We’re already three layers deep in taking an extraordinarily complicated subject and boiling it down into simple political cartoons and hypothetical modifications to that cartoon.
You’re saying that the options are between “horrible” and “so apparently equally horrible as to make no apparent difference to the voting public.”
And I’m saying that even between the two options that you’re suggesting, there is a meaningful, even an important difference, and that not voting is still resulting in a worse outcome than voting for what seems to be an undesirable option.
Also, the subject isn’t even as simple as all that. In the real world, anyone capable of thinking ought to have been easily capable of seeing the material difference between the available options. It just turns out that “capable of thinking” is in catastrophically short supply in the real world.
You’re saying that the options are between “horrible” and “so apparently equally horrible as to make no apparent difference to the voting public.”
Nope.
Like you agreed with me: boots aren’t as good as killing insects as insecticide.
But they still kill insects.
My point was instead of trying to get the insects to vote for something that will kill less of them, insecticide would have been easily beaten by an option like “not killing any insects”, but obviously an option like “sugar water” would have done even better.
Ask more questions, make less assumptions.
You’ll actually learn stuff that way
Don’t assume you understand if something doesn’t make logical sense to you. Ask if you’re missing something.
My point was instead of trying to get the insects to vote for something that will kill less of them, insecticide would have been easily beaten by an option like “not killing any insects”, but obviously an option like “sugar water” would have done even better
And if wishes were horses everyone would ride, but we don’t live in that world. We try to make the best decisions we can, given the options available. It’s 2024, Sugar Water isn’t on the table, and we can impact the outcome of the election by choosing between Boot and Insecticide. One of those is in fact a better outcome for a bunch of bugs that don’t want to get eradicated. Refusing to play is still impacting the outcome of the election. Also, it really was not as bad as Insecticide vs. Boot. You simply cannot look around and claim in good faith that what we’re seeing in the streets is about the same, only in worse degree, than what would have happened if Kamala or even Biden for that matter, had been elected.
By the time it’s general election time, it’s too late to wish that Sugar Water were on the ballot. Engage early. Engage in lower level elections. Get Sugar Water elected to state level representation. Vote in primaries. But if all of that process has already taken place, and we still don’t choose the least bad option, then we are objectively helping the worst option to win.
I really do, actually.
We’re already three layers deep in taking an extraordinarily complicated subject and boiling it down into simple political cartoons and hypothetical modifications to that cartoon.
You’re saying that the options are between “horrible” and “so apparently equally horrible as to make no apparent difference to the voting public.”
And I’m saying that even between the two options that you’re suggesting, there is a meaningful, even an important difference, and that not voting is still resulting in a worse outcome than voting for what seems to be an undesirable option.
Also, the subject isn’t even as simple as all that. In the real world, anyone capable of thinking ought to have been easily capable of seeing the material difference between the available options. It just turns out that “capable of thinking” is in catastrophically short supply in the real world.
Nope.
Like you agreed with me: boots aren’t as good as killing insects as insecticide.
But they still kill insects.
My point was instead of trying to get the insects to vote for something that will kill less of them, insecticide would have been easily beaten by an option like “not killing any insects”, but obviously an option like “sugar water” would have done even better.
Ask more questions, make less assumptions.
You’ll actually learn stuff that way
Don’t assume you understand if something doesn’t make logical sense to you. Ask if you’re missing something.
Just don’t ask me, I won’t see it
And if wishes were horses everyone would ride, but we don’t live in that world. We try to make the best decisions we can, given the options available. It’s 2024, Sugar Water isn’t on the table, and we can impact the outcome of the election by choosing between Boot and Insecticide. One of those is in fact a better outcome for a bunch of bugs that don’t want to get eradicated. Refusing to play is still impacting the outcome of the election. Also, it really was not as bad as Insecticide vs. Boot. You simply cannot look around and claim in good faith that what we’re seeing in the streets is about the same, only in worse degree, than what would have happened if Kamala or even Biden for that matter, had been elected.
By the time it’s general election time, it’s too late to wish that Sugar Water were on the ballot. Engage early. Engage in lower level elections. Get Sugar Water elected to state level representation. Vote in primaries. But if all of that process has already taken place, and we still don’t choose the least bad option, then we are objectively helping the worst option to win.