• notabot@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      OK, let’s take that as a really simple analogy. You have only two choices in front of you: one city gets destroyed, or two cities get destroyed. Yes, it’s the trolley problem all over again. You can obviously choose not to take part, but that increases the risk of both cites being destroyed, you can vote for both to be destroyed, or you can vote to destroy just one. It’s a grim choice, with no good outcomes, but one is noticeably less bad than the other.

      In reality the second bomb is aimed at things like minority rights, LGBTQ+ communities and even workers in general.

      • MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        6 months ago

        In reality there are myriad options that do not include waving a fucking banner supporting detonating a nuke. The only way you can begin to rationalise your arguement is by creating a hypothetical thought experiment in which there are only two possibilities and you can actually only pick one of them. And even within those completely silly parameters it’s still contradictory, with no mechanism to change the hypothetical, hence ‘the endless cyclical logic of the electoral hypothetical.’

        • notabot@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          OK, given the current reality of the upcoming election, what, in your personal opinion are the other options, and what do you think the outcomes of those would be?

          • MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            6 months ago

            I’ve stated these, noting their historical successes and failures, elesewhere in response to you, before you made this comment. You didn’t engage, because you’re not looking for an answer or to discuss anything tangible. Just to repeat your tired, concern-troll imaginary hypotheticals again and again and again… jagoff

            • notabot@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              As I said, I’m drowning in responses, and I’ve got to them out of order. I’ve seen your response to this elsewhere, but I’m talking about in this election, over the next few months, what are the options? Yes,the analogy was simple to the point of absurdity, but it wasn’t me who brought it up.

              I realise there is much that can be done over time, ranging from trying to swing the existing candidates further left via voter pressure to rather more revolutionary means, but I’m more focused on the next event. What happens in November? I perceive that trump would be a worse president, for the US and the world at large, than biden would. I realize that that’s an arguable position, but all I’ve seen against it is people saying bidens bad. I’m not questioning that, he is, but that doesn’t change the conclusion. Given that, from my point of view, there is only one reasonable course of action in the presidential election itself. Actions preceding that are more open, but anything that risks increasing the chance of trump getting in would be dangerous. I’ve mentioned elsewhere that down ticket votes are more of an insurance, so, to my mind, not voting still isn’t the best course of action, but I can understand the other view point too.

              • MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                You can vote for whoever you want.

                But you’re coming here asking for a magic bullet to a deeply ingrained problem, on an immediately short timeline, while also dismissing out of hand or waving away any option or arguement presented that doesn’t fall within you own narrow acceptability of ‘just vote for Biden because it’s the lesser of two evils’.

                It’s not a good faith arguement. And I suspect you know that.

                If you’re just going to keep banging your head against this, looking for me or others who have engaged with you to say gosh you’re right, we should get behind Biden then you’re disappointed. Even aside for all the reasons that have been explained to you and you’ve mostly ignored to return to circular electoral logic, there’s also the fact that many people here (myself included) aren’t even American, so couldn’t even if they wanted to.

                If you’re not just arguing for the sake of arguing, then I genuinely implore you to try and read, listen, and expand your horizons because your vision of what is possible and important is so narrow you couldn’t slip a piece of paper through it.