What it comes down to is do you care about reducing the harm in the real world, or if you care more about having a clean conscience. Your protest third party vote undoubtedly makes more genocide more likely in the real world, but you get to feel good about not compromising your beliefs, which has its own merit.
If you value a clean conscience over reducing harm in the real world, you do you, I just want to make sure you’re aware of the decision you’re making.
The person you’re arguing with is either wantonly dishonest, insane, or both. They’re entirely unreasonable and arguing with them will get you nowhere. On top of that, the audience has moved on. Literally nothing can be gained by continuing the conversation except for frustrating yourself.
What it comes down to is do you care about reducing the harm in the real world, or if you care more about having a clean conscience. Your protest third party vote undoubtedly makes more genocide more likely in the real world, but you get to feel good about not compromising your beliefs, which has its own merit.
If you value a clean conscience over reducing harm in the real world, you do you, I just want to make sure you’re aware of the decision you’re making.
Just because you’ve convinced yourself that it works this way doesn’t mean it’s so.
You’re voting for a progenocide candidate. Just remember that when you think “harm reduction”.
Do you have any actual counterpoints, or is “nuh uh” the big one?
What are the odds, in your opinion, of a third party vote helping palestinians in the real world?
The person you’re arguing with is either wantonly dishonest, insane, or both. They’re entirely unreasonable and arguing with them will get you nowhere. On top of that, the audience has moved on. Literally nothing can be gained by continuing the conversation except for frustrating yourself.