jaaake

joined 1 year ago
[–] jaaake@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Did you mean to respond to a different comment? Cause you seem to be agreeing with the initial post that you’re replying to.

[–] jaaake@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

You're trying to say that minor, inconsequential elections are the best way to increase visibility?

No, I’m saying make noises in rooms where you can be heard.

[–] jaaake@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yes! Literally this is what I’m trying to say!

[–] jaaake@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Completely agree, DNC & GOP are far too similar. I’m focused on the differences between them. They are also significant.

There is no net negative of increasing exposure for PSL. Increasing PSL exposure is a good thing. The net negative is in voting PSL on a presidential ballot. There are not enough people concentrated in any area for PSL to register enough to cause any exposure. It simply won’t register in a contest this large. Voting PSL in that contest is only taking votes away from one of the two parties that are going to win. If we can agree that DNC and GOP have differences between them, then those differences should be enough to decide where to spend your vote in that contest. The net negative comes in where the vote for PSL could have fallen in one of the two columns that matter in this contest. Instead of going in those columns, it causes those columns to come up one vote short.

Having a PSL candidate that gained 16% running for Mayor of Long Beach in 2010 is a great way to increase exposure. That’s a blip that registers. That’s only possible in local elections at the moment.

[–] jaaake@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago (6 children)

I don’t understand why you can’t recognize that you can do both. Voting to mitigate as much damage as possible doesn’t mean DON’T organize and protect yourself. Casting a vote for the party that is less likely to trample individual rights in less arenas is more effective than wasting a vote on something that has a net negative effect. Voting is the absolute minimum and takes near zero time and effort and has potential (depending on where you live) to affect millions of lives.

[–] jaaake@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Reject both all you want. One will run the country in 4 months.

[–] jaaake@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] jaaake@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago (10 children)

Your choices for the presidential election are DNC and GOP. If you think that those options are completely equivocal, I don’t think this conversation is worth continuing.

[–] jaaake@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The only way it’s best to protest under Trump is if you want to die while protesting.

[–] jaaake@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That tells me that increasing suffering isn't actually relevant.

Big oof

[–] jaaake@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That’s what happens when you don’t vote or vote for a third party.

 

Nobody likes voting for the “lesser of two evils.” Casting a vote in favor of someone who is diametrically opposed to your viewpoint(s) absolutely sucks. The shitty reality is that we aren’t going to change the electoral process in the next two months.

If you don’t see either major candidate as a champion that you can support, it seems more beneficial to see it as selecting your enemy for the next four years. I would rather fight against someone that I have a chance of changing. At minimum I would rather protest against someone that I think has a lower chance of authorizing lethal force against a march that I attend.

Voting for a 3rd presidential candidate (or not voting at all), is letting someone else make that decision for you.

That said, we have got to get out of this constant cycle of only having two options. There’s too much money at a national level to start there. We’ve got to start local and get third party candidates into offices at a city level, then state, then national. It’s going to take a long time and it should have happened so very long ago. We can’t change the past, we can only change the future. The only time to start changing the future is in the present.

view more: next ›