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.
Who is “y’all”? What exactly do you think is “something productive” and what are you doing, besides making things worse through electoral misinformation?
To tell me why you aren’t doing the productive things you’re whining about no one else doing?
Do you think I’m a DNC strategist? Do you think I’m anyone other than an exasperated leftist trying to get foolish leftists to stop shooting themselves in the foot so much (literally impossible I don’t know why I bother)?
Maybe I’m deliberately ignoring the context clues because the associated conclusion is completely asinine, and I’m giving you a chance to correct course.
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.
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.
How many decades of voting for the lesser of two evils do you people need before you realize that is just allowing things to get progressively worse?
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.
Maybe y’all should do something productive instead of making things worse.
Who is “y’all”? What exactly do you think is “something productive” and what are you doing, besides making things worse through electoral misinformation?
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. But sure, y’all voting for evil helps too.
Then why aren’t you doing that? And again, who is “y’all”?
Jesus Christ, use fucking context clues.
To tell me why you aren’t doing the productive things you’re whining about no one else doing?
Do you think I’m a DNC strategist? Do you think I’m anyone other than an exasperated leftist trying to get foolish leftists to stop shooting themselves in the foot so much (literally impossible I don’t know why I bother)?
Maybe I’m deliberately ignoring the context clues because the associated conclusion is completely asinine, and I’m giving you a chance to correct course.
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.