i mean not really, it’s not out of moralism that i choose not to vote for genocidal warmonger red/blue, in fact the moralism is thinking voting for genocidaires is ‘pragmatic’. not to mention continuing to votescold people over a year later lmao
organizing outside electoralism builds actual power. voting for slightly different managers of the same bloodthirsty war machine doesn’t
While organizing outside electoralism is great, electoralism is still the primary way power is apportioned in this country. Abandoning electoralism is ceding power to people who will use it for evil.
if the ‘future of the world’ hinges on genociding an expendible out-group and the system is powerless to change that, then i choose to walk away from omelas
voting against genocide and organizing outside a system which can’t stop empowering genocidal warmongers is actually in line with both my principles and my morals
Voting for neither is the same as voting for both.
if voting for neither is the same voting for both, then can we formally acknowledge that my vote makes zero difference and maybe people can stop votescolding?
No, because voting for one is not the same as voting for neither/both.
Voting for the perfect candidate > voting for A > not voting > voting for B
The perfect candidate didn’t exist, but instead of choosing the second best option, you chose the third best option, and we ended up with the worst option because a lot of people did what you did. Thanks a bunch.
i mean not really, it’s not out of moralism that i choose not to vote for genocidal warmonger red/blue, in fact the moralism is thinking voting for genocidaires is ‘pragmatic’. not to mention continuing to votescold people over a year later lmao
organizing outside electoralism builds actual power. voting for slightly different managers of the same bloodthirsty war machine doesn’t
While organizing outside electoralism is great, electoralism is still the primary way power is apportioned in this country. Abandoning electoralism is ceding power to people who will use it for evil.
The stakes are the future of the world.
if the ‘future of the world’ hinges on genociding an expendible out-group and the system is powerless to change that, then i choose to walk away from omelas
Congratulations on standing by your principles instead of by your morals.
voting against genocide and organizing outside a system which can’t stop empowering genocidal warmongers is actually in line with both my principles and my morals
Voting for neither is the same as voting for both.
if voting for neither is the same voting for both, then can we formally acknowledge that my vote makes zero difference and maybe people can stop votescolding?
No, because voting for one is not the same as voting for neither/both.
Voting for the perfect candidate > voting for A > not voting > voting for B
The perfect candidate didn’t exist, but instead of choosing the second best option, you chose the third best option, and we ended up with the worst option because a lot of people did what you did. Thanks a bunch.