277
R(ul)evenge USA edition
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
The discourse on American politics sometimes devolves to "Leftists who won't vote" & "MAGA Republicans" teaming up to "getting revenge on liberals".
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.
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". ๐
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.
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.
Yea; that's why talking about yourself doesn't change the ethics of the situation. Good๐ Job!๐
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:
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 put it on the ballot.
On the contrary, I think it matters very much.
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.
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.
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.
You admit that half of the country is already on my side and still call it sophistry?
That's because our government isn't democratic. It only pretends to be so that the citizenry doesn't depose it.
Hence, this discussion.
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.
Nope, that's a misrepresentation of my argument and you know it.
โจ Correct. โจ
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 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.
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.
Oh, you're saying that the Democrats fracturing is likely given the GOP's collapse. (I had thought you meant that it's more likely to collapse than the GOP.) Yes, that's certainly a possibility. The extreme flank of the Democrats and the moderate flank of the GOP uniting is likely, but this still provides us the opportunity that I'm hoping for. This scenario should result in a less powerful fascist faction, a more distinct progressive faction, and a more condensed conservative/neoliberal faction; fertile ground for progressives and leftist to grow our movement. Given the backlash against Trump and the loyalty of his remaining base I expect that if this happens the fascist faction will be locked in to supporting their own for a while, which will pull votes away from the neoliberal faction. Ideally, we'll see deep blue states turn green and red states start to turn blue.