this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
5 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

5425 readers
3829 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
 

"Every previous president would have ended it by now."

"Biden literally couldn't do worse."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Donald Trump is Genocide at home and abroad.

Joe Biden is "only" Genocide abroad, and probably less of it.

Therefore, a vote for Joe Biden is a Vote against genocide.

No, it doesn't matter that he's an active participant in the apparatus that's creating the genocide, because if he's in office there's less genocide. Which is the important part, and pretending otherwise is sophistry. If you abstain from voting, you are increasing the likelihood of more genocide and if you discourage others from voting, you are an active participant in the overall social apparatus that is probabilistically increasing the amount of genocide.

The utility calculation is dead simple: more votes for Biden in key states makes more genocide less likely, and discouraging people from voting for Biden makes more genocide more likely. Therefore, discouraging people from voting for Biden is a pro-genocide strategy and voting for Biden in battleground states is an anti-genocide strategy. You should vote for Biden unless you live in a solid blue state, and even then it's not a bad idea.

TLDR: if you encourage people to not vote for Biden, that's supporting genocide. Accelerationism never works for us.

[–] Melkath@kbin.social -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Of all of the self diluted mental gymnastics...

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

it's literally double speak: war is peace, voting for genocide is antigenocide.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There are two options: 'some genocide', and 'a lot more genocide'. The race is close, so if not enough people vote for 'some genocide', 'a lot more genocide' will win. 'No genocide' is not one of the options. Do you vote for 'some genocide', or do you assent to letting 'a lot more genocide' win?

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I'm going to vote for a candidate that wants no genocide.

[–] bobburger@fedia.io 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Will that actually help reduce genocide or just satisfy your need to be self righteous?

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

I don't believe any vote will reduce genocide. ballots don't stop bullets.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

As I said, 'No genocide' is not one of the two options that's going to win. The race is close, not voting for 'less genocide' only helps 'lots of genocide'. So you're helping 'lots of genocide' beat 'less genocide', congrats.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

voting against genocide doesn't help genocide. this is pure doublespeak.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Voting against genocide doesn't reduce genocide. In American elections, the only votes that have an effect are those for one of the two front-runners. Any other vote is an admission of equivocation of the two front-runners. The two front-runners are 'some genocide' and 'lots of genocide'. Equivocating the two means you think 'some genocide' and 'lots of genocide' are equally acceptable. Q.E.D. you accept lots of genocide.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Equivocating the two means you think ‘some genocide’ and ‘lots of genocide’ are equally acceptable.

no. i don't find either of those acceptable. that doesn't make them the same. it just means that neither of them meets the bar of acceptability.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Unfortunately the American electoral system is not ranked choice, so "bar of acceptability" isn't a functionally meaningful concept. In American elections, the situation is as I've described above. Refusing to choose one of the two primary options functionally means you find both primary options equally acceptable.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

duverger's "law" has no predictive value. it's a tautology as empty as "supply and demand".

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

“bar of acceptability” isn’t a functionally meaningful concept.

it is in ethics

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Any other vote is an admission of equivocation of the two front-runners.

false dichotomy

[–] Hamartia@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Loving your dauntless energy. Nothing gives a bully the shits quite like looking them in the eye.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

always happy to be of help where i am needed.