I agree. This is why I won’t engage with a system whose only outcome is that eventual takeover.

If our options are truly "fascism now" or "fascism later" why choose now? Letting fascists take over because they will eventually makes zero sense.

Is Biden dismantling the duopoly? Is he ignoring or bypassing the fascist-appointed courts? Is he literally doing anything to prevent that takeover? And if not, why would he next term?

I hope so! But I'm not Biden, and I don't control him. I am presented with two options to choose from in November. That choice happens whether I engage with it or not. You're again resorting to "well the trolley shouldn't be coming down the tracks." I agree! I hate both options, and the fact that I have to choose at all. But here we are, and it's barreling down the hill. Pulling the lever is free, takes less than an hour, and isn't mutually exclusive with any other form of activism or harm reduction.

This assumes we can in fact change that tide.

No it doesn't. It buys time so we can try. Again, why would we choose "allow fascism now" over "chance of stopping fascism?"

This is true whether I vote or not, and will not be impacted whether I vote or not.

Whether it runs over more or less people (i.e. whether fascism comes to power) is going to be primarily determined by how everyone, including you, votes.

The trolley now called America has been running people over since 1619. Always has, always will. The question is whether you believe it can ever be reformed from within. I have come to the conclusion that it cannot be.

I don't necessarily disagree. I still do not see why that is a reason to let more people be run over.

Unless you draw a line with regards to reasonable actions, then essentially no one is doing that; after all, certain bad people we’re discussing are all still alive. And if you do accept that we can and must draw lines, well, I consider that line to end at endorsing a genocidal leader.

Personally, I draw the line at reasonable actions, reasonable being "proportional to one's current power and well-being" - otherwise the whole framework quickly becomes unworkable. I don't hold Joe Schmo on 3rd street responsible for plastic pollution generally, but I do hold him responsible for the avoidable plastic waste or litter that he creates. I don't hold individual Roman citizens responsible for the atrocities of Commodus; I do hold them responsible for helping the people they had the power to help. We're responsible for pulling whatever levers of power our hands fall onto in the direction of less harm. If you're an American citizen then there's a lever available to you of whether to have more fascists or less fascists in power. The choice will happen even if you try to ignore it.

The whole lesson of the trolley problem is that not engaging with the problem doesn't make it go away, and that ignoring it is a form of action. Pulling the lever isn't an endorsement of the trolley. It's dealing head on with the reality of a complex situation that you did not create but are presented with.

As I said elsewhere: "I’ve ruminated and ruminated and ruminated on all of this and I can’t find any compelling philosophical or moral argument for allowing the greater evil to take hold, unless there is an imminent, likely possibility of a more just outcome following soon behind. If there was a groundswell of support in the US for a left revolution then perhaps a fascist victory could be the spark to push us towards structural change. But as it stands a plurality of Americans want (or are fine with) fascism, and they’re armed to the teeth. The most likely outcome of fascists winning the election is that fascists take over and keep power, and that will cause unfathomable harm far beyond the disgusting shortfalls of our current administration."

So again - I haven't seen any compelling case for how allowing fascists to take power will lead to a better future. Even if our choice is "fascism now" and "fascism later," as you posit, why on earth should we choose now?

This is simply a matter of perspective. If I hand you a gun and tell you to shoot the less-evil of 2 people, and you choose to drop the gun instead, are you actually “complacent” with both of them, or are you refusing to commit murder? Well, both candidates are pro-genocide, and I refuse to take part in that.

This metaphor doesn't work, because in this case one of the two people will get shot no matter what. It's akin to the trolley problem, and the trolley is already barreling down the hill. Refusing to participate doesn't make the trolley go away, it just means that more people die.

In a situation where democracy is actually driving the country and participation can actually change the direction of the country, I would agree. In a case where the political and wealth classes operate as an oligarchy that offers you the appearance of agency in order to then use your vote as a mandate to justify whatever evil they do, all you’re doing is serving to legitimize their false choices. Obviously, if you don’t believe our federal-level politics have fallen that far, we’re probably not ever going to agree on how to move forwards.

Our federal-level politics have fallen very, very far. They do change the direction of the country, however, even if the changes are insufficient and not always exactly what I prefer. A simple example is the Inflation Reduction Act, which single-handedly doubled investment in clean energy and decreased the "gap" we need to cut in greenhouse emissions by 2/3rds.. Is it what I wanted? Is it "enough?" No. But it changed the direction of the country in a meaningful way.

This is another point where you and I probably fundamentally disagree. I don’t think Biden is paving the way for anything but more Center-Right presidents like Biden. He’s not pushing us Left. He’s not enabling that. He’s actually pushing us to the Right. Ronald Reagan was literally harder on Israel for committing crimes than Biden has been. Biden has pushed for mass-incarceration and police funding his entire political life. He’s pushing anti-immigrant policies at the border. He’s alienating Progressives, while getting people (like many here) to defend him as “paving the way” for the future Left.

The Biden Administration, in terms of enacted policies, is further to the left than the Obama and Clinton administrations were. Him being absolutely awful on Israel does not change that overall balance.

Does that mean he's "left" or pushing us there? Of course not. We're a right-leaning country where a plurality of people want fascism, and Joe Biden sucks.

You think he’s paving the way for a better country. I think he’s actively alienating Progressives and minorities from the Democratic Party in order to prevent it shifting to the Left, paving the way for DeSantis in 2028, and funding and supplying a genocide along the way.

One of my values is not actively handing power to evil people, and I do believe Biden is evil. Abstaining is not preventing Biden or Trump from taking power, but the reality is that there is no (legal) way for me to do that. Using “actively preventing bad people from taking power” as the standard for action is also not met by voting, if both choices are bad.

The trolley is coming and will run over someone whether you participate or not. Pulling the lever for harm reduction is not mutually exclusive with any other form of direct action and is an effective means of short-term harm reduction while we work towards popular support for long-term systemic change. As it stands any sort of revolution in the US would be far, far more likely to lead to right-wing authoritarianism than it would be to push us left; not only is the country right-leaning, but the right-wingers are armed to the teeth.

Biden winning means we buy more time to change the tide that before fascists take power again. Trump winning means fascists take power now with an electoral mandate and popular support.

It is our moral obligation, every day, to do what we can within the circumstances we're given to reduce harm. Participating within the circumstances we're given isn't an endorsement of them; using the internet doesn't mean I endorse my ISP, and having a credit card doesn't mean I endorse capitalism. It's just the reality of having to navigate a complex world filled with systems and circumstances I did not set up and don't control. The trolley is already on the tracks; 364 days of the year we can talk about how there shouldn't be trolleys. I hope one day there won't be any more trolleys. But for the hour or two it takes to vote on that 365th day pulling the lever is the most effective means of harm reduction.

I have not seen a single compelling case for how allowing fascists to take power will lead to less harm or a better future. If there is one I'm all ears.

I largely agree - which is why voting uncommitted in Michigan (or other states where it's available) is a clever and effective idea.

The fine line, though, is this: it's logical and just to spend time between now and the fall applying pressure to the campaign and administration to change course via uncommitted votes, campaigns, protests, etc. It's not logical and just, however, to spend time telling others they should not vote in November, which has become sadly common in every left-leaning space I spend time in.

The former could result in policy changes. The latter is pretty much just pushing to allow fascists into power.

Given your edit I feel compelled to point out that two things are true simultaneously:

• Direct action is effective and necessary

but also

• Direct action is not mutually exclusive with voting in any way.

Voting takes a couple of hours per year (at most) and is a tremendously effective way of keeping fascists out of power and reducing overall harm while we concurrently pursue direct action and systemic change.

I believe it is our moral obligation each day to do what we (reasonably) can, within the circumstances and powers we're given, to ease suffering in our community and our world. On most days that's direct action. On election days it's spending an hour voting for harm reduction. Participating in our shitty electoral system is not an endorsement of it any more than paying taxes is an endorsement of military funding or having a credit score is an endorsement of Equifax. It's simply the reality of having to live within a system we did not create and have limited control over. Refusing to engage with the realities we live under doesn't make them go away - it just means more people get hurt.

I've ruminated and ruminated and ruminated on all of this and I can't find any compelling philosophical or moral argument for allowing the greater evil to take hold, unless there is an imminent, likely possibility of a more just outcome following soon behind. If there was a groundswell of support in the US for a left revolution then perhaps a fascist victory could be the spark to push us towards structural change. But as it stands a plurality of Americans want (or are fine with) fascism, and they're armed to the teeth. The most likely outcome of fascists winning the election is that fascists take over and keep power, and that will cause unfathomable harm far beyond the disgusting shortfalls of our current administration.

It's a trolley problem, essentially. The trolley is coming down the tracks and all we can do is pull the lever to have less people die. I find that a lot of modern discourse around this in left-leaning spaces essentially comes down to "well I don't like either option" or "there shouldn't be a trolley!" or things like that. You know what? I agree. I don't like either option, and there shouldn't be a trolley. I hope we can take more direct action so there are less trolleys and less people tied to the tracks in the future. But here we are, right now, and the trolley is heading down the tracks, and we cannot stop it. It doesn't matter that there shouldn't be a trolley. It's here. Not pulling the lever doesn't make it go away, it just means that more people get hurt.

So please, by all means, prioritize direct action. Get those trolleys off those tracks. But once we're barrelling down the hill it is our moral obligation to spend an hour pulling the lever in whatever direction necessary to minimize harm.

I think part of your premise here is flawed; the median Democratic lawmaker has drifted left in the past few decades quite significantly, as blue dog democrats and moderates have been slowly replaced. The Biden administration is also, in terms of supported and enacted policies, slightly to the left of the Obama administration and considerably to the left of Clinton.

I struggle to think of any issue where the Democratic Party of today is further to the right than they were 20 or 30 years ago.

That shift has happened for a large number of reasons, but one of them has been support from progressive voters replacing, in many areas, the electoral need to pander to center-right voters.

The overall country’s drift to the right has been largely driven by GOP electoral victories and the ramifications of those (like the three Supreme Court justices Trump appointed).

When playing Cosmic Encounter I’ve sometimes felt the minute turn timer is just a touch too short. By the time you take stock of everything the other player has and start to actually discuss it you’re almost out of time.

Could you replace it with a 90 second or 2 minute timer? Simple negotiations will still go quickly but that way more complex ones will have a bit more time to breathe.

90 seconds feels right to me.

Is CS:S somehow better for surf than CS:GO, or is it just a legacy thing?