But you are bad if you don’t vote for the better candidate because it is helping the worse candidate win and implement their bad policies. that you would prefer a candidate to win given the options, not voting for them is kinda stupid too. I understand that in many states, you feel that it’s a forgone conclusion and your protest vote doesn’t make a difference or something. But if your vote doesn’t matter, then your protest vote doesn’t matter either. You just weaken the vote and the popular vote totals which is dangerous in these times with trump doing everything he can to invalidate voting blocks that will vote against him. And more importantly, pushing the narrative that the better candidate is evil will discourage other voters who do matter a lot. The time for pushing the progressive angle is the primaries. If you can’t move the dial much there then making a fuss during the election will only weaken the chance at ‘better’. If the Dems then get control, then push again.
I disagree that a non-vote in a solid blue state doesn’t matter. The democrats lost the popular vote. That’s NEVER happened. Nobody turned up. If the Democrats don’t see that that’s a problem they’re morons and they’re too conniving to be morons.
Okay, I slept on it, and I think this may help explain why I think it’s ludicrous to blame individual voters for not choosing the “lesser of two evils” when each of the “evils” is itself a moral agent. I’m sure you’ll find this analogy doesn’t fit your mental model, but it fits mine very well so if you’re trying to understand where folks like me are coming from (and I think you are), see if you can try it on for size.
Sophie has two children, Eva (8) and Jan (11), with the same life-expectancy. Eva is a sweet child, very kind. Jan’s a brat…a bit of a jerk, with a cruel streak. Anyway, two Nazis with guns are arguing “I am Ralph and I wish to kill your younger daughter. This is Dirk and he wishes to kill your older boy. You may choose!” Sophie chooses for Ralph to kill Eva, or Sophie refuses to choose and Ralph loses patience before Dirk and, kills Eva. Later, the hand-wringing liberals berate Sophie for not choosing to have the older daughter killed “Jan is a worse person and has five fewer years left to live, Sophie! It’s OBVIOUSLY the worse choice. Why would you choose R? How COULD you? I hope you live with that for the rest of your days! If you had chosen D instead, things would have been better.”
Does that illustrate my point? It’s obviously the nazis that are to blame. If either of them was decent they’d die trying to kill as many on their own side as possible, or at the very least fuck off and leave everyone alone. Blaming Sophie is absurd whether she chose or didn’t choose. The hand-wringing liberals are probably right, Jan is probably a shithead (hearing his mom acquiesce to the murder of his sister probably won’t have helped), and voting D probably would have been a bit better. But like…shut the fuck up, hand-wringing liberals? Maybe no children needed to be murdered, actually, and maybe Sophie’s choice is not something to focus on here?
If she refuses to make a choice and as a result both die, then the consequences of not making a choice are because of her. The whole bc situation isn’t her fault. But not choosing is on her. In the case of Dems vs repubs, it’s not even a hard choice as one side supports child rapists, seriously harmful random international policies, and there are many other issues that make it clear Dems are better.
This is where simple logic and math collide with some weird emotional notion. Non-votes don’t stop the worse candidate - that helps them win. Sort of like the trolly problem. You are arguing that the act of not pulling the lever vs pulling the lever is relevant. Whether it’s an action or a non-action that implements your decision is irrelevant.
the trolley problem only reveals your own ethics. it doesn’t have a singular answer or lesson. deontologists don’t touch the lever, and they don’t vote for bad candidates, even if their are worse candidates.
Except in this case the trolly will kill a bunch of people if you pull the lever, or if you don’t, it will kill those people plus a whole lot more. The logic of which people are killed is removed and so if you don’t pull the lever you are responsible entirely for the deaths of the extra people.
I’m only responsible for what I do. I didn’t create the situation in which the people were tied to the tracks of the trolley was set in motion. if I pull the lever I will kill people. I will choose not to kill people.
And that stupidity is why America has trump, and lots more people will die in the Middle East. Just because you are too ignorant to understand, doesn’t mean you aren’t responsible for it.
But you are bad if you don’t vote for the better candidate because it is helping the worse candidate win and implement their bad policies. that you would prefer a candidate to win given the options, not voting for them is kinda stupid too. I understand that in many states, you feel that it’s a forgone conclusion and your protest vote doesn’t make a difference or something. But if your vote doesn’t matter, then your protest vote doesn’t matter either. You just weaken the vote and the popular vote totals which is dangerous in these times with trump doing everything he can to invalidate voting blocks that will vote against him. And more importantly, pushing the narrative that the better candidate is evil will discourage other voters who do matter a lot. The time for pushing the progressive angle is the primaries. If you can’t move the dial much there then making a fuss during the election will only weaken the chance at ‘better’. If the Dems then get control, then push again.
I disagree that a non-vote in a solid blue state doesn’t matter. The democrats lost the popular vote. That’s NEVER happened. Nobody turned up. If the Democrats don’t see that that’s a problem they’re morons and they’re too conniving to be morons.
Okay, I slept on it, and I think this may help explain why I think it’s ludicrous to blame individual voters for not choosing the “lesser of two evils” when each of the “evils” is itself a moral agent. I’m sure you’ll find this analogy doesn’t fit your mental model, but it fits mine very well so if you’re trying to understand where folks like me are coming from (and I think you are), see if you can try it on for size.
Sophie has two children, Eva (8) and Jan (11), with the same life-expectancy. Eva is a sweet child, very kind. Jan’s a brat…a bit of a jerk, with a cruel streak. Anyway, two Nazis with guns are arguing “I am Ralph and I wish to kill your younger daughter. This is Dirk and he wishes to kill your older boy. You may choose!” Sophie chooses for Ralph to kill Eva, or Sophie refuses to choose and Ralph loses patience before Dirk and, kills Eva. Later, the hand-wringing liberals berate Sophie for not choosing to have the older daughter killed “Jan is a worse person and has five fewer years left to live, Sophie! It’s OBVIOUSLY the worse choice. Why would you choose R? How COULD you? I hope you live with that for the rest of your days! If you had chosen D instead, things would have been better.”
Does that illustrate my point? It’s obviously the nazis that are to blame. If either of them was decent they’d die trying to kill as many on their own side as possible, or at the very least fuck off and leave everyone alone. Blaming Sophie is absurd whether she chose or didn’t choose. The hand-wringing liberals are probably right, Jan is probably a shithead (hearing his mom acquiesce to the murder of his sister probably won’t have helped), and voting D probably would have been a bit better. But like…shut the fuck up, hand-wringing liberals? Maybe no children needed to be murdered, actually, and maybe Sophie’s choice is not something to focus on here?
So mom should refuse to answer and they kill both? That’s your solution?
My answer is stop backseat driving Sophie’s choice. STFU and resist genocide.
When you’re Sophie, you pick whoever you want, I don’t care, I’m not gonna criticize you for it.
So you’d rather kill both and pretend it wasn’t because of you. Hmmm.
You gotta be trolling me man. You’re gonna blame Sophie?
If she refuses to make a choice and as a result both die, then the consequences of not making a choice are because of her. The whole bc situation isn’t her fault. But not choosing is on her. In the case of Dems vs repubs, it’s not even a hard choice as one side supports child rapists, seriously harmful random international policies, and there are many other issues that make it clear Dems are better.
Ok, I’m gonna keep my focus and ire on the fascists. I’ll leave you to spend time and energy backseat driving Sophie’s choice.
But that’s the point. If you don’t vote in an effective way against the fascists when you can, your focus is irrelevant.
> you are bad if you don’t vote for the better candidate because it is helping the worse candidate win and implement their bad policies.
nonvotes don’t help any candidate win. the thing that helps them win is people voting for them. blame the people who are responsible.
This is where simple logic and math collide with some weird emotional notion. Non-votes don’t stop the worse candidate - that helps them win. Sort of like the trolly problem. You are arguing that the act of not pulling the lever vs pulling the lever is relevant. Whether it’s an action or a non-action that implements your decision is irrelevant.
the trolley problem only reveals your own ethics. it doesn’t have a singular answer or lesson. deontologists don’t touch the lever, and they don’t vote for bad candidates, even if their are worse candidates.
Except in this case the trolly will kill a bunch of people if you pull the lever, or if you don’t, it will kill those people plus a whole lot more. The logic of which people are killed is removed and so if you don’t pull the lever you are responsible entirely for the deaths of the extra people.
I’m only responsible for what I do. I didn’t create the situation in which the people were tied to the tracks of the trolley was set in motion. if I pull the lever I will kill people. I will choose not to kill people.
And that stupidity is why America has trump, and lots more people will die in the Middle East. Just because you are too ignorant to understand, doesn’t mean you aren’t responsible for it.
calling me ignorant and stupid doesn’t change the morality of voting for evil people.
I think a case can be made that the long slope of lesser evilism is what made trump possible.
No, your attitude specifically brought trump to power. That’s on you if you didn’t do what you could to stop it.