you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -85 points 1 year ago (39 children)

Am I? I just hate the lesser evil bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    Hate it all you want, but until you can establish a viable third party (who isn't also awful), "lesser of two evils" is the only choice you have.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] -24 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    That's what Chomsky said too, I don't buy it. In my country there are 10+ parties, 6 of which in government, and people are still playing the lesser evil game in the deluded hope they can shift the window.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    That’s… life. You’ve never not made a lesser-of-two-evils choice. It’s metaphysically impossible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Very interesting viewpoint but it doesn't quite seem to apply when choosing flavors at an ice cream parlor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    It does, actually. Ice cream can put you at grave risk of brain freeze.

    If you want to be philosophical about it, consider this: If there weren’t pros and cons, you wouldn’t be making a choice at all. (You would be acting arbitrarily.)

    And even breathing has downsides. For instance, it means I must continue sharing the planet with you. This is terrible news. (Also my nose is cold.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    It does, actually. Ice cream can put you at grave risk of brain freeze.

    Good point! Then again, I don't think some flavors result in less brain freeze than others.

    Even breathing has downsides.

    True as well, every breath destroys lung cells.

    If you want to be philosophical about it, consider this: If there weren’t pros and cons, you wouldn’t be making a choice at all.

    This, however, I'm having a hard time to agree with. Come to think of it, I'm not even sure choice is something natural, but that will require some deeper investigation to ascertain. In a fictional natural state, when looking for a place to sleep, would a "family" really (have to) make a conscious choice between this cave and that one?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Thanks! To your last point, I see any meaningful choice as fundamentally deliberative. If competing actions have no discriminating features (over which to deliberate), e.g., by being equally bad or good, then your decision would be arbitrary. Acting at random isn’t a deliberative procedure (evaluative, judgment-oriented, rule-bounded, normative, moral, or praiseworthy) and therefore not a meaningful choice.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Yes and every time you vote in our little country it's still for the least bad party. It's the nature of politics. You may like a party, but it still has politicians in it, who are human. Humans seem to be inherently flawed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The nature of parliamentary politics sure, but that's just oligarchy with a thin veneer of democracy. No politician is ever responsible, stronger still, the more they push austerity, the more they are rewarded with top-level positions in international institutions. That is what drives politicians, not the betterment of their people. So I can't undo myself of the impression that participating in this sham is reinforcing it, legitimizing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    What is the alternative though?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    That's the most important question of our time. We have only a few decades to not only come up with that answer, but also with its rigorous implementation.

    There seem to be many theories and strategies, either working within and outside the current system, but few seem ideal. Further worsened by the fact that the more ideal a solution seems, the more change it requires of regular folks, thus the more resistance it will face.

    But then again, I'm sure once more people see the necessity of it, more discussions will happen, hopefully resulting in better contemporary strategies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    We have only a few decades to not only come up with that answer, but also with its rigorous implementation.

    nononono.

    We either have it NOW or we vote for the lesser evil. There is no waiting, it only causes fascism to rise

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    An Inconvenient Truth came out almost 20 years ago. The "lesser evils" have had what, 3 terms, in that period? So projecting into the future, the next 3 DNC administrations will have a lot of work to do to solve this completely.

    So yea, go ahead and keep that hope alive, but then also permit me to remain skeptical.

    Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

    people vothing third party despite being warned a bilion times that because of them (and you) trump will get elected. ._.

    So yea, go ahead and keep that hope alive, but then also permit me to remain skeptical.

    your skepticism has directly caused the deportation of milions, including the woman referenced by this post.

    If that's what you wanted all along, then yes, i do permit you to help trump, separate families, kill off black people and restore the aryan race.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (10 children)

    Lol what is it that people like you don't understand? Do you want to be kicked in the nuts twice or once? Easy fucking choice every single time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    I'd reckon it's more natural to try and avoid any nut-kicking, but hey, that's me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    That's not an option. So that just means you are delusional.
    If you didn't vote for Harris, you helped Trump get elected. That's basically the same as voting for Trump.
    All the morons that for instance criticized how Democrats handled Israel/Gaza, and recommended not to vote Democrat, are partly responsible for what's going on there now, with no help coming through, and widespread starvation and disease!
    All the morons that complained about inflation, despite it was getting back to normal after COVID, are responsible for the economic chaos we have now.

    By not supporting the lesser evil, you are actually helping the greater evil.
    There are lots of way more constructive things to do, that can help push things in the right direction, than just being in denial.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    One could argue that by voting you're supporting the status quo, the bipartisan democracy heavily invested in said status quo. You are the one obstructing change.

    Or to say it with a quote:

    If democracy demands compulsory voting for candidates people can't believe in, it's not democracy, it's extortion.

    EDIT: One further thought on that reasoning: it might actually make one morally obliged to vote for a third party.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    One can argue anything, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.
    If you want to change American democracy, which I agree is sorely needed, then you need to engage actively in politics. UNTIL such change has arrived, you are still a moron for not preventing a greater evil, when you are given that option.
    You are saying you won't use the democratic option you have because it's not democratic enough. Well I got news for you, democracy can never be perfect, because democracy is about compromise.
    Here we have 12 parties in parliament we can vote on, so we have options for mostly everyone. But it's still a game of compromise.
    If you can't find the best compromise among 2 parties, you sure as hell can't among several either. You just want to whine, so you would probably still whine even if you lived in the best democracy in the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Very well put, I had the patience for one sentence, you did well

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Thanks, IDK if he was trolling or a Russian asset undermining the west, or if he really could be that stupid?
    I just thought it important not to let his idiocy stand. Because I think people like him are harmful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Harmful for sure, and unfortunately it has a very good chance of being idiot. Sad to say, but best case scenario is either Russian asset or trolling. I've met people, and I gotta say those options are unlikely.

    God help us all.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I wasn't going to comment on this originally but.....

    What a fucking dipshit stupid non-answer that also exposes how little you think and how little empathy you have.

    Oh I'll just not participate and I'll never be subject to whatever law/power that happens next, but more importantly fuck everyone around me that this will effect far more than I, because I'm privileged enough to not have to really think of dealing with it. I live in moron-land where only my thoughts dictate what happens in the world.

    Your actions have affected lives around you whether you believe in it or not, stop being this fucking naive in the face of all the people you've let down. Shame on you.

    P.S. to mods, before canning this comment, do a real good think about how uncivilized having an opinion like this really is. Weigh out who's really affected by this type of thinking and spreading it vs. this one moron's feelings for once.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    There are arguments to be made in favor of that yes, in the sense accelerationism. But that is based on the delusion that the fascist state will eat itself in the end, which is not guaranteed. That and all the suffering of course.

    What I'd really prefer is not to have a corrupt lying stooge between me and decision-making.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Accelerationism is a horrible idea. It's based on the ideas that,

    1. We can't prevent having a fascist state now and then,

    2. We can afford the waste and suffering this causes.

    With climate change, it should be clear that we can no longer afford the luxuries of wars or even culture wars. Technological advancement should allow us to live with far less waste and far less labor than we do. But that would mean departing from capitalism entirely. We need that post scarcity society now. Resource wise it's a lot cheaper than what we have now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    No argument here, I wholeheartedly agree. But let me state the obvious: parliamentary democracy is a feature of capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I agree that it currently is, but it doesn't have to be.

    I really don't know how to solve these problems. It would require people to stop being selfish, scared , petty and mean to start with, but there is a huge propaganda machine fanning on those feelings constantly. Revolution is a huge waste of resources, energy and people and usually leads to a new government by the new batch of the most eager and ruthless opportunists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    At the moment, it's hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel. People currently do seem as you describe, but I'm confident it's not their inherent nature. They were taught to be that way, so perhaps there's a way to unteach.

    Eventually, I reckon we're progressing towards a point where the state will no longer have sufficient funds for the most basic services towards their citizens. People at that point do have an incentive to be compassionate. Not sure if a state failing will provide for enough time for people to organize mutual aid groups and networks they can depend on, but at least it's a glimmer of hope.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You are very optimistic. You need the state to optimize sharing of resources because without it you get smaller and smaller tribal groups competing. Mutual aid groups on a voluntary basis alone are easily splintered and there are too many people who get a kick out of destruction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    You need the state to optimize sharing of resources

    I don't believe this to be true. There were no states in the earliest of tribes, yet they survived:

    early human societies managed resources through communal efforts and mutual agreements without the need for a centralized authority. These tribes relied on shared cultural norms and direct cooperation among members to allocate and utilize resources effectively. The absence of a formal state did not prevent them from thriving. Instead, it fostered a sense of collective responsibility and interdependence. This demonstrates that resource sharing can be successfully managed through decentralized and community-driven approaches, challenging the notion that a state is essential for optimizing resource distribution.

    you get smaller and smaller tribal groups competing

    Over scarce resources - yes that is a plausible scenario indeed. That's why a plan is essential in order for people to be able to believe in such an undertaking. The groups will need to federate on the level of neighborhoods, towns, cities, states, nationals, and eventually, the planet. If attained, that's all the protection they'll need. But granted, that's a big if.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • There were no states in the earliest of tribes, yet they survived:

    they survived by... say it with me kids.... EVOLVING INTO STATES!!!

    the following quote you provided having been generated from chatgpt does not make your argument sound any better

    Over scarce resources - yes that is a plausible scenario indeed.

    Hmm i wonder where i could find a realistic scenario with ever decreasing resources, climate change, increasing wildfires, greed and corruption, i really do wonder if such an idealized and completely theoretical world exists.

    The groups will need to federate on the level of neighborhoods, towns, cities, states, nationals, and eventually, the planet

    Soo.. towns government, state governments etc etc? just like now?

  • source
  • parent