robinoberg@feddit.uk to Memes@lemmy.ml · 13 days agoVoting for the lesser evil is still evilfeddit.ukimagemessage-square307fedilinkarrow-up1662arrow-down1184
arrow-up1478arrow-down1imageVoting for the lesser evil is still evilfeddit.ukrobinoberg@feddit.uk to Memes@lemmy.ml · 13 days agomessage-square307fedilink
minus-squaredeaf_fish@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down2·edit-211 days agoOk, so why not vote for the lesser evil then? It would increase the amount of time we have to organize without fascists cracking down on us.
minus-squareBrainInABox@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·11 days agoThe fascists have already been cracking down on people trying to organize.
minus-squarePrunebutt@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkarrow-up3arrow-down1·11 days agoSo your solution is defeatism? A bold strategy, let’s see how it pays off. /s
minus-squaredeaf_fish@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down2·11 days agoYes! Why not vote for the lesser evil to prevent harsher crackdowns than you would otherwise get?
minus-squarePrunebutt@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down1·11 days agoBecause it doesn’t prevent anything.
minus-squaredeaf_fish@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down1·11 days agoAt the end, yes, both outcomes are the same unless organization is successful. Why make organizing any harder than it needs to be?
minus-squarePrunebutt@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·11 days agoI think I have a rock that keeps tigers away to sell you
minus-squaredeaf_fish@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up2·11 days agoI am confused by your reply. What is the “rock” I am buying?
minus-squarePrunebutt@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down2·11 days agoDid you watch the video? The rock that keeps tigers away is like voting that makes organizing easier. Politicians react to organized mass movements, rather than elections. You got it backwards.
minus-squaredeaf_fish@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up2·11 days agoI did watch the video. I agree that mass movements are what is required for change. I don’t understand, what am I buying?
minus-squarePrunebutt@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·11 days agoI’m not arguing against voting. I’m claiming that it’s not a valid strategy. You can partake, if you really want to.
minus-squaredeaf_fish@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up2·11 days agoOk, this could just be me getting lost in the comment chain. To be clear you don’t think voting for the lesser evil is harmful, but you also don’t think it is a valid strategy. If that is true, I see no inconstancies in your arguments.
minus-squarePrunebutt@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·11 days agoPretty much. Since electoralism is inconsequential for progressive change: vote if you want. Advocating voting for a lesser evil could be considered harmful, though.
minus-squaredeaf_fish@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up2·11 days ago Advocating voting for a lesser evil could be considered harmful, though. Why?
minus-squarePrunebutt@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·11 days agoBecause it suggests that it’s sufficient for progressive change.
minus-squaredeaf_fish@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up2·edit-211 days agoI don’t think it does. Don’t get me wrong. I know people who want to believe voting is all that is necessary for progressive change, but they are wrong. Edit: How does voting for the lesser evil suggest that it’s sufficient for progressive change?
minus-squarePrunebutt@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·edit-211 days ago How does voting for the lesser evil suggest that it’s sufficient for progressive change? I said advocatingy for voting…
minus-squaredeaf_fish@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up1·11 days agoOk how does advocating for voting for the lesser evil suggest that voting for the lesser evil is sufficient for progressive change? Is that better?
Ok, so why not vote for the lesser evil then? It would increase the amount of time we have to organize without fascists cracking down on us.
The fascists have already been cracking down on people trying to organize.
So your solution is defeatism?
A bold strategy, let’s see how it pays off. /s
Yes! Why not vote for the lesser evil to prevent harsher crackdowns than you would otherwise get?
Because it doesn’t prevent anything.
At the end, yes, both outcomes are the same unless organization is successful. Why make organizing any harder than it needs to be?
I think I have a rock that keeps tigers away to sell you
I am confused by your reply. What is the “rock” I am buying?
Did you watch the video? The rock that keeps tigers away is like voting that makes organizing easier.
Politicians react to organized mass movements, rather than elections. You got it backwards.
I did watch the video. I agree that mass movements are what is required for change. I don’t understand, what am I buying?
I’m not arguing against voting. I’m claiming that it’s not a valid strategy. You can partake, if you really want to.
Ok, this could just be me getting lost in the comment chain. To be clear you don’t think voting for the lesser evil is harmful, but you also don’t think it is a valid strategy. If that is true, I see no inconstancies in your arguments.
Pretty much. Since electoralism is inconsequential for progressive change: vote if you want.
Advocating voting for a lesser evil could be considered harmful, though.
Why?
Because it suggests that it’s sufficient for progressive change.
I don’t think it does.
Don’t get me wrong. I know people who want to believe voting is all that is necessary for progressive change, but they are wrong.
Edit: How does voting for the lesser evil suggest that it’s sufficient for progressive change?
I said advocatingy for voting…
Ok how does advocating for voting for the lesser evil suggest that voting for the lesser evil is sufficient for progressive change? Is that better?