this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
-72 points (26.6% liked)
Memes
45171 readers
3445 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Good thing Democrats have the power to force a ceasefire right now and need exactly 0 votes to do so.
They don't. But even assuming they did, withholding a vote is going to increase the chances of a party who want to make things worse getting into power.
Your choices are between a terrible status quo and making the situation even worse. Why are you so intent on defending the choice that makes things worse?
Do you know how a strike works?
You do understand that this isn't a strike, right?
What happens if one person goes on strike?
They get fired.
What happens if enough people go on a strike?
The company has to cave.
There is no difference between this and a strike. Just like with striking if enough people are willing to take the risk the goal will be achieved. If not it results in a loss.
By actively opposing the activism you are ensuring the goal will not be reached. Which in the end will not even be to your benefit if you want ceasefire voters to vote for Harris.
In your analogy, Republican voters are the massive number of scabs coming in to replace the striking workers and thus making the strike ineffective or even counterproductive.
But also... You do understand that this isn't a strike, right?
People who keep voting for poor policy are the scabs. Republicans are an entirely different company who have bad policies. We want to not become that company.
Ahh, I see... You're confusing the shitty, corrupt union (Democrats) with the company (the USA).
We need to fix the US electoral system so that we have better choices. But until we can do so, we need to do harm reduction. Accelerationism, including in the form of not voting or voting third party, is not harm reduction.
There is no fixing the electoral system. You're not going to fix a company from the inside. They will ban ranked choice voting if it ever starts gaining traction.
Two major examples of this are Bernie Sanders being ousted by the establishment when he was about to win in 2016 and UK's Jeremy Corbyn who got straight coup'd by Zionists because he was about to win.
Democrats will use every dirty trick in the book they never use against Republicans if someone comes up who will challenge the establishment. The moment the elite is endangered they will break every single rule in the book to overthrow their challenger.
You cannot change the system from the inside if the people are the top have already proven they will never allow that.
With such a defeatist attitude, why do you even care who people vote for?
What defeatist attitude? There's plenty of third parties to vote for.
Voting for Democrats while they commit Genocide claiming it's hopeless. I can't think of anything more defeatist than that.
Voting for third parties is tied for the second most effective way to increase harm. Without changes to the electoral system (changes I personally do believe are possible, despite your defeatist attitude), third party votes will always be spoiler votes. The only way to more effectively increase harm is to vote Republican.
Voting for Democrats isn't a good long term strategy, but it's the only strategy that has any hope of actually keeping my trans friends around so they can see the long term, and it's the least bad of all the options right now. Voting third party, or not voting, is effectively a 1 vote swing away from the Democrats to the Republicans, whose policies are pretty clearly to make the genocide in Gaza worse and to start other genocides and forms of suffering. Voting Republican is a 2 vote swing towards that.
So I'm choosing the least bad option, and the option most likely to open up better options down the line. You're choosing an ineffective option and then pretending to have the moral high ground even though what you're choosing is ineffective virtue signaling.
https://www.hmd.org.uk/resource/first-they-came-by-pastor-martin-niemoller/
Do you know why that poem has more than 2 lines?
It's not so that people can play holier than thou while completely missing the point, but you can continue to do that despite the author's intent.
But I wasn't a Palestinian so I didn't speak out.
Voting third party is also worse for the Palestinian people given that it gives Donald "finish the job" Trump a better chance at the White House. This has already been established - it's not my fault you're ignoring facts that are inconvenient to your pre-selected conclusion.
Whats the difference between Trump or Harris finishing the job?
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the Democrats are keeping the Genocide going right now and you can't blame Republicans for that.
The current situation still has the Democrats with a less evil perspective. Evil? Yes. But less evil than the Republicans. And moreover, as you've yourself said, the Democrats are movable on the topic. Third parties are not a viable alternative, and 2016 showed how easily voting third-party can lead to a worse alternative. You don't have to like it. You can and should protest against Harris's current stance. But Harris is also the only electoral option that gives us a chance of getting better policies.
So, going back to that poem: voting for the Democrats is the most effective electoral way to speak out for both the Palestinians and the LGBTQ+ community (along with many other groups the Republicans would target). Voting is necessary, but not sufficient.
BTW, on a different topic... those are some interesting hours you keep. What time zone is that? GMT+3?