors) still vote/advocate for/support him?
Only you can determine whether it would meet your metric of "enough additional evil" or not.
EDIT: If I'm wrong and any of Biden's advocates/voters/supporters/whatevers wouldn't vote/support/etc for him were he to shoot someone on 5th Ave, I'd happily stand corrected. I don't know. If Biden shot my Mom, I wouldn't vote for him. If he shot Trump, I'd probably vote for him twice. + Show Spoiler +I'm kidding. Voting twice is illegal. I appreciate the virtue of hypotheticals, but not at the expense of reality. We know what a Biden presidency entails, and we know what a Trump presidency entails. I don't think that considering imaginary situations where Biden becomes more and more evil, or where Trump becomes less and less evil, is valuable at this point in time. I know you're saying it in jest, but I'm seriously asking if Biden shooting your mom would actually make you not vote for him? As it stands, I'm of the understanding that you would still vote for him and advocate others do the same. Moreover, that you believe/have argued that you'd have a moral obligation to support Biden anyway. Because not voting for Biden would be "enabling evil". Of course I'd still have to vote for Biden and tell others to do the same. + Show Spoiler +It would be more painful for me to do (given the hypothetical increase in his evilness), but we're assuming that nothing else has changed about Biden and Trump. Trump would still be a much worse president than Biden, in my opinion. And separate from all that, I'd want Biden prosecuted and convicted (if he actually committed a crime). I wouldn't want him to get away with murder or manslaughter, and I definitely wouldn't be fine with the fact that he hypothetically shot my mom. So me saying: isn't a terrible take, but an uncomfortable fact. I'd go a step further and posit that one reason why you took such umbrage is because it is an uncomfortable fact. But the point isn't the moral bankruptcy of supporting someone despite them murdering your family in cold blood as a character flaw, but as a systemic/cultural harbinger of doom. In part, because it is a prolific mindset among the ostensible "left" of the US. No, it's still a terrible take, as I explained the first time around. Your realization that I can compartmentalize and act like an adult, and realize that the proper punishment would be criminal prosecution - as opposed to the destruction of our country (i.e., helping Trump win) - isn't the gotcha you think it is. Even as someone who's emotionally traumatized, I wouldn't be thinking "The best way I can assure retribution is by removing all the rights from American women and people of color and the LGBTQ+ community. That'll show Biden, and that'll bring my mom back to life!" Me advocating for a murderer being brought to justice is also the complete opposite of what Trump supporters would want for Trump, if Trump went on a killing spree. The choice is between Biden and Trump, whether one of them shot your mom or not. It's weird you would call my consideration of the big picture "morally bankrupt", but I guess you can call anything morally bankrupt when you're refusing to deal with real-world consequences. At best you're arguing it is both a terrible take and an uncomfortable fact. I'd say you argue the former because of the latter. But the larger point is the incapacity of (seemingly any) Democrats/their supporters to draw a line, even at not voting for someone that murdered said supporters' families in cold blood, is indicative that they'll never be able to draw a line. It's honestly a bit bewildering to me that you and others don't see the catastrophic problem with you and other Democrats/their supporters being able to rationalize voting for Trump (yes, I mean Trump). I've told you before that it's a ranking, not a line. You're drawing a line, saying that neither candidate is worthy, and... that's it. Nothing else. That's useless. You can't just pick "no one becomes president". Election Day will come and go, and someone will win the presidency, whether you like it or not. I think that there are too many differences between the candidates to write them off as equally unacceptable, and thinking they're both unacceptable doesn't change the fact that one of them is going to win anyway. Anyways, we're going around in circles. I think you and I both understand each other's positions, and just fundamentally disagree. I'm going to bow out of the conversation now; feel free to have the last word. Thanks for the discussion I'm not saying "and that's it. Nothing else" though... I'm saying embrace revolutionary socialism instead. That when enough of the people claiming to find the various ongoing atrocities committed by people they support "unacceptable" do, we can actually shape our future in the ways those same people ostensibly want (bringing about more equity, justice, freedom, etc). I encourage everyone to stop being an obstacle to that better future and start being a participant instead. We'd all be better off should you/they choose to. We all have embraced it. We’re not blocking you, we’re right there alongside you. I actually identify as having achieved meaningful change already. Pretty soon we’ll achieve full socialism. For now though it costs nothing to block the worse candidate.
Well I think the question is whether or not the cost exists. You are saying the cost does not exist. But when someone chooses to withhold their vote, it’s because they believe there *is* a cost: allowing an unacceptable placeholder to remain in place rather than being replaced more rapidly due to voter pressure.
That’s why I am saying I think answering whether this cost exists is the heart of the issue.
|
On June 07 2024 02:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It's also unrealistic and impractical to think that a candidate could/should match every single one of your values and positions identically. Having multiple choices means picking the one who best represents your positions, even if that's only 90% or 70% or 50% (if the other candidates are even lower). With millions of voters, there may very well be millions of slightly different opinions and combinations of opinions, so it makes sense for many of them to consolidate around candidates that are "close enough".
Or 5%, right? That's really the pitch you're offering him. If Biden matches 5% of his values and positions and Trump matches 0% then he would be a fool to not vote for Biden because he's the less worse option of the 2 and we know one of them is going to win. Logically this same argument applies even if Biden matches 0.0001% of his positions and Trump matches 0. Clearly Biden is not "close enough" for GH to support. I'm not sure why people can't accept this and still repeatedly pitch him with this idea that if X > Y you have to support X no matter what.
I also feel obliged to mention that voting for someone that murders your mother is absolutely unhinged behavior and I hope you would reconsider that stance.
|
United States41988 Posts
On June 07 2024 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 04:26 KwarK wrote:On June 07 2024 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 02:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 01:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 01:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 00:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:[quote] I don't know. If Biden shot my Mom, I wouldn't vote for him. If he shot Trump, I'd probably vote for him twice. + Show Spoiler +I'm kidding. Voting twice is illegal. I appreciate the virtue of hypotheticals, but not at the expense of reality. We know what a Biden presidency entails, and we know what a Trump presidency entails. I don't think that considering imaginary situations where Biden becomes more and more evil, or where Trump becomes less and less evil, is valuable at this point in time. I know you're saying it in jest, but I'm seriously asking if Biden shooting your mom would actually make you not vote for him? As it stands, I'm of the understanding that you would still vote for him and advocate others do the same. Moreover, that you believe/have argued that you'd have a moral obligation to support Biden anyway. Because not voting for Biden would be "enabling evil". Of course I'd still have to vote for Biden and tell others to do the same. + Show Spoiler +It would be more painful for me to do (given the hypothetical increase in his evilness), but we're assuming that nothing else has changed about Biden and Trump. Trump would still be a much worse president than Biden, in my opinion. And separate from all that, I'd want Biden prosecuted and convicted (if he actually committed a crime). I wouldn't want him to get away with murder or manslaughter, and I definitely wouldn't be fine with the fact that he hypothetically shot my mom. So me saying: isn't a terrible take, but an uncomfortable fact. I'd go a step further and posit that one reason why you took such umbrage is because it is an uncomfortable fact. But the point isn't the moral bankruptcy of supporting someone despite them murdering your family in cold blood as a character flaw, but as a systemic/cultural harbinger of doom. In part, because it is a prolific mindset among the ostensible "left" of the US. No, it's still a terrible take, as I explained the first time around. Your realization that I can compartmentalize and act like an adult, and realize that the proper punishment would be criminal prosecution - as opposed to the destruction of our country (i.e., helping Trump win) - isn't the gotcha you think it is. Even as someone who's emotionally traumatized, I wouldn't be thinking "The best way I can assure retribution is by removing all the rights from American women and people of color and the LGBTQ+ community. That'll show Biden, and that'll bring my mom back to life!" Me advocating for a murderer being brought to justice is also the complete opposite of what Trump supporters would want for Trump, if Trump went on a killing spree. The choice is between Biden and Trump, whether one of them shot your mom or not. It's weird you would call my consideration of the big picture "morally bankrupt", but I guess you can call anything morally bankrupt when you're refusing to deal with real-world consequences. At best you're arguing it is both a terrible take and an uncomfortable fact. I'd say you argue the former because of the latter. But the larger point is the incapacity of (seemingly any) Democrats/their supporters to draw a line, even at not voting for someone that murdered said supporters' families in cold blood, is indicative that they'll never be able to draw a line. It's honestly a bit bewildering to me that you and others don't see the catastrophic problem with you and other Democrats/their supporters being able to rationalize voting for Trump (yes, I mean Trump). I've told you before that it's a ranking, not a line. You're drawing a line, saying that neither candidate is worthy, and... that's it. Nothing else. That's useless. You can't just pick "no one becomes president". Election Day will come and go, and someone will win the presidency, whether you like it or not. I think that there are too many differences between the candidates to write them off as equally unacceptable, and thinking they're both unacceptable doesn't change the fact that one of them is going to win anyway. Anyways, we're going around in circles. I think you and I both understand each other's positions, and just fundamentally disagree. I'm going to bow out of the conversation now; feel free to have the last word. Thanks for the discussion I'm not saying "and that's it. Nothing else" though... I'm saying embrace revolutionary socialism instead. That when enough of the people claiming to find the various ongoing atrocities committed by people they support "unacceptable" do, we can actually shape our future in the ways those same people ostensibly want (bringing about more equity, justice, freedom, etc). I encourage everyone to stop being an obstacle to that better future and start being a participant instead. We'd all be better off should you/they choose to. We all have embraced it. We’re not blocking you, we’re right there alongside you. I actually identify as having achieved meaningful change already. Pretty soon we’ll achieve full socialism. For now though it costs nothing to block the worse candidate. Well I think the question is whether or not the cost exists. You are saying the cost does not exist. But when someone chooses to withhold their vote, it’s because they believe there *is* a cost: allowing an unacceptable placeholder to remain in place rather than being replaced more rapidly due to voter pressure. That’s why I am saying I think answering whether this cost exists is the heart of the issue.
No politician bothers pandering to people who get a thrill out of saying “I’m not voting for either candidate”. There’s nothing they can offer that matches the sense of smugness those people get from non participation. You might as well go for the dog vote. They simply don’t care enough to participate. They’re a non factor, they’re outside the voter pool.
|
On June 07 2024 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 04:26 KwarK wrote:On June 07 2024 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 02:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 01:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 01:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 00:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:[quote] I don't know. If Biden shot my Mom, I wouldn't vote for him. If he shot Trump, I'd probably vote for him twice. + Show Spoiler +I'm kidding. Voting twice is illegal. I appreciate the virtue of hypotheticals, but not at the expense of reality. We know what a Biden presidency entails, and we know what a Trump presidency entails. I don't think that considering imaginary situations where Biden becomes more and more evil, or where Trump becomes less and less evil, is valuable at this point in time. I know you're saying it in jest, but I'm seriously asking if Biden shooting your mom would actually make you not vote for him? As it stands, I'm of the understanding that you would still vote for him and advocate others do the same. Moreover, that you believe/have argued that you'd have a moral obligation to support Biden anyway. Because not voting for Biden would be "enabling evil". Of course I'd still have to vote for Biden and tell others to do the same. + Show Spoiler +It would be more painful for me to do (given the hypothetical increase in his evilness), but we're assuming that nothing else has changed about Biden and Trump. Trump would still be a much worse president than Biden, in my opinion. And separate from all that, I'd want Biden prosecuted and convicted (if he actually committed a crime). I wouldn't want him to get away with murder or manslaughter, and I definitely wouldn't be fine with the fact that he hypothetically shot my mom. So me saying: isn't a terrible take, but an uncomfortable fact. I'd go a step further and posit that one reason why you took such umbrage is because it is an uncomfortable fact. But the point isn't the moral bankruptcy of supporting someone despite them murdering your family in cold blood as a character flaw, but as a systemic/cultural harbinger of doom. In part, because it is a prolific mindset among the ostensible "left" of the US. No, it's still a terrible take, as I explained the first time around. Your realization that I can compartmentalize and act like an adult, and realize that the proper punishment would be criminal prosecution - as opposed to the destruction of our country (i.e., helping Trump win) - isn't the gotcha you think it is. Even as someone who's emotionally traumatized, I wouldn't be thinking "The best way I can assure retribution is by removing all the rights from American women and people of color and the LGBTQ+ community. That'll show Biden, and that'll bring my mom back to life!" Me advocating for a murderer being brought to justice is also the complete opposite of what Trump supporters would want for Trump, if Trump went on a killing spree. The choice is between Biden and Trump, whether one of them shot your mom or not. It's weird you would call my consideration of the big picture "morally bankrupt", but I guess you can call anything morally bankrupt when you're refusing to deal with real-world consequences. At best you're arguing it is both a terrible take and an uncomfortable fact. I'd say you argue the former because of the latter. But the larger point is the incapacity of (seemingly any) Democrats/their supporters to draw a line, even at not voting for someone that murdered said supporters' families in cold blood, is indicative that they'll never be able to draw a line. It's honestly a bit bewildering to me that you and others don't see the catastrophic problem with you and other Democrats/their supporters being able to rationalize voting for Trump (yes, I mean Trump). I've told you before that it's a ranking, not a line. You're drawing a line, saying that neither candidate is worthy, and... that's it. Nothing else. That's useless. You can't just pick "no one becomes president". Election Day will come and go, and someone will win the presidency, whether you like it or not. I think that there are too many differences between the candidates to write them off as equally unacceptable, and thinking they're both unacceptable doesn't change the fact that one of them is going to win anyway. Anyways, we're going around in circles. I think you and I both understand each other's positions, and just fundamentally disagree. I'm going to bow out of the conversation now; feel free to have the last word. Thanks for the discussion I'm not saying "and that's it. Nothing else" though... I'm saying embrace revolutionary socialism instead. That when enough of the people claiming to find the various ongoing atrocities committed by people they support "unacceptable" do, we can actually shape our future in the ways those same people ostensibly want (bringing about more equity, justice, freedom, etc). I encourage everyone to stop being an obstacle to that better future and start being a participant instead. We'd all be better off should you/they choose to. We all have embraced it. We’re not blocking you, we’re right there alongside you. I actually identify as having achieved meaningful change already. Pretty soon we’ll achieve full socialism. For now though it costs nothing to block the worse candidate. Well I think the question is whether or not the cost exists. You are saying the cost does not exist. But when someone chooses to withhold their vote, it’s because they believe there *is* a cost: allowing an unacceptable placeholder to remain in place rather than being replaced more rapidly due to voter pressure. That’s why I am saying I think answering whether this cost exists is the heart of the issue.
To GH there is a cost-benefit analysis to delegitimizing the system by making it much worse on the day to day for himself and the people around him with some hope that this accelerating state of suffering for people will eventually convince them that they never had the ability to make things better in the first place. Helping Trump and people like trump get elected is the cost of doing business if it eventually gets to the place where things get so bad that the soviet union starts to look like a good option in comparison. Trying to discredit and shame anyone who wants to vote for the most left option available being in effect helping the right win in the country is the mission.
He doesn't need to see the real effects of trump winning or republicans like trump taking over other states because he lives in California where its so blue he will never be threatened directly with the more local, more impactful policies that maga republicanism has on people. Voteing to GH has never been the answer for positive change because hes never seen any purpose in voteing in his life. He has a lot more in common with his stance on electorialism with a republican who lives in Orange county than he does with anyone who lives in a state where your vote can actually have an effect on the country. He doesn't have to internalize any of the consequences of his actions because to him the country getting worse is a good thing, the cruelty is worth it to see a better day.
On June 07 2024 04:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:On June 07 2024 04:26 KwarK wrote:On June 07 2024 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 02:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 01:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 01:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I know you're saying it in jest, but I'm seriously asking if Biden shooting your mom would actually make you not vote for him?
As it stands, I'm of the understanding that you would still vote for him and advocate others do the same. Moreover, that you believe/have argued that you'd have a moral obligation to support Biden anyway. Because not voting for Biden would be "enabling evil". Of course I'd still have to vote for Biden and tell others to do the same. + Show Spoiler +It would be more painful for me to do (given the hypothetical increase in his evilness), but we're assuming that nothing else has changed about Biden and Trump. Trump would still be a much worse president than Biden, in my opinion. And separate from all that, I'd want Biden prosecuted and convicted (if he actually committed a crime). I wouldn't want him to get away with murder or manslaughter, and I definitely wouldn't be fine with the fact that he hypothetically shot my mom. So me saying: isn't a terrible take, but an uncomfortable fact. I'd go a step further and posit that one reason why you took such umbrage is because it is an uncomfortable fact. But the point isn't the moral bankruptcy of supporting someone despite them murdering your family in cold blood as a character flaw, but as a systemic/cultural harbinger of doom. In part, because it is a prolific mindset among the ostensible "left" of the US. No, it's still a terrible take, as I explained the first time around. Your realization that I can compartmentalize and act like an adult, and realize that the proper punishment would be criminal prosecution - as opposed to the destruction of our country (i.e., helping Trump win) - isn't the gotcha you think it is. Even as someone who's emotionally traumatized, I wouldn't be thinking "The best way I can assure retribution is by removing all the rights from American women and people of color and the LGBTQ+ community. That'll show Biden, and that'll bring my mom back to life!" Me advocating for a murderer being brought to justice is also the complete opposite of what Trump supporters would want for Trump, if Trump went on a killing spree. The choice is between Biden and Trump, whether one of them shot your mom or not. It's weird you would call my consideration of the big picture "morally bankrupt", but I guess you can call anything morally bankrupt when you're refusing to deal with real-world consequences. At best you're arguing it is both a terrible take and an uncomfortable fact. I'd say you argue the former because of the latter. But the larger point is the incapacity of (seemingly any) Democrats/their supporters to draw a line, even at not voting for someone that murdered said supporters' families in cold blood, is indicative that they'll never be able to draw a line. It's honestly a bit bewildering to me that you and others don't see the catastrophic problem with you and other Democrats/their supporters being able to rationalize voting for Trump (yes, I mean Trump). I've told you before that it's a ranking, not a line. You're drawing a line, saying that neither candidate is worthy, and... that's it. Nothing else. That's useless. You can't just pick "no one becomes president". Election Day will come and go, and someone will win the presidency, whether you like it or not. I think that there are too many differences between the candidates to write them off as equally unacceptable, and thinking they're both unacceptable doesn't change the fact that one of them is going to win anyway. Anyways, we're going around in circles. I think you and I both understand each other's positions, and just fundamentally disagree. I'm going to bow out of the conversation now; feel free to have the last word. Thanks for the discussion I'm not saying "and that's it. Nothing else" though... I'm saying embrace revolutionary socialism instead. That when enough of the people claiming to find the various ongoing atrocities committed by people they support "unacceptable" do, we can actually shape our future in the ways those same people ostensibly want (bringing about more equity, justice, freedom, etc). I encourage everyone to stop being an obstacle to that better future and start being a participant instead. We'd all be better off should you/they choose to. We all have embraced it. We’re not blocking you, we’re right there alongside you. I actually identify as having achieved meaningful change already. Pretty soon we’ll achieve full socialism. For now though it costs nothing to block the worse candidate. Well I think the question is whether or not the cost exists. You are saying the cost does not exist. But when someone chooses to withhold their vote, it’s because they believe there *is* a cost: allowing an unacceptable placeholder to remain in place rather than being replaced more rapidly due to voter pressure. That’s why I am saying I think answering whether this cost exists is the heart of the issue. No politician bothers pandering to people who get a thrill out of saying “I’m not voting for either candidate”. There’s nothing they can offer that matches the sense of smugness those people get from non participation. You might as well go for the dog vote. They simply don’t care enough to participate. They’re a non factor, they’re outside the voter pool.
This is exactly it, People like GH can't scream "I'm never voting for you because you losing benefit's my world view" and act surprised when they listen to you and take that into consideration when trying to get elected. Everyone loves clowning on the libertarians when they keep getting their 3% because its more important for them to feel like they're true to what they believe in than actually getting anything they believe in but its exactly the same. Republicans would win a lot more elections if they went after libertarians by embracing their issues but theres no purpose in it when everyone knows they aren't going to vote for republicans anyway. GH has to own that him and people like him are the reason why dems have to keep putting people before the trolly to stave off worse options. They could have an effect on the nation and make it a better place but they would rather act like they have no responsibilites for the consequences of their actions.
|
Kwark and Sermokala,
Yeah, I am familiar with that perception of GH and accelerationists. I suppose I am just trying to give GH a chance to explain why that is not true. I understand "earn my vote" philosophy is a very principled ideology, but GH is also a well-read person who knows a lot about history and whatnot. So I view him as a good person to make the case for why its more than just principles and also has evidence of effectiveness.
|
On June 07 2024 04:48 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 02:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It's also unrealistic and impractical to think that a candidate could/should match every single one of your values and positions identically. Having multiple choices means picking the one who best represents your positions, even if that's only 90% or 70% or 50% (if the other candidates are even lower). With millions of voters, there may very well be millions of slightly different opinions and combinations of opinions, so it makes sense for many of them to consolidate around candidates that are "close enough".
Or 5%, right? That's really the pitch you're offering him. If Biden matches 5% of his values and positions and Trump matches 0% then he would be a fool to not vote for Biden because he's the less worse option of the 2 and we know one of them is going to win. Logically this same argument applies even if Biden matches 0.0001% of his positions and Trump matches 0. Clearly Biden is not "close enough" for GH to support. I'm not sure why people can't accept this and still repeatedly pitch him with this idea that if X > Y you have to support X no matter what.
Many of the positions are dichotomous between Biden vs. Trump, so 5% and 0.0001% are mathematically impossible (some examples of "Biden or Trump": allow or don't allow women to get abortions, support or don't support LGBTQ+ rights, invest or don't invest in climate change research, ally with Ukraine or ally with Russia, accept election results or undermine democracy, etc.). You're missing the point, however, if you're thinking about GH's evaluation in terms of percent agreement across the board.
I fully recognize that GH might agree with 98% of Biden's positions but still not vote for Biden, if the remaining 2% are that Biden is still messing up the Israeli-Palestinian response and Biden is still not a socialist (or however GH wishes to frame his non-negotiable lines). Those are the only positions that GH is using to inform whether or not he votes... at least, until there are multiple candidates that pass GH's first round. I imagine that, in GH's perfect world, he would be able to select an ideal candidate among several candidates who are all already on the correct side of his vital lines - socialists, moral takes on the I-P conflict, etc. - and only then would GH scrutinize all those qualifying candidates for the secondary themes and their positions on everything else. Only then would those across-the-board agreement percentages matter.
GH surely has many informed opinions on education, climate change, crime, immigration, and many other themes, but all of those are sacrificed if Biden steps over the one or two lines that GH deems most valuable, even if GH likes Biden's views on those other themes, and even if Trump steps further over those same lines. Those one or two lines are non-negotiable and unacceptable, and completely end the consideration. And that's absolutely GH's right, to have those standards, regardless of how many other important themes (or Supreme Court Justices, or human rights, or laws) are being sacrificed in the process.
Also, I really did mean it when I said I wanted to move on from this conversation for now. Thanks
|
On June 07 2024 03:50 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2024 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 15:41 WombaT wrote:
How did we get here from an article DPB posted about a rather worrying piece about another Supreme Court ruling?
Sometimes, when I write a post, I try to privately predict how different TL members will respond. "Introvert would probably disagree with my perspective, because of X"; "BlackJack would probably focus on this particular point, because of Y"; "GH would probably disagree with my premise here, because of Z". That being said, I don't think I would have ever guessed that we'd get here, though in retrospect I suppose it was a natural progression for a GH-KwarK back-and-forth, after an initial reply to my article essentially included something like "Who cares what the Supreme Court says? We can just ignore them." It always depends on who is responding, and who is responding to those responses. Who posts in good faith, who has short fuses, who has certain views or tendencies that are more likely to derail conversations, etc. Back to ye olde link It’s interesting to me that the legal argument was basically that political gerrymandering is absolutely A-OK, and it was whether it was merely politically expedient fuckery or actually predicated on race. Even that being the battleground for this particular case seems mad to me, ceding that it does an acceptance of gerrymandering as a practice.
Yup: "Republicans denied exiling Black voters, maintaining that they were simply seeking to transform a marginal Republican district into a safe district for the GOP."
When the article says this part - "The South Carolina NAACP challenged the redistricting in court, and a three-judge federal district court, after a nine-day hearing, ruled that new map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander." - I wonder if it's easier to label as unconstitutional when race is involved.
I think it's disappointing that this is legal: "Writing for the court’s six conservatives, Justice Samuel Alito said that the South Carolina map was a partisan gerrymander, which is legal, not a racial gerrymander, which would be illegal under the Constitution. In short, he said that the map achieved the GOP’s political goals, nothing more."
|
It is so silly how accepted it seems to be that US elections are all about gaming a gamified system, and not in any way about actually getting results most in line with what the population would want.
|
Logic and reason are the enemies of a revolutionary. They’re great to get a spark going, but the oxygen to start the fires of revolution comes from the outrage of the masses. The status quo typically benefits a majority of people; the disenfranchised minorities are *more* rational in seeking to uproot it but those who have shaped their lives on it and consequently benefit from it would be totally irrational in doing so. Revolutions happen when either 1) a small group seizes power (more like a coup though), 2) a demagogue effectively stokes the emotions of the majority to become irrational, or 3) the status quo degenerates to the point where the disenfranchised become the majority.
That being said, it’s really not rational for anyone to desire this because a revolution motivated in this way does not have any guarantee that it will solve the problems it says it will. If there’s no planning, all emotion, it just turns into a country-wide riot.
It’s basically mob mentality applied to a society, and cold logic and reason are antithetical to the flame stoking that’s required to get people to that point. That’s why activists are called agitators. They’re like the hyenas nipping at the wildebeest to drive them into a stampede.
|
Northern Ireland23837 Posts
On June 07 2024 06:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 03:50 WombaT wrote:On June 06 2024 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 15:41 WombaT wrote:
How did we get here from an article DPB posted about a rather worrying piece about another Supreme Court ruling?
Sometimes, when I write a post, I try to privately predict how different TL members will respond. "Introvert would probably disagree with my perspective, because of X"; "BlackJack would probably focus on this particular point, because of Y"; "GH would probably disagree with my premise here, because of Z". That being said, I don't think I would have ever guessed that we'd get here, though in retrospect I suppose it was a natural progression for a GH-KwarK back-and-forth, after an initial reply to my article essentially included something like "Who cares what the Supreme Court says? We can just ignore them." It always depends on who is responding, and who is responding to those responses. Who posts in good faith, who has short fuses, who has certain views or tendencies that are more likely to derail conversations, etc. Back to ye olde link It’s interesting to me that the legal argument was basically that political gerrymandering is absolutely A-OK, and it was whether it was merely politically expedient fuckery or actually predicated on race. Even that being the battleground for this particular case seems mad to me, ceding that it does an acceptance of gerrymandering as a practice. Yup: "Republicans denied exiling Black voters, maintaining that they were simply seeking to transform a marginal Republican district into a safe district for the GOP." When the article says this part - "The South Carolina NAACP challenged the redistricting in court, and a three-judge federal district court, after a nine-day hearing, ruled that new map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander." - I wonder if it's easier to label as unconstitutional when race is involved. I think it's disappointing that this is legal: "Writing for the court’s six conservatives, Justice Samuel Alito said that the South Carolina map was a partisan gerrymander, which is legal, not a racial gerrymander, which would be illegal under the Constitution. In short, he said that the map achieved the GOP’s political goals, nothing more."
I mean we have these controversies over here, but there is a body that at least attempts to be somewhat independent, bipartisan across national identity lines and to delineate voting constituencies in a somewhat reasonable manner.
Especially important for trust in the system as Unionists (British-identifying folks here) used to gerrymander with pretty reckless abandon in times gone by. With greater enfranchisement of both communities came greater standards in this particular area.
Is this just not a thing in the States or is it something that varies by locale?
|
On June 07 2024 06:45 Simberto wrote:
It is so silly how accepted it seems to be that US elections are all about gaming a gamified system, and not in any way about actually getting results most in line with what the population would want.
Part of the problem is that a significant portion of the population wants fascism and their opposing party prefers the "order" of fascism to the potential "disorder" of revolution. Unless you're Ukrainian, in which case you can be worse off a decade after your revolution than you were before it and still have Democrats/their supporters full-throated support. That's with no assurance Ukrainians will ever be better off than they were in ~2012. Hell They don't even know "Ukrainian" will still be a nationality in 2032.
I'm coming to the regrettable conclusion that much like Germany in the 40's, the US is simply incapable of controlling itself and it'll be the rest of the world that draws the line German citizens/Democrats and their supporters refused to.
Or worse yet Europe will join Democrats and their supporters in being collaborators with a genocidally fascist US run by Trump, and then who knows how humanity fares.
|
Northern Ireland23837 Posts
On June 07 2024 07:19 Ryzel wrote:
Logic and reason are the enemies of a revolutionary. They’re great to get a spark going, but the oxygen to start the fires of revolution comes from the outrage of the masses. The status quo typically benefits a majority of people; the disenfranchised minorities are *more* rational in seeking to uproot it but those who have shaped their lives on it and consequently benefit from it would be totally irrational in doing so. Revolutions happen when either 1) a small group seizes power (more like a coup though), 2) a demagogue effectively stokes the emotions of the majority to become irrational, or 3) the status quo degenerates to the point where the disenfranchised become the majority.
That being said, it’s really not rational for anyone to desire this because a revolution motivated in this way does not have any guarantee that it will solve the problems it says it will. If there’s no planning, all emotion, it just turns into a country-wide riot.
It’s basically mob mentality applied to a society, and cold logic and reason are antithetical to the flame stoking that’s required to get people to that point. That’s why activists are called agitators. They’re like the hyenas nipping at the wildebeest to drive them into a stampede.
A call to logic and reason to uphold particular structures that themselves aren’t essentially logical or reasonable is the enemy of the revolutionary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
