Your voting system is so fucked. Like voting should be something that people like to do. I want to vote for people that align with my values the most. But no, you have to be strategic and choose the lesser evil to not accidentally end up with fucking fsscists like Trump again. It’s fucked. Still tho, please prevent Trump.
We already know that the problem is First Past The Post (FPTP) voting. Literally everyone qualified to hold office in the USA knows it. But would you vote for someone who’s incompetent at best, making things only slightly worse for 4 years?
Every election, the answer is a resounding yes. Vote for the lesser evil, and then we’ll rely entirely on direct action between elections, like strikes.
Then the lesser evils shut down a badly needed rail strike, at a time when that could have been the start of something big.
So you tell me what you’d do, I’m genuinely curious.
Look at the number of people who want human rights and fair living conditions. If we had a voting system that would allow us to score or rank multiple candidates we’d have a functioning country even despite the gerrymandering and Electoral College bullshit.
Even in countries where it’s undoubtedly a LOT better like Germany, I vote purely strategically. No super small parties that won’t make it into parliament cause that vote would be wasted. Stuff like that.
And I would absolutely vote for the conservatives to prevent the fascists. Basically, don’t take it for granted and try to get the most out of it every time.
This is like a teenager getting all upset that the family can’t go on a trip because money is tight and saying it’s not faaaaaaaaaiiir.
Yes, powerful people are trying to do evil with the levers of government. There are people who wake up all day every day and try to prevent them, or to make good things happen anyway, with varying levels of success. Just getting all whiny about it because everything’s not automatic or already fixed for you, and you have to either do what you can within the system or work for change outside the system or else get used to things being shitty (and with Trump maybe get exponentially worse), shows a lack of understanding of how the world works.
Both users show a degree of logic in their arguments: User A’s concern about the need for a fairer voting system and User B’s point about the necessity of working within or outside the system to enact change. However, the conversation seems to falter in terms of constructive engagement and empathy towards each other’s views. Each response escalates the emotional charge and distance between their positions, reducing the potential for a reasoned, good-faith discussion. The mutual misunderstanding—highlighted by User A questioning if an LLM (language model) wrote User B’s response—suggests a breakdown in communication where the logic and intentions of the arguments might be overshadowed by their emotional expressions and rhetorical tactics.
Your voting system is so fucked. Like voting should be something that people like to do. I want to vote for people that align with my values the most. But no, you have to be strategic and choose the lesser evil to not accidentally end up with fucking fsscists like Trump again. It’s fucked. Still tho, please prevent Trump.
We already know that the problem is First Past The Post (FPTP) voting. Literally everyone qualified to hold office in the USA knows it. But would you vote for someone who’s incompetent at best, making things only slightly worse for 4 years?
Every election, the answer is a resounding yes. Vote for the lesser evil, and then we’ll rely entirely on direct action between elections, like strikes.
Then the lesser evils shut down a badly needed rail strike, at a time when that could have been the start of something big.
So you tell me what you’d do, I’m genuinely curious.
Look at the number of people who want human rights and fair living conditions. If we had a voting system that would allow us to score or rank multiple candidates we’d have a functioning country even despite the gerrymandering and Electoral College bullshit.
Even in countries where it’s undoubtedly a LOT better like Germany, I vote purely strategically. No super small parties that won’t make it into parliament cause that vote would be wasted. Stuff like that. And I would absolutely vote for the conservatives to prevent the fascists. Basically, don’t take it for granted and try to get the most out of it every time.
non-US people try not to blame US people for their own oppression challenge (impossible) (it happens every thread)
This is like a teenager getting all upset that the family can’t go on a trip because money is tight and saying it’s not faaaaaaaaaiiir.
Yes, powerful people are trying to do evil with the levers of government. There are people who wake up all day every day and try to prevent them, or to make good things happen anyway, with varying levels of success. Just getting all whiny about it because everything’s not automatic or already fixed for you, and you have to either do what you can within the system or work for change outside the system or else get used to things being shitty (and with Trump maybe get exponentially worse), shows a lack of understanding of how the world works.
What the fuck arenyou even talking about lol
Did an LLM write this?
Seriously wondering the same thing. This account seems to have no real ideology and makes obviously incorrect observations.
Such as?
Insufficient data for meaningful response
Both users show a degree of logic in their arguments: User A’s concern about the need for a fairer voting system and User B’s point about the necessity of working within or outside the system to enact change. However, the conversation seems to falter in terms of constructive engagement and empathy towards each other’s views. Each response escalates the emotional charge and distance between their positions, reducing the potential for a reasoned, good-faith discussion. The mutual misunderstanding—highlighted by User A questioning if an LLM (language model) wrote User B’s response—suggests a breakdown in communication where the logic and intentions of the arguments might be overshadowed by their emotional expressions and rhetorical tactics.
So yes.