Voting is always an act of harm reduction. Choosing to vote for a non-viable option or not vote is a statement that neither you nor those you care about (in life or the abstract) are in minimal risk of harm or you don’t care about the harm they may undergo.
And honestly I suspect there is a lot of astroturf trying to make the argument. Far too many people on social media are using the same talking points, eg “I can’t support a genocide enabler.” Which is a valid issue, but it’s disingenuous to think that Trump is going to be better for Palestine. Harris, being a human being with empathy, would certainly want the violence to end. Trump wants the genocide to finish. He’s said that. A Jill Stein protest vote is nothing.
Mods have always removed my comments if they think I have broken the rules.
I get no favoritism from the mods, nor have I ever I asked for it.
Buuuuutttt you should probably check what comment was removed before ya celebrate too much. I don’t think it’s quite the “gotcha” you were hoping for. :)
The mods have never shown me favoritism. In fact, as you pointed out, some of my comments were removed recently. I have no idea what you are going on about.
You trying to bully and pressure meis either privilege or sociopathy.
I did neither, in fact I don’t even respond to your comment where you might think I was responding directly to you.
Considering any third party is viable in the system as it exists today, make as much sense as playing Chess using the rules from Candy Land. It’s delusional and detached from reality.
It’s an unfortunate mathematical truth and no amount of wishing it otherwise will change that. That’s why for any non-primary election, it must be treated as harm reduction above all.
I’ll leave this here in hopes you’ll watch it. There is no way for what you’re hoping to actually succeed in the current environment. The only way out is through and the only way through is voting as harm reduction.
1, voting is not harm reduction, and 2, that video has given you a false conclusion. the lesson we should learn is that strategic voting leads to party consolidation, and the only way to keep third parties is to continue to vote for them.
This poster gets SOOO close to making an observation that would utterly destroy its half-baked, IMO inauthentic reasoning, if it’d only take a closer look at what it’s saying. So, I’ll close the gap here.
Suppose we could wave our magic wand and get everyone to agree with this poster, getting everyone who is voting Kamala Harris today to vote for … Rachele Fruit. But the price of this vote is that everyone who WAS voting Rachele Fruit now has to vote Kamala Harris. Suddenly, it’s Harris who is spoiling the vote for Fruit…and Jill Stein remains as much as spoiler for Fruit in this magic universe as she is for Harris in this real one. That’s the problem with third parties. No matter how the votes line up, whether it be for the Social Workers Party in this parallel universe or the Democrats in this one, votes for Third Parties merely harm your political ideology by taking away votes from the major party on your side of the political aisle and empower the major party most opposite of your ideology. You’d have to go to another parallel where we made Ranked Choice voting work before you could risk a SWP vote in a Rep-Dem world or a Dem vote in a Rep-SWP world.
💯
Voting is always an act of harm reduction. Choosing to vote for a non-viable option or not vote is a statement that neither you nor those you care about (in life or the abstract) are in minimal risk of harm or you don’t care about the harm they may undergo.
That’s either privilege or sociopathy.
And honestly I suspect there is a lot of astroturf trying to make the argument. Far too many people on social media are using the same talking points, eg “I can’t support a genocide enabler.” Which is a valid issue, but it’s disingenuous to think that Trump is going to be better for Palestine. Harris, being a human being with empathy, would certainly want the violence to end. Trump wants the genocide to finish. He’s said that. A Jill Stein protest vote is nothing.
Well, I’m not voting for Stein. And according to Lemmy everyone who isn’t voting for Harris is a russian agent.
It’s not everyone. But it’s not no one, either. It’s hard to separate the liars from the people who don’t know any better.
Then maybe let’s not be so quick to label someone a russian agent just because they are not voting for your candidate then.
Removed by mod
Goddamn, Mods, you finally remove something this poster says? Are you starting to see the light in regards to this…person?
Mods have always removed my comments if they think I have broken the rules.
I get no favoritism from the mods, nor have I ever I asked for it.
Buuuuutttt you should probably check what comment was removed before ya celebrate too much. I don’t think it’s quite the “gotcha” you were hoping for. :)
Removed by mod
The mods have never shown me favoritism. In fact, as you pointed out, some of my comments were removed recently. I have no idea what you are going on about.
You trying to bully and pressure me is either privilege or sociopathy.I did neither, in fact I don’t even respond to your comment where you might think I was responding directly to you.
Considering any third party is viable in the system as it exists today, make as much sense as playing Chess using the rules from Candy Land. It’s delusional and detached from reality.
It’s an unfortunate mathematical truth and no amount of wishing it otherwise will change that. That’s why for any non-primary election, it must be treated as harm reduction above all.
How election math works: a vote for Harris is taking a vote away from a third party candidate and is giving it to Trump.
I’ll leave this here in hopes you’ll watch it. There is no way for what you’re hoping to actually succeed in the current environment. The only way out is through and the only way through is voting as harm reduction.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
1, voting is not harm reduction, and 2, that video has given you a false conclusion. the lesson we should learn is that strategic voting leads to party consolidation, and the only way to keep third parties is to continue to vote for them.
harm reduction is a specific thing. voting is not harm reduction.
Unless you care about truth in which case it absolutely is harm reduction
I’m voting third party. I don’t care what you think. Thank you!
This poster gets SOOO close to making an observation that would utterly destroy its half-baked, IMO inauthentic reasoning, if it’d only take a closer look at what it’s saying. So, I’ll close the gap here.
Suppose we could wave our magic wand and get everyone to agree with this poster, getting everyone who is voting Kamala Harris today to vote for … Rachele Fruit. But the price of this vote is that everyone who WAS voting Rachele Fruit now has to vote Kamala Harris. Suddenly, it’s Harris who is spoiling the vote for Fruit…and Jill Stein remains as much as spoiler for Fruit in this magic universe as she is for Harris in this real one. That’s the problem with third parties. No matter how the votes line up, whether it be for the Social Workers Party in this parallel universe or the Democrats in this one, votes for Third Parties merely harm your political ideology by taking away votes from the major party on your side of the political aisle and empower the major party most opposite of your ideology. You’d have to go to another parallel where we made Ranked Choice voting work before you could risk a SWP vote in a Rep-Dem world or a Dem vote in a Rep-SWP world.
SOOOO close, yet so far away.
I don’t care. I am happily voting third-party. Even if you don’t like it. Thank you! :)
And the way your post is worded makes think that you may be coming from a place of either privilege or sociopathy.
Just because someone disagree with you, doesn’t mean they have privilege or that they are sociopaths. Thank you!