this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
886 points (87.3% liked)

Political Memes

5433 readers
2534 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (21 children)

Than if you had voted for them. You didn't say that before. When you don't specify that, the statement is false.

Relative to a baseline of starting nuclear war, I stopped a nuclear war today. That doesn't mean that I actually stopped a nuclear war in an absolute sense, or relative to doing nothing. If I went around telling people I stopped a nuclear war, I'd be lying. In the same way, it's false to say that not voting is "helping" Trump, unless you specify that you mean relative to doing something that hurts Trump.

If trump is an option, and you didn’t increase the chance for kamala, you have increased the chance for trump

For example, this is false.

if you do not vote

+0 chance for kamala

There you go, you just said it yourself. Neither an increase nor a decrease.

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 0 points 1 week ago (20 children)

Neither an increase nor a decrease.

how do you not understand that neither an increase or a decrease, when there are two choices, is equivalent to a neutral vote, and therefore you are increasing the odds of the side that you don't want to win, than if you had voted for the side you do want to win.

How is this so complex for you? I am genuinely baffled.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (19 children)

It's not at all complex, and I am not confused by it. You are just obviously and objectively wrong.

than if you had voted for the side you do want to win.

Of course, as long as you specify that, then you are correct. In the same way it's correct to say that I stopped a nuclear war today compared to if I had started one. But it is incorrect to say that I stopped a nuclear war with no disclaimer about what I'm comparing it to, and it is incorrect for you to claim that I'm helping Trump by not voting for Kamala with no disclaimer about where you are setting the baseline.

In an objective sense, I am not helping Trump. I am only helping him relative to if I were going to vote for Kamala (which I wasn't).

It would be much clearer to simply say, "You are failing to take an opportunity to increase Kamala's chances and decrease Trump's," which is 100% true. But you can't accept that, because that's using language in a way that's actually fair and accurate. Instead, you'd rather make the dishonest, false accusation that I'm not merely failing to hurt Trump, but actively helping him. And then you call me names and say I'm "confused" and too dumb to understand when I call out your dishonesty and manipulative use of language.

[–] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

and I am not confused by it.

NARRATOR: They were incredibly confused by it.

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)