It has been said a gazillion times over the last few months, but is it getting through to those who need to hear it?

  • OBJECTION!
    link
    fedilink
    0
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    It’s not “to preserve their voter purity.” At no point have I ever suggested that. It is a tactical choice to build power and exert influence.

    As I’ve told you, the worst possible thing to do in a negotiation is to tell the other side that you’ll agree to whatever terms they offer. If the left does this with the democrats, then the democrats will have no reason whatsoever to consider our concerns, they’ll just write us off and say, “So what if we tell you to go fuck yourself, what are you going to do, vote Republican?” The result is that they will keep following Republicans to the right, and things will get worse and worse, and that’s exactly what’s happened, and how we’ve gotten into this situation in the first place. Lesser-evilism is a failed ideology, that neither makes sense logically nor is supported by historical evidence.

    It’s long past time to grow a spine and make demands, and that’s the only possible way that we’re ever going to get the changes we need to address the root of the material problems that allowed Trump to come to prominence. Failure to address those problems is just kicking the can down the road, and if we don’t ever address them, then we will keep getting people like Trump forever. Voting for shitty corporate Dems forever is just kicking the can down the road and allowing problems to fester and get worse, there is absolutely zero chance of actually turning things around that way.

    Voting for a left-wing third party accomplishes two things, first, telling the democrats that there are votes available if they move left, and second, it begins the process of replacing and unseating them if they refuse. Both of those are longshots, but they at least have the potential to actually change things.

    You are strawmanning me when you describe my position as being “both sides are the same.” No, one side is substantially worse than the other. But both sides fail to meet the red line of “not supporting genocide,” and in a negotiation, if you have a red line, you should follow through with it if you don’t want to sacrifice all future credibility and bargaining power. It’s just game theory.

    • @davidagain
      link
      02 months ago

      It’s not a fing negotiation, it’s a chance to avert fascism for four more years and you don’t care. You just don’t fing care.

      • OBJECTION!
        link
        fedilink
        02 months ago

        Voting is a negotiation. I’m not willing to sacrifice my negotiating power out of desperation, because even if it worked, it would only kick the can down the road, while sacrificing any possibility of actually stopping fascism. It’s a doomed strategy.

        • @davidagain
          link
          02 months ago

          Fascism 2025 it is then. You’ve made your choice.

          • OBJECTION!
            link
            fedilink
            0
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            The democrats made that choice when they chose to alienate the left. They decided that they don’t need people like me to win, so we’ll see if that plays out for them. My position is set in stone, I’m not moving my red line on genocide (which is an extremely reasonable and justified line to draw), so it’s entirely their choice whether or not I’m part of their coalition.

            • @davidagain
              link
              02 months ago

              Fascism 2025 it is then. You’ve made your choice.