There would have to be a strategy in voting against your own interests. It’s actively voting for bad things so worse things maybe don’t happen? That’s your strategy?
Correct. At present, the outcomes at the ballot box are “bad” and “worse”. Of the two, “bad” is preferable. “Good” will require non-electoral direct action.
Slowing the decline is one aspect of treatment, and the best outcome presently available via electoral action. More significant progress requires alternative methods. Mitigating damage via the electoral vector is more valuable to the efficacy of those alternative methods than whatever it is you’re trying to do by not mitigating damage.
What are you, 12? Why would I be “owned” by a fundamental misunderstanding of electoral mechanisms?
Name another “aspect of treatment”
Promoting progressive candidates in primaries
Writing your representatives directly
Becoming active in local politics
Protesting
Arming yourself
Building community and mutual aid with your neighbors
Unionizing your workplace
Collaborating with leftist groups to coordinate action
And that’s off the top of my head. None of those actions are lessened in any way by voting for whatever the Dems put out in the general election, to keep MAGA out. Any other electoral action perpetuates the acceleration of fascism. We’ve got concentration camps and military in the streets, continuing to pretend that “both sides” are identical is just patently unserious if not deliberately in bad faith.
Your turn. Answer the question: What alternative action is available at the ballot box that yields a better outcome? I think you keep dodging the question because you know you don’t have an answer. You’re either a shill, or a kid hypnotized by counterproductive idealism.
Who is “y’all”? What exactly do you think is “something productive” and what are you doing, besides making things worse through electoral misinformation?
If it gets blue MAGA libs to actually start doing something productive instead of whining that they can’t ignore politics anymore, then I’m on team acclerationism.
This wont work, the libs realize you dragged them into the mud (because you guys keep saying that’s your intent) and view you as an enemy that is working to bring about their suffering. That’s exactly why its so common for people to complain about “protest non-voters” in the first place. They already use their middle class resources to simply flee or batten down the hatches & hide, and leave the poor and minorities behind to suffer. Some small portion of them seem to even (in desperation) side with or play nice with fascists to survive.
Non-libs who are also non-accelerationists are mostly just going to grow cynical and bitter. They aren’t going to throw their lives away for a violent revolution they did not sign up for.
Accelerationism is aggressively stupid and it will always fail. You wont get enough people willing to work with you to start a revolution when its obvious you dragged people into hell with you. You can’t create the conditions artificially. You just have a bunch of scared and angry people bickering and when they can afford it, fleeing.
So just to clarify, you’re perfectly fine sacrificing the millions of vulnerable people who will suffer and die under accelerationism, in exchange for the gamble that maybe your ideology might get more popular. And you have the gall to call libs “blue MAGA”?
This isn’t a game, people have already died because of this. Maybe crawl out of your bubble long enough to think about the outcomes of your gambits.
Considering libs, much like MAGA, want everyone who they think is on their side to fall in line and vote/support their chosen genocidal fascist and attack anyone who criticizes them by viewing them as the enemy (whether it be calling them an undercover agent from the other side or working with some foreign nation to make them lose), I don’t see a difference. We saw it last year with everyone that criticized Harris and we’re already seeing it again with anyone that criticizes Newsom. Hell I’ve even seen some of them doing it with criticism towards Jeffries.
Because American elections are first past the post, do you not know how that works? Voting for the person you like the most is foolish. You identify which of the two front-runners is most horrible, and vote for the other one to keep the worse one out.
If you want a better option, you need it to be one of the two front-runners, otherwise they’re just a spoiler. Pushing for an alternative that’s not a front-runner betrays a tragic political ignorance.
What? Trump’s second term is largely the result of not strategically voting for lesser evil.
What alternative, actionable strategy would have led to a different outcome? Actionable means “Everyone votes for the same third party” doesn’t count. So go on, what was the alternative strategy that had any chance whatsoever of succeeding?
I think you’re missing the point. The strategy out of the DNC going on two decades has been “our horrible candidate is less horrible than their candidate,” and it took a worldwide pandemic and thousands of deaths for it to work once.
They need to stop and find someone who isn’t horrible if they ever want to win again. That or just let the world burn and hope it’s only the neolibs that survive. I wouldn’t bet on that myself.
On the contrary, you missed the point. I do not set DNC policy, it does no good to tell me what they should be doing. If “making them lose” was going to affect their strategy, it would have worked in 2016.
I am but a lowly voter, who has to live in this country. As a human being, there are many options available to me to try to effect change. As a voter, I am functionally limited to choosing between the two most popular candidates.
Voting for the less fascist of the two is not what I want to be doing, but it is the most likely to support all the other non-electoral options available to my fellow humans, without sacrificing the vulnerable to the greater evil.
There would have to be a strategy in voting against your own interests. It’s actively voting for bad things so worse things maybe don’t happen? That’s your strategy?
Correct. At present, the outcomes at the ballot box are “bad” and “worse”. Of the two, “bad” is preferable. “Good” will require non-electoral direct action.
deleted by creator
How many decades of turning up your nose at the lesser evil do you people need before you realize that just makes things worse faster?
Lmao.
“We’re the good guys because we’re making things worse more slowly” is one hell of a self report.
Slowing the decline is one aspect of treatment, and the best outcome presently available via electoral action. More significant progress requires alternative methods. Mitigating damage via the electoral vector is more valuable to the efficacy of those alternative methods than whatever it is you’re trying to do by not mitigating damage.
Holy shit, so many words just to cope that you got owned. Yikes.
Name another “aspect of treatment” from within your delirious worldview, if voting for the lesser evil is just one aspect. I dare you to elaborate.
Like what?! You’re so close to reality, yet so far away.
What are you, 12? Why would I be “owned” by a fundamental misunderstanding of electoral mechanisms?
Promoting progressive candidates in primaries
Writing your representatives directly
Becoming active in local politics
Protesting
Arming yourself
Building community and mutual aid with your neighbors
Unionizing your workplace
Collaborating with leftist groups to coordinate action
And that’s off the top of my head. None of those actions are lessened in any way by voting for whatever the Dems put out in the general election, to keep MAGA out. Any other electoral action perpetuates the acceleration of fascism. We’ve got concentration camps and military in the streets, continuing to pretend that “both sides” are identical is just patently unserious if not deliberately in bad faith.
Your turn. Answer the question: What alternative action is available at the ballot box that yields a better outcome? I think you keep dodging the question because you know you don’t have an answer. You’re either a shill, or a kid hypnotized by counterproductive idealism.
deleted by creator
Who is “y’all”? What exactly do you think is “something productive” and what are you doing, besides making things worse through electoral misinformation?
deleted by creator
Then why aren’t you doing that? And again, who is “y’all”?
deleted by creator
If it gets blue MAGA libs to actually start doing something productive instead of whining that they can’t ignore politics anymore, then I’m on team acclerationism.
This wont work, the libs realize you dragged them into the mud (because you guys keep saying that’s your intent) and view you as an enemy that is working to bring about their suffering. That’s exactly why its so common for people to complain about “protest non-voters” in the first place. They already use their middle class resources to simply flee or batten down the hatches & hide, and leave the poor and minorities behind to suffer. Some small portion of them seem to even (in desperation) side with or play nice with fascists to survive.
Non-libs who are also non-accelerationists are mostly just going to grow cynical and bitter. They aren’t going to throw their lives away for a violent revolution they did not sign up for.
Accelerationism is aggressively stupid and it will always fail. You wont get enough people willing to work with you to start a revolution when its obvious you dragged people into hell with you. You can’t create the conditions artificially. You just have a bunch of scared and angry people bickering and when they can afford it, fleeing.
So just to clarify, you’re perfectly fine sacrificing the millions of vulnerable people who will suffer and die under accelerationism, in exchange for the gamble that maybe your ideology might get more popular. And you have the gall to call libs “blue MAGA”?
This isn’t a game, people have already died because of this. Maybe crawl out of your bubble long enough to think about the outcomes of your gambits.
Considering libs, much like MAGA, want everyone who they think is on their side to fall in line and vote/support their chosen genocidal fascist and attack anyone who criticizes them by viewing them as the enemy (whether it be calling them an undercover agent from the other side or working with some foreign nation to make them lose), I don’t see a difference. We saw it last year with everyone that criticized Harris and we’re already seeing it again with anyone that criticizes Newsom. Hell I’ve even seen some of them doing it with criticism towards Jeffries.
Because American elections are first past the post, do you not know how that works? Voting for the person you like the most is foolish. You identify which of the two front-runners is most horrible, and vote for the other one to keep the worse one out.
If you want a better option, you need it to be one of the two front-runners, otherwise they’re just a spoiler. Pushing for an alternative that’s not a front-runner betrays a tragic political ignorance.
Look where that got us. It’s a bad strategy and needs to be retired.
Is it truly a bad strategy? Or is there much less direct action than what’s needed?
It being a bad strategy and also the best available strategy are not mutually exclusive. No presently actionable strategy has a better outcome.
So there’s no strategy that has a better outcome than Trump’s second term? You sure about that?
What? Trump’s second term is largely the result of not strategically voting for lesser evil.
What alternative, actionable strategy would have led to a different outcome? Actionable means “Everyone votes for the same third party” doesn’t count. So go on, what was the alternative strategy that had any chance whatsoever of succeeding?
I think you’re missing the point. The strategy out of the DNC going on two decades has been “our horrible candidate is less horrible than their candidate,” and it took a worldwide pandemic and thousands of deaths for it to work once.
They need to stop and find someone who isn’t horrible if they ever want to win again. That or just let the world burn and hope it’s only the neolibs that survive. I wouldn’t bet on that myself.
On the contrary, you missed the point. I do not set DNC policy, it does no good to tell me what they should be doing. If “making them lose” was going to affect their strategy, it would have worked in 2016.
I am but a lowly voter, who has to live in this country. As a human being, there are many options available to me to try to effect change. As a voter, I am functionally limited to choosing between the two most popular candidates.
Voting for the less fascist of the two is not what I want to be doing, but it is the most likely to support all the other non-electoral options available to my fellow humans, without sacrificing the vulnerable to the greater evil.