858
Accelerationist [RULE]
(files.catbox.moe)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
858 points (100.0% liked)
196
16436 readers
2041 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
i mean to vote for someone who won't support the genocide, but i wouldn't fault anyone for looking at all the candidates and deciding none of them deserve to have the office.
this is ad hominem. what i'm saying is true or false regardless of how old i am. also, you don't know how old i am. and on the internet, no one knows you're a dog: you could be 12 years old for all i know.
this statement is pure sophistry. it's disgusting rhetoric, and you should be ashamed.
It's not ad hominem. I'm not saying you're wrong because this is your first election, I'm saying I can tell this is your first election because voting third party is incredibly naive. If this isn't your first election, then you should know better.
it is. you're attacking me instead of what i said.
my identity has nothing to do with what I'm saying. it's an ad hominem and you should be ashamed.
instead of being defensive, just apologize and do better
i only vote for someone i want to have the office. you don't get to tell my what i value or how i should express my values. you certainly don't get to tell me how to vote.
the only people responsible for electing trump are those who vote for him. i'm not doing that, so it can't be my fault.
If there are 10 people including you and the majority chooses who gets to be president and the vote ends up as 5 for Biden (including you) and 5 for Trump. Then the vote gets recast and the only thing that changes is that you decided not to vote for Biden, it would be 5/4 for Trump and the person responsible for electing Trump would be everyone who voted for him and you. If you had voted against Trump instead of abstaining, he would not have become president.
That's a very basic concept and it's clear that it extrapolates to the actual election.
voting for a bad person is bad.
Voting for a bad person to prevent a horrible person from winning is good.
not according to kant.
Screw Kant then.
Woah there, hold your argumentum ad populum! No ethics model is unflawed and just because deontological ethics work often doesn't mean they don't have problems. Instead of looking at the actions you can take, let's look at the results that could be reached:
No 3rd party has ever achieved presidency. Votes for a 3rd party have instead commonly resulted in votes being drawn from one party benefiting the other. So realistically we could generalise to:
I hate dichotomies as much as you, these shouldn't be the options, I would seriously love to be proven wrong. Am I missing something?
this kind of paranoid bad-jacketing of users is fucking disgusting. accusing users of being part of a state-sponsored psyop should be bannable across every community and instance. come with receipts, or keep your badfaith bullshit to yourself.
It's a good thing you don't make the rules, then!
are you running a CIA cointelpro operation?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
it's not a videogame, and I am not voting for Biden.
if all you have is attacks on my identity, please block me, too
that's exactly what an ad hominem is
your explanation didnt prove me incorrect. but you did insult me at least three times already.
Insults aren't ad hominem dummy
no one proposed that
The. What is the goal? To get to the magical 5%?
How’d that work out for Nader in 2000 when he didn’t even get to 3%? Was it worth it, when nearly 100k people voted for him in Florida, and Gore lost to Bush by a margin of only 537 votes? Would the environmentalists who supported Nader be more appreciative of Bush’s outcome than they would have been if Gores?
Third parties are great. We absolutely need them. But they cannot and will not ever get a foothold starting at the top of the ballot. Yang really has the right idea in The Forward Party, starting down ballot before even contemplating higher office. It’s the only way another party will ever get any significant standing.
if you think that, you should put energy toward that. but I don't and won't.
gore didn't lose that election
It shouldn’t have even been a question in the first place. 100k people thought Gore wasn’t good enough for them, and as a result, they all got us Bush.
Right wingers probably said this same shit when Biden got elected
Nobody running for president, ever, has deserved the office. I sincerely believe, as Douglas Adams so eloquently put, that “those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.”
I can’t think of any point in recent history where the choice is of who is deserving for office. The choice is, and has always been, who is the least undeserving of office (or the spoiler candidate). This year, I think it’s pretty obvious who is least undeserving of office.
The choice of who is deserving for office is reserved for everyone else further down the ballot.
Adlai Stevenson
maybe for you. I don't vote for someone unless I want them to win.