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

Political Memes

5419 readers
4361 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
[–] 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.