this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
385 points (77.9% liked)
Memes
45403 readers
1247 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Turns out, if you're further left than either realistic candidate (because FPTP), it makes it really easy to figure out who you should vote for. "I wonder if I should vote for the person who's not left enough for my liking, or the one is so far beyond that as to be the diametric opposite of left. Whatever shall I do?"
Yeah, the "you're voting for genocide" argument is also ridiculous, as the choices essentially boil down to:
π² One genocide (with a potential of partial mitigation)
π² 2+ genocides (and the one being even worse)
π² Don't care (in green)
π² Don't care (in yellow)
etc.
Genocide is bad. That should not be a controversial statement. I will use my vote to choose the least genocide that it has the power to choose, and I will use my other energy to advocate for less (and hopefully zero) genocide.
You don't have to like that fact. I certainly don't like it. But this is exactly what harm reduction looks like.
This is just a monstrous reframing of a bipartisan genocide. Voting dem or voting rep is a vote for genocide, full stop, because they support the same genocide to the same magnitude, materially. Pretending Dems are better because genocide makes some of their voterbase sad is wrong.
Then vote Greens or PSL.
Dont care may be not voting at all, not automatically applicable to people who vote for the candidates libs dont like.
Well, the electoral college isn't actually FPTP, it's even worse than that.
Youβre not wrong. I was keeping it simple.
eh. one thing is to choose a candidate who seem less bad somehow, another is to be an actual liberal.