“Every previous president would have ended it by now.”

“Biden literally couldn’t do worse.”

  • Sybil
    link
    fedilink
    128 months ago

    it’s literally double speak: war is peace, voting for genocide is antigenocide.

    • @agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      108 months ago

      There are two options: ‘some genocide’, and ‘a lot more genocide’. The race is close, so if not enough people vote for ‘some genocide’, ‘a lot more genocide’ will win. ‘No genocide’ is not one of the options. Do you vote for ‘some genocide’, or do you assent to letting ‘a lot more genocide’ win?

      • Sybil
        link
        fedilink
        88 months ago

        I’m going to vote for a candidate that wants no genocide.

        • bobburger
          link
          fedilink
          108 months ago

          Will that actually help reduce genocide or just satisfy your need to be self righteous?

          • Sybil
            link
            fedilink
            78 months ago

            I don’t believe any vote will reduce genocide. ballots don’t stop bullets.

        • As I said, ‘No genocide’ is not one of the two options that’s going to win. The race is close, not voting for ‘less genocide’ only helps ‘lots of genocide’. So you’re helping ‘lots of genocide’ beat ‘less genocide’, congrats.

          • Sybil
            link
            fedilink
            68 months ago

            voting against genocide doesn’t help genocide. this is pure doublespeak.

            • Voting against genocide doesn’t reduce genocide. In American elections, the only votes that have an effect are those for one of the two front-runners. Any other vote is an admission of equivocation of the two front-runners. The two front-runners are ‘some genocide’ and ‘lots of genocide’. Equivocating the two means you think ‘some genocide’ and ‘lots of genocide’ are equally acceptable. Q.E.D. you accept lots of genocide.

              • Sybil
                link
                fedilink
                5
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Equivocating the two means you think ‘some genocide’ and ‘lots of genocide’ are equally acceptable.

                no. i don’t find either of those acceptable. that doesn’t make them the same. it just means that neither of them meets the bar of acceptability.

                • Unfortunately the American electoral system is not ranked choice, so “bar of acceptability” isn’t a functionally meaningful concept. In American elections, the situation is as I’ve described above. Refusing to choose one of the two primary options functionally means you find both primary options equally acceptable.

                  • Sybil
                    link
                    fedilink
                    38 months ago

                    duverger’s “law” has no predictive value. it’s a tautology as empty as “supply and demand”.

                  • Sybil
                    link
                    fedilink
                    38 months ago

                    Refusing to choose one of the two primary options functionally means you find both primary options equally acceptable.

                    false.

                  • Sybil
                    link
                    fedilink
                    28 months ago

                    “bar of acceptability” isn’t a functionally meaningful concept.

                    it is in ethics

              • Sybil
                link
                fedilink
                28 months ago

                Any other vote is an admission of equivocation of the two front-runners.

                false dichotomy

                  • Sybil
                    link
                    fedilink
                    27 months ago

                    always happy to be of help where i am needed.