A tribe holds a vote to either cross a bridge to side A or stay on side B. Staying on side A means you won’t have much food. Going to side B means you still won’t have much food, but also most of the food is poisonous.
Part of the tribe (Group C) says “I don’t want to starve, I refuse to vote in a way that accepts malnourishment as a solution!” Group C also opposes eating poisonous food. This partial group votes to try and find a better source of food (option C).
48% of people vote A. 49% of people vote B. 3% of people vote C.
Surprise, surprise, Group C had 0 impact on the starving situation AND helped facilitate the eating of poisonous food.
I agree with you. If we could get the entirety of the democratic party to vote green/left, that would be super helpful. We both know that’s not happening in America because of the broken electoral and political system. If we could suppress option C, we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all, but there would surely be other complaints to be had regarding that matter.
In the end, the Group C votes are equivalent to not voting, which translates to having 0 impact on the outcome of vote. This exemplifies complicity with either option A or B.
Sorry, you’re right. My story doesn’t quite match the election dynamic. In the hypothetical, Group C should be extremely aware that they cannot win the popular vote, since most tribe members are either unaware of or have no faith in option C.
In which case, yes, continuing to vote for option C is complicity with outcome A or B.
Definition of complicit denotes otherwise. If making the right choice is unpopular, that doesn’t make you complicit with another choice. You’re conflating the two choices. Why is it Group C’s fault the other groups can’t get their shit together. Stop bullying people to vote the way you want. It makes you look weak.
This is a make-or-break moment – we must pressure the Democrats to change their position on Gaza before the elections in November. While we should all be doing absolutely everything we can to stop the genocide, the bare minimum right now is demanding that a presidential hopeful, in need of our votes, commits to ending US funds to Israel. It is not that complicated. source
Not voting is a vote for Trump.
That’s not logical. So, if my choices are pizza or nuggies, and I choose neither. Then I chose nuggies? Make it make sense.
I may be intermittent fasting to lose weight, or rejecting imperialist capitalism.
A tribe holds a vote to either cross a bridge to side A or stay on side B. Staying on side A means you won’t have much food. Going to side B means you still won’t have much food, but also most of the food is poisonous.
Part of the tribe (Group C) says “I don’t want to starve, I refuse to vote in a way that accepts malnourishment as a solution!” Group C also opposes eating poisonous food. This partial group votes to try and find a better source of food (option C).
48% of people vote A. 49% of people vote B. 3% of people vote C.
Surprise, surprise, Group C had 0 impact on the starving situation AND helped facilitate the eating of poisonous food.
Seems like more from the other Groups should have voted with C, or C shouldn’t have been given the option to find a better source for food.
I agree with you. If we could get the entirety of the democratic party to vote green/left, that would be super helpful. We both know that’s not happening in America because of the broken electoral and political system. If we could suppress option C, we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all, but there would surely be other complaints to be had regarding that matter.
In the end, the Group C votes are equivalent to not voting, which translates to having 0 impact on the outcome of vote. This exemplifies complicity with either option A or B.
Group C is not complicit for being honest.
Sorry, you’re right. My story doesn’t quite match the election dynamic. In the hypothetical, Group C should be extremely aware that they cannot win the popular vote, since most tribe members are either unaware of or have no faith in option C.
In which case, yes, continuing to vote for option C is complicity with outcome A or B.
Definition of complicit denotes otherwise. If making the right choice is unpopular, that doesn’t make you complicit with another choice. You’re conflating the two choices. Why is it Group C’s fault the other groups can’t get their shit together. Stop bullying people to vote the way you want. It makes you look weak.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
It’s interesting that people assume that someone is not voting, or voting for third parties, just because they’re critical of Harris.
deleted by creator
It’s about one person choosing not to vote for Harris.