|
7c Nickel posted:Really? Where has the the Democratic party been moving to the right? The 2016 platform was the farthest left its been in multiple decades. Since Bill Clinton and his war on crime, ending welfare, deregulation, etc.? Democrats have also been complicit in the decline of unions. I personally don't understand why any union groups even support democrats anymore. Platform means nothing, results are all that matters.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Exactly. But in something like a general election between a milquetoast center-right candidate and a straight up actual fascist, the battle is already lost and the only thing to do there is to stem the bleeding, but even a lesser evil is still evil It's stupid to just call everything that doesn't agree with you "evil" then pack up your brain and stop thinking. Some policies are evil, some are wrong. Just declaring it a war of good and evil and that everyone is evil is just a short cut to not thinking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 01:05
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:Libya. Russophobia implies that they are somehow erratically worried about Russia when they shouldn't be? Could you elaborate on that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 01:05
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's stupid to just call everything that doesn't agree with you "evil" then pack up your brain and stop thinking. i don't think he said that at all
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's stupid to just call everything that doesn't agree with you "evil" then pack up your brain and stop thinking. Some policies are evil, some are wrong. Just declaring it a war of good and evil and that everyone is evil is just a short cut to not thinking. What kind of dumb thing is this? Yes, you can call harmful ideology evil. It is entirely possible for both prominent political options to be actively evil. That isn't "turning off your mind." There is no universal law dictating that, for any choice of two political ideologies, one must be "not evil." My feeling is that while voting for the lesser evil (in a situation where it's essentially guaranteed one of the two evils in question will win) is the optimal choice, there's something wrong with the sort of person who becomes angry with people for not doing so. The ultimate source of these problems is the actions of people who have actual power. Yes, voters who don't vote for the lesser evil may be making the suboptimal choice, but people make wrong choices all the time that are a lot less reasonable that that. If you actually want change, it makes far more sense to target the actual political organization that is leading to a lack of enthusiasm among large portions of the base. I can't help but think that the sort of person who gets really upset and offended at people who choose not to vote cares more about feeling correct than they do actually changing anything. Because I can guarantee that "convincing millions of individuals to vote for a candidate they dislike" is one of the least pragmatic paths forward imaginable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 01:11
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Russophobia implies that they are somehow erratically worried about Russia when they shouldn't be? Could you elaborate on that. There's already a thread on this. My general point was that the DNC is pro-war because their actions over the last two decades illustrate that they are (especially Hillary). Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's stupid to just call everything that doesn't agree with you "evil" then pack up your brain and stop thinking. Some policies are evil, some are wrong. Just declaring it a war of good and evil and that everyone is evil is just a short cut to not thinking. The DNC undermining attempts at single-payer, free college, and opposition to war from progressives is not evil in your view?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
Condiv posted:those are the only outcomes because lesser evilism is rewarded with votes. you can't expect things to change if the lesser evil can always count on your vote as long as they're a hair away from the greater evil. that's why macron and co feel free to implement lepen's fascist policies. What you're saying only works if, in response to losing their elections, the left (with an extremely generous use of "left" for most actual left parties in the first world right now, but pragmatically speaking) corrects to the left in the event of lost elections. They generally correct to the right, because the right won the election and that presents a path forward that's more likely to lead to victory next time, aided by their having far more financial incentive to appeal right rather than left. I feel like you're hitting a hard stop with the "in a better world" logic you were talking about in response to me. In a better world, we kick the bastards out and only good candidates make it to general elections where in the current world we are inevitably forced into bad choices. Punishing lovely left-wing parties for not being left enough by tacitly supporting right-wing parties in general elections does not effectively send the message that they need to move left or die, but it does give those right-wing parties the opportunity to entrench their own power and make it harder for left candidates to succeed--the same exact thing a Manchin does, but with even more negative impact for the rest of the community. Ytlaya posted:What kind of dumb thing is this? Yes, you can call harmful ideology evil. It is entirely possible for both prominent political options to be actively evil. That isn't "turning off your mind." There is no universal law dictating that, for any choice of two political ideologies, one must be "not evil." This is also completely true, and I think the reason people have so much trouble with it is accepting political compromise and a lesser-evil system feels loving terrible, and it's hard enough to reconcile doing it without having to accept that some of your choice's choices will be evil.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 01:25
|
|
|
The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils is the Overton window still gets shifted further in the direction of evil every cycle. The problem with voting for nothing is the Overton window still gets shifted in the direction of evil, and by more than it would have been had you voted for the lesser evil, assuming everyone else's votes are between the big two. And the risk of the greater evil winning in the short term is also increased by the non-vote. Voting for a third party stands some chance of shifting the Overton window towards that party's policies, even if that party's existence acts as a spoiler and lets the greater evil win. Perhaps especially if it acts as a spoiler. In the short term the risk of the greater evil winning is still increased. I'm in favor of the longer term goal that suggests voting for a third party, because I've witnessed the effect of the Overton window moving to almost exclusively Neoliberal options in several countries, and it sucks. Voting for the lesser evil doesn't even prevent the greater evil from winning, half the time, so the "protest vote" in the hope that maybe later the flow of poo poo can be stopped seems more valuable than a vote to maybe weakly slow the flow of poo poo. A different voting system sure would be nice though, so I could fruitlessly vote both to shift the Overton window in my preferred direction and weakly slow the flow of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
CarlCX posted:What you're saying only works if, in response to losing their elections, the left (with an extremely generous use of "left" for most actual left parties in the first world right now, but pragmatically speaking) corrects to the left in the event of lost elections. They generally correct to the right, because the right won the election and that presents a path forward that's more likely to lead to victory next time, aided by their having far more financial incentive to appeal right rather than left. how do you explain lrem shifting right when the right hadn't won recently? and not voting for the lesser evil isn't tacitly supporting evil. sorry if the supposed lesser evil doesn't responds to losing by shifting right and responds to winning by shifting right, then by voting for and entrenching the lesser evil you are enabling their continual shift right. the fact of the matter is that with less people in power, lovely parties like the dems are easier to take control of. this has been evidenced by more and more dems moving left (at the very least rhetorically) since hillary's loss, and this evidence runs counter to your idea that the dems will just shift right in response to trump. some will (like manchin, schumer, etc.) but they're additional dead wood that needs clearing out, not coddling. Condiv fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Feb 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 01:40
|
|
|
roomforthetuna posted:The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils is the Overton window still gets shifted further in the direction of evil every cycle.  it's important to always vote, even if it's for a third party. not voting doesn't help anything. also fighting to move things to the left is very important.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 01:44
|
|
|
roomforthetuna posted:The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils is the Overton window still gets shifted further in the direction of evil every cycle. I agree with that. The democrats have been capitulating to this perceived idea that the nation wants a boring centrist, and I think as a result they've been the minority party (between Congress and the Presidency) for a very long time now. So not only have they sold out the ideals of liberal government in favor of high-profile grandstanding about stuff nobody cares about (Dreamers), BUT they weren't even effective at gaining power in exchange for the sell-out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
I'd generally prefer less evil to more evil, though my ideas of what's evil might not square with everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 03:00
|
|
|
General Dog posted:I'd generally prefer less evil to more evil, though my ideas of what's evil might not square with everyone. I would prefer Democrats win and Republicans lose elections
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Southpark is a dangerous chemical that harms brain growth in children. Lmao you are so dumb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 05:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:how do you explain lrem shifting right when the right hadn't won recently? I'm not going to even pretend to be knowledgeable enough about French politics to render an educated opinion on the history of its political spectrum, but I would say the worldwide wave of nationalism and extremism borne on the back of a number of global propaganda campaigns that have successfully moved the window of political dialogue farther to the right than it's been in decades is giving a bunch of opportunistic politicians chances to run to the new right-aligned center, particularly when LREM is rallying around a dude like Macron who, regardless of campaign rhetoric, was tied as hell to corporatism and banking. Victory and loss impact political movement, but they're not the only things that matter. Condiv posted:and not voting for the lesser evil isn't tacitly supporting evil. sorry If there's no feasible peripheral option and the only realistic choice for winning an election is one of the two big parties, and one is demonstrably less evil than another, if you are arguing for people to not support the less evil choice in favor of a morally good but pragmatically infeasible choice you are tacitly supporting the more evil one. You can also be trying to achieve the entirely noble goal of sending a message and trying to enact positive change. The two aren't mutually exclusive, as you yourself pointed out by agreeing with roomforthetuna: roomforthetuna posted:Voting for a third party stands some chance of shifting the Overton window towards that party's policies, even if that party's existence acts as a spoiler and lets the greater evil win. Perhaps especially if it acts as a spoiler. In the short term the risk of the greater evil winning is still increased. You are allowing the reality of a greater evil winning for the chance at a greater future good. To be entirely clear, I'm not saying that's an invalid or even an inherently incorrect choice, poo poo is complicated and I don't think the idea is without merit--I'm saying you can't disentangle that choice from the ramifications of the greater evil winning as a result. It is explicitly the price you are offering in exchange for reforming the left and trying to get better candidates.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 05:43
|
|
|
It's not "lesser evil now or greater evil now with possible good later," it's "lesser evil now and definite greater evil later or greater evil now and possible good later."
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
tsa posted:Lmao you are so dumb. I am very smart, I can’t distinguish Democrats and Republicans because I am so woke.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
To clarify, is Obamacare evil by this threads exacting standards?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 06:26
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:To clarify, is Obamacare evil by this threads exacting standards? Yes. It's Nixonian (literally, a proposal very close to the ACA was proposed by Nixon in 1972 in response to Ted Kennedy campaigning on Single Payer), Heritage Foundation garbage that cedes far too much power to private health insurance companies without any real form of oversight, and as we've seen demonstrated, who have absolutely no motivation to play ball, if not actively sabotage it. Obamacare is a stopgap measure that doesn't go anywhere near far enough. Unfortunately, the constant attacks by the right on unfounded bullshit have forced the democratic party to prop up this right wing bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 07:36
|
|
|
Wow I really underestimated that Trump guy. Looks like all the people who need Obamacare to live are gonna have to take it for the team. Baron Porkface fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Feb 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 07:50
|
|
|
Condiv posted:how do you explain lrem shifting right when the right hadn't won recently? hint: it's because it was right wing itself
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 08:08
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:To clarify, is Obamacare evil by this threads exacting standards? It’s probably not worthwhile to discuss it in terms of good vs. evil. Much more constructive would be deciding whether or not it has overall been a positive step in terms of giving all Americans access to health care without barriers (including financial barriers) And as we make that assessment, we have to take into account the opportunity cost the ACA represents vs. a strong public option, single payer, etc. Those may or may not have been possible in the 2009-10 political climate, but because Obama et al. didn’t push all too hard for either, we’ll never know. Then you have to mix in the fact that the ACA, in spite of how moderate it is, still provoked the same level of rancor from the Right-Wing Scream Box that MFA would have earned, in all likelihood. That backlash has probably set back the cause of universal health care by quite a few years. The ACA has done some good, don’t get me wrong. But when you view it through the lens of whether or not it laid the groundwork for achieving the broader goals that all of us, I think, wanted it to achieve - well, then its record is decidedly mixed. And in that sense, it works as a pretty apt case study for where the Dems have made strategic mistakes that have discouraged voters whose support they need from turning out to the polls. Why should anyone be enthusiastic about voting for an ineptly-led party that comprises with their maximalist enemies at the drop of a hat, and then compromise on even that compromise down the road?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 08:40
|
|
|
CarlCX posted:I'm not going to even pretend to be knowledgeable enough about French politics to render an educated opinion on the history of its political spectrum, but I would say the worldwide wave of nationalism and extremism borne on the back of a number of global propaganda campaigns that have successfully moved the window of political dialogue farther to the right than it's been in decades is giving a bunch of opportunistic politicians chances to run to the new right-aligned center, particularly when LREM is rallying around a dude like Macron who, regardless of campaign rhetoric, was tied as hell to corporatism and banking. Victory and loss impact political movement, but they're not the only things that matter. that's true, but loss can clearly shift the leftwing parties leftward, as evidenced by what's been happening in the dem party since hillary's loss, and what's been happening in labour in the UK despite corbyn losing. it's not the only thing that has to be done to shift a party leftward, outside organization is clearly necessary as well, but it's clearly necessary as the lesser evil is politically stronger when enabled with victories. quote:If there's no feasible peripheral option and the only realistic choice for winning an election is one of the two big parties, and one is demonstrably less evil than another, if you are arguing for people to not support the less evil choice in favor of a morally good but pragmatically infeasible choice you are tacitly supporting the more evil one. You can also be trying to achieve the entirely noble goal of sending a message and trying to enact positive change. The two aren't mutually exclusive, as you yourself pointed out by agreeing with roomforthetuna: this logic doesn't work at all. it boils down to trying to claim third party voters are intrinsically supporting both the lesser evil and the greater evil at the same time, and that's clearly not the case. check your reasoning. republican voters can make the exact same claim you're making, that a third party voter is intrinsically supporting the dems, and with the same amount of validity. that both sides can make the claim shows that it's not really logically valid, just sad griping that not everyone you think should be supporting your choice is with you. Condiv fucked around with this message at 11:08 on Feb 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 10:56
|
|
|
Basically I think we’ll all agree that a system that forces you to choose between two evils is evil in itself and ought to be entirely destroyed, to be replaced with a system that has safeguards against evil ever being a choice. Fascist, racist and other demonstrably noxious parties should be barred from ever running in elections. They should also be disbanded and their members put in prison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 11:50
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Basically I think we’ll all agree that a system that forces you to choose between two evils is evil in itself and ought to be entirely destroyed, to be replaced with a system that has safeguards against evil ever being a choice. Fascist, racist and other demonstrably noxious parties should be barred from ever running in elections. They should also be disbanded and their members put in prison. Once the rivals of our political party are safely in jail, only then will we be free from facism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 13:17
|
|
|
All of the brain geniouses ITT who are defending lesser evilism are either dumb or liars, because in reality lesser evilism doesn't loving work. If you actually are concerned about winning elections you should never ever make an argument as self-defeating as voting for the lesser evil, because it literally cannot convince anybody who isn't already on board. So the only logical reason why people make the argument is either because they're completely out of touch or because it lets them feel smugly superior to people who've been driven away from voting by the failures of the parties of less racist neoliberalism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 14:17
|
|
|
The big problem with lesser evilism (other than the fact it typically is a failure outside of when the greater evil gets REALLY bad) is when the party starts to realize that its voters have internalized it and turn it into their self enriching strategy. You can see this when that group paid to go to that Obama dinner, sung a song about how his bad policies to him, then at the end admitted they had no choice but to vote for him. When the party's political calculus has turned to "how bad can we be where we are just better than our opponent?" that's a huge problem and we've been reaping the fruits of that logic since Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 14:32
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Once the rivals of our political party are safely in jail, only then will we be free from facism. Try again, but next time don’t be an apologist for fascists. I’d rather have to put all the fascists in prison rather than have to kill them all when they eventually ruin my continent through war, like they’ve already done in the past.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
I mean fascism is antithetical to democracy so the notion that they should be allowed to participate in elections is absurd on its face.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 14:43
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Basically I think we’ll all agree that a system that forces you to choose between two evils is evil in itself and ought to be entirely destroyed, to be replaced with a system that has safeguards against evil ever being a choice. Fascist, racist and other demonstrably noxious parties should be barred from ever running in elections. They should also be disbanded and their members put in prison. Good luck with all that
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 14:46
|
|
|
Vote for the lesser of two evils...if for nothing else than to buy yourself more time to devote to whatever organization you feel helps spread the ideals you truly agree with. Ensuring the greater of two evils wins has zero pros in its column...
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Vote for the lesser of two evils...if for nothing else than to buy yourself more time to devote to whatever organization you feel helps spread the ideals you truly agree with. Excuse me, that would require thinking and work and I would rather just declare everyone evil and myself enlightened and above it all and declare that as long as there is no communist party I'm not voting (but also don't make me work to get a communist party or anything, just let me call hillary shillary and trump dump and let me think I am doing my part)
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
Yeah, don't you know that you need to be grown up and realistic and doggedly insist that obvious garbage isn't garbage, then get real mad when people aren't convinced?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
roomforthetuna posted:The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils is the Overton window still gets shifted further in the direction of evil every cycle. Sounds convincing. Just one question. How did voting for Jill Stein in Florida in 2000 prevent the Overton window from being shifted towards evil?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 16:03
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Wow I really underestimated that Trump guy. Wow, you really got him there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Yeah, don't you know that you need to be grown up and realistic and doggedly insist that obvious garbage isn't garbage, then get real mad when people aren't convinced? Voting against a anti-abortion or gay rights candidate for a pro-choice and pro rights candidate? Heh, no thanks! haven't you heard? They are both sinners in my eyes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Voting against a anti-abortion or gay rights candidate for a pro-choice and pro rights candidate? Heh, no thanks! haven't you heard? They are both sinners in my eyes. voting for an anti-abortion and gay rights candidate on grounds the other guy is more anti-abortion and gay rights, though, is cool and good wave hello, Tim Kaine
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 16:14
|
|
|
I'm enjoying the discussion so far, but here's a specific question I'd like to propose for the thread: what do you think of the lack of voting in the 2016 US Presidential election? Was it pure laziness? Personally, I think more Americans were aware of the need to vote for the "lesser evil" but were simply too emotionally exhausted to do so. I feel like there's only so far you can go before people throw up their hands and say, "I can't do this anymore! I don't care what happens in the end, just leave me out of it" regardless of the consequences.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
I think anyone invested enough to experience "emotional exhaustion" from the campaign probably voted
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
General Dog posted:I think anyone invested enough to experience "emotional exhaustion" from the campaign probably voted nah there are plenty of people who got extremely tired of being told they had to give a poo poo about this or that latest story about how a vote for the other party is a vote for hitler. that right there's emotional exhaustion; your capacity to care has been wholly exhausted. neither of these people are going to help you in any way. why give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 19:22
|
|