Yeah I voted for genocide. However, I voted for less genocide than we got from the right. I didn’t have a choice. I normally vote left, and if I took away my vote, that would mean the balance of US votes would shift right by a vote. This means that by not voting, I’d effectively be voting right. Doesn’t matter what my intentions were, the outcome was a shift towards the right, which would (and did) result in more genocide than if I had voted left. It’s not as bad as flipping my left vote to a right vote, which would effectively shift the balance right by 2 votes, but is still worse than voting for the less of two evils now, and continuing to vote in local elections and other, non-primary elections for much more progressive candidates so that I may someday not have to vote for the lesser of two evils in the future.
I understand that this is just playing the game they want us to play. I do get that. But if enough people were like me and voted for progressive candidates in all elections, even those outside of the primary, there wouldn’t be any game to play, the only available candidates on the left would be progressive. Too many people throw away their votes in smaller elections, which makes the primary election feel not worth it, because the candidate doesn’t line up with what you believe in. No shit, you didn’t vote in smaller elections, so why would someone with your same views end up as a candidate?
I say I voted for genocide because if you are eligible to vote in the US, you voted for genocide as well. Yeah, you can tell yourself that abstaining your vote is not voting for genocide, but unfortunately that’s just not true. All options in the the last US election were voting for genocide. The one choice you did get was what amount of genocide you were voting for, and the option of least genocide last election was voting left.
You can try to justify your action all you like. “If I don’t vote, the Democratic party will have to change if they don’t want to lose next time”, “I didn’t vote, which means I didn’t explicitly sign off on genocide”, etc. I’ve heard them all.
The Democratic party will not change, because the people in charge of it largely agree with what the Republicans are doing. The only way to get meaningful change from the Democratic party is to stack the deck of Presidential candidates with politicians that are wanting meaningful change. The way to do this is to vote in people that want meaningful change from the bottom up. And in the meantime, vote in the lesser of two evils to try and minimize the damage as much as possible before that happens.
Inaction is a form of action, and actions are defined by their outcomes. By not voting, the only meaningful outcome of your action was that more genocide is happening than if you voted left. Whatever other result you think is happening isn’t.
Okay, I read it. I agree with it all, and sure, perhaps the ability to change the Democratic party from the ground up is a bit fantastical. However, this does not contradict my main point, which is that by not voting, you voted for more genocide than by voting left. Even if you believe that, fundamentally, the only way to achieve change is by revolution, that doesn’t contradict my point. Not voting is not a form of revolution. As is laid out by the pamphlet, Revolution needs to come from outside the system, but that doesn’t mean you can just wash your hands from the consequences of your actions. Revolution doesn’t happen over night. I think everyone should be doing what they can to contribute to a revolution, but not voting does not do that. As people try and organize a revolution outside of the system, they should still use the systems in place to prevent as much tragedy in the meantime as they have power to do so, and by pretending you can ignore the system, you are actively contributing to worse tragedy then by partaking.
You’re going to have to make a real argument to defend your stance, calling me stupid and quoting an entire pamphlet isn’t really proving what you are trying to argue.
Yeah I voted for genocide. However, I voted for less genocide than we got from the right. I didn’t have a choice. I normally vote left, and if I took away my vote, that would mean the balance of US votes would shift right by a vote. This means that by not voting, I’d effectively be voting right. Doesn’t matter what my intentions were, the outcome was a shift towards the right, which would (and did) result in more genocide than if I had voted left. It’s not as bad as flipping my left vote to a right vote, which would effectively shift the balance right by 2 votes, but is still worse than voting for the less of two evils now, and continuing to vote in local elections and other, non-primary elections for much more progressive candidates so that I may someday not have to vote for the lesser of two evils in the future.
I understand that this is just playing the game they want us to play. I do get that. But if enough people were like me and voted for progressive candidates in all elections, even those outside of the primary, there wouldn’t be any game to play, the only available candidates on the left would be progressive. Too many people throw away their votes in smaller elections, which makes the primary election feel not worth it, because the candidate doesn’t line up with what you believe in. No shit, you didn’t vote in smaller elections, so why would someone with your same views end up as a candidate?
Is one hell of a fucking way to start a reply. I applaud your honesty at least, even if you’re clueless.
If I’m clueless, by all means educate me.
I say I voted for genocide because if you are eligible to vote in the US, you voted for genocide as well. Yeah, you can tell yourself that abstaining your vote is not voting for genocide, but unfortunately that’s just not true. All options in the the last US election were voting for genocide. The one choice you did get was what amount of genocide you were voting for, and the option of least genocide last election was voting left.
You can try to justify your action all you like. “If I don’t vote, the Democratic party will have to change if they don’t want to lose next time”, “I didn’t vote, which means I didn’t explicitly sign off on genocide”, etc. I’ve heard them all.
The Democratic party will not change, because the people in charge of it largely agree with what the Republicans are doing. The only way to get meaningful change from the Democratic party is to stack the deck of Presidential candidates with politicians that are wanting meaningful change. The way to do this is to vote in people that want meaningful change from the bottom up. And in the meantime, vote in the lesser of two evils to try and minimize the damage as much as possible before that happens.
Inaction is a form of action, and actions are defined by their outcomes. By not voting, the only meaningful outcome of your action was that more genocide is happening than if you voted left. Whatever other result you think is happening isn’t.
Read Reform or Revolution. You’re clueless but you don’t need to stay so.
Okay, I read it. I agree with it all, and sure, perhaps the ability to change the Democratic party from the ground up is a bit fantastical. However, this does not contradict my main point, which is that by not voting, you voted for more genocide than by voting left. Even if you believe that, fundamentally, the only way to achieve change is by revolution, that doesn’t contradict my point. Not voting is not a form of revolution. As is laid out by the pamphlet, Revolution needs to come from outside the system, but that doesn’t mean you can just wash your hands from the consequences of your actions. Revolution doesn’t happen over night. I think everyone should be doing what they can to contribute to a revolution, but not voting does not do that. As people try and organize a revolution outside of the system, they should still use the systems in place to prevent as much tragedy in the meantime as they have power to do so, and by pretending you can ignore the system, you are actively contributing to worse tragedy then by partaking.
You’re going to have to make a real argument to defend your stance, calling me stupid and quoting an entire pamphlet isn’t really proving what you are trying to argue.