|
There's a difference between a religion and a set of axioms.
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2024 13:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:
I suppose that the further people are from the centre the more they crave attention at the expense of other people’s blood and tears. Or, you know, maybe we are both being a bit unfair.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2024 02:55
|
|
|
BRJurgis posted:
You can argue that the world doesn’t exist except in your mind, but then there is no struggle to be found of any kind. If the world exists and presents struggles then it is not in your heart or on your terms. It is outside you, more vast than you alone can possibly contend with, and able to crush you out of existence with less than a sigh. What will you do in the world on its terms?
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2024 03:00
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I don't care how other people plan to vote, but I do find it disturbing that there doesn't seem to be any lower bound for voting for the lesser evil. I find it disturbing that there are people who set a transition point below which they no longer care about worsening evil. There’s a difference between good things and bad things, and between bad things and worse things.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2024 03:22
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:1) You don't see how a minority person would perhaps feel somewhat let down if you vote for someone who is going to take away their rights because "the other side would be worse"? Do you think that a person would not have the right to feel that way?
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2024 11:33
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:In a vacuum, voting for the lesser evil might be the most optimal. But in the world we live in now, it has compounded effects over time that makes it more difficult for actual good that can be achieved non-electorally. More people voting for the lesser evil over the last 30 years might well have prevented the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, millions of deaths, maybe even the pandemic (which could have been contained with swift, decisive action). If you think that making the world good is bad because it postpones your revolution then we have no common ground.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2024 11:40
|
|
|
hooman posted:It's not an accelerationist argument, it's about support for good candidates and not supporting bad ones in the hope that you can change the direction of a party. Unprovable assertions (in the positive or the negative) are not a counter argument. So when they said "...actual good that can be achieved non-electorally" they meant supporting good candidates? The Artificial Kid fucked around with this message at 14:03 on May 12, 2024 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2024 14:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
A major problem with this whole debate in relation to American politics is that America deserves a better system that actually allows for realistic emergence of third parties organically in normal times. What America has is a system that almost mathematically guarantees two party dominance the majority of the time, with maybe an occasional sudden realignment where one of the parties fucks up so badly that a rising force is able to take its place on one side of the scales. The system as it stands means that when the general election is called and the two major parties have determined their candidates you have no realistic hope of making anyone but those two people president come election day. That's not fair or reasonable for a political system, and I suspect that the fact that isn't fair or reasonable colours the debate about how one should respond to it. Anyone who thinks the system is unfair and that they shouldn't have to vote for the lesser evil, I agree with you. But that doesn't change the fact that in America, on election day, the winner will be either the better or worse candidate (or the bad or worse candidate if you prefer that framing). And you have a right to abstain from that contest if you wish. But they don't care if you abstain, like the major fraction of the population that already abstains. In fact if you're not playing their game they want you to abstain, and the ones who most oppose the things you want want you to abstain the most. A lot of people are arguing that voting isn't much or isn't enough, and that's true. Voting isn't the most powerful thing you can do. But it's the most powerful thing you can do with your vote. There's only one other thing you can do with it, and that's throw it away.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2024 10:56
|
|