Who said I’m pouting/not playing. just because i dont for your candidate doesnt mean Im not taking actions. Sorry I’m currently busy running a network protecting my local community from the jackboots. LMK when you have a candidate who isnt running on ‘planning to murder friends and family in the middle east’ and ‘going to continue promoting corporate interests at the expense of working americans’ and I’ll vote for them.
You’re literally doing the same thing the person who I called out is doing. inferring incorrect motives from a noisy signal.
I’m just curious if you’re getting involved in grassroots activism, promoting candidates you agree with, canvassing the neighborhood to try to drum up support, etc. Because these are the sorts of things that need to happen in order to produce a candidate you agree with. It’s completely disienguous to put the entire onus of finding a candidate you agree with on other people.
I want you to vote. I care less about who you vote for than I do you voting at all. Exercising your civic right to choose your representation is a big deal, and I encourage you to stop getting mad at other people for not doing your own legwork, and instead get out there and promote a candidate you agree with. Hell, maybe you should run yourself. I don’t know, but I do know that sitting around getting mad because you don’t like the major candidates without doing anything about it gets us all nowhere.
Oh so now someone has to promote candidates they agree with in order to be involved in grassroots organizing
this is an anarchist space
Why is it so hard for people to get that the problem is the system, that by promoting any candidate for any role is promoting the system itself? There will never be a candidate I agree with because the people who are empowered by the American constitution to dissolve the union aren’t elected officials.
“I tried nothing and it didn’t work” isn’t a strategy that works for me.
I’m not going to sit on my butt and complain into the void. I will do everything I can to get to where I want the world to where I hope it can go.
Organizing is not in conflict with anarchism.
Pretending the system doesn’t exist or that not participating in any way will change it is a fool’s errand.
Feel free to find another way to participate, but trying to push others to not do what they can, to me, is (at best) an effort to continue the downward trend.
This is absurd. Electoral organizing isn’t the only kind of organizing. Organizing outside of electoral campaigns is not doing nothing. Telling people the only way to organize or do anything to influence politics is through election campaigns is absolutely in conflict with anarchism.
I’m just curious if you’re getting involved in grassroots activism, promoting candidates you agree with, canvassing the neighborhood to try to drum up support, etc. …
It’s completely disienguous to put the entire onus of finding a candidate you agree with on other people.
Talk about being disingenuous. not to mention holier than thou.
Sorry I’m currently busy running a network protecting my local community from the jackboots.
What part of this statement makes you think I havent/dont do all the above. I’m mad that you chuckle fucks keep riding the vote harder while continuing to give your support to candidates neither of us, allegedly, want instead of letting those candidates just lose because they literally suck.
I’m mad that you chuckle fucks keep riding the vote harder while continuing to give your support to candidates neither of us, allegedly, want instead of letting those candidates just lose because they literally suck.
What would that accomplish? Sincerely, no one has been able to explain to me how the slightly-less-bad candidate losing provides any benefit whatsoever.
It’s not like the other mainstream candidate doesn’t also suck, and moreso in fact.
It’s not like if enough people sit out the election it triggers some secret clause written into the Constitution in invisible magic ink. One of the candidates that suck still wins.
I’m genuinely curious, what is supposed to happen if we let them lose? Who does that help besides the slightly shittier candidate?
I’ve read through like this entire comment section, and most of your comments specifically, and I haven’t seen it. Care to link or quote the comment where you answer this question? I can’t find it
I’m done hand feeding people, you want my help for comprehension demonstrate some critical thinking on your end. feel free to respond to this with a analysis of what happens in various situations when voting for candidates and add where you’re confused and I’ll address your questions. otherwise shrug its a you problem and I’m done playing games with people who just mouth breath talking points and their personal fears at me.
Welcome back to school I guess, remember show your work.
What? You can’t be done doing something you never started doing. You keep saying that your strategy will work, but haven’t said how, or given an example of it working, or really provide any kind of evidence or reasoning except repeatedly insisting.
It really seems like you’re the confused one here, mouthing talking points and your personal fears. I already told you my question and you’re just deflecting and trying to shift the burden onto me, which makes zero sense since you’re making a frankly wild and counter-intuitive claim. Based on the ratios, it seems like most people are in the same boat as me in having no idea how what you’re proposing is actually supposed to work.
I’m not really interested in a schoolteacher role-play with someone so insistent that they’re right and everyone else is wrong with zero evidence or justification, especially when you go on to denigrate and belittle people for asking you to show your work.
Yeah… Reading your other comments, I think you actually have a decent take on this, but I think the way you’re communicating it isn’t working for the audience…
What’s the point of communicating if you know that you’re being misunderstood?
It’s not about reading comprehension, it’s about frame coherence. Other people don’t have your particular history of experiences, so some things that make obvious sense to you need more context for other people (the same is true in reverse, obviously).
What’s the point of communicating if you know that you’re being misunderstood?
This is a public forum, I’m not necessarily responding for them.
It’s not about reading comprehension, it’s about frame coherence.
And when they’re unwilling to stop and comprehend that’s a them problem. Just like it was my problem when I did the same thing to @Souvenir@lemmy.dbzer0.com in that conversation.
But yes, frame coherence is a problem. its why these people annoy me so much they dont contextualize at all. voting patterns need to vary based on region. you can just be blasting ‘you must vote for dems!’ that’s entirely self defeating over the long term given their platform of being anti-worker, and its exactly what got us into this mess.
Hell voting patterns need to vary based on the position and the current makeup of the body.
Who said I’m pouting/not playing. just because i dont for your candidate doesnt mean Im not taking actions. Sorry I’m currently busy running a network protecting my local community from the jackboots. LMK when you have a candidate who isnt running on ‘planning to murder friends and family in the middle east’ and ‘going to continue promoting corporate interests at the expense of working americans’ and I’ll vote for them.
You’re literally doing the same thing the person who I called out is doing. inferring incorrect motives from a noisy signal.
I’m just curious if you’re getting involved in grassroots activism, promoting candidates you agree with, canvassing the neighborhood to try to drum up support, etc. Because these are the sorts of things that need to happen in order to produce a candidate you agree with. It’s completely disienguous to put the entire onus of finding a candidate you agree with on other people.
I want you to vote. I care less about who you vote for than I do you voting at all. Exercising your civic right to choose your representation is a big deal, and I encourage you to stop getting mad at other people for not doing your own legwork, and instead get out there and promote a candidate you agree with. Hell, maybe you should run yourself. I don’t know, but I do know that sitting around getting mad because you don’t like the major candidates without doing anything about it gets us all nowhere.
Oh so now someone has to promote candidates they agree with in order to be involved in grassroots organizing
this is an anarchist space
Why is it so hard for people to get that the problem is the system, that by promoting any candidate for any role is promoting the system itself? There will never be a candidate I agree with because the people who are empowered by the American constitution to dissolve the union aren’t elected officials.
“I tried nothing and it didn’t work” isn’t a strategy that works for me.
I’m not going to sit on my butt and complain into the void. I will do everything I can to get to where I want the world to where I hope it can go.
Organizing is not in conflict with anarchism.
Pretending the system doesn’t exist or that not participating in any way will change it is a fool’s errand.
Feel free to find another way to participate, but trying to push others to not do what they can, to me, is (at best) an effort to continue the downward trend.
This is absurd. Electoral organizing isn’t the only kind of organizing. Organizing outside of electoral campaigns is not doing nothing. Telling people the only way to organize or do anything to influence politics is through election campaigns is absolutely in conflict with anarchism.
Who said it was?
You’re coming to absolutely ridiculous conclusions based on fabrications of what I said.
Feel free to point to where I said any of that.
I’ll wait.
This is literally what you’re doing, right now.
Talk about being disingenuous. not to mention holier than thou.
What part of this statement makes you think I havent/dont do all the above. I’m mad that you chuckle fucks keep riding the vote harder while continuing to give your support to candidates neither of us, allegedly, want instead of letting those candidates just lose because they literally suck.
What would that accomplish? Sincerely, no one has been able to explain to me how the slightly-less-bad candidate losing provides any benefit whatsoever.
It’s not like the other mainstream candidate doesn’t also suck, and moreso in fact.
It’s not like if enough people sit out the election it triggers some secret clause written into the Constitution in invisible magic ink. One of the candidates that suck still wins.
I’m genuinely curious, what is supposed to happen if we let them lose? Who does that help besides the slightly shittier candidate?
sounds like a you problem. I’ve addressed this literal question repeatedly.
I’ve read through like this entire comment section, and most of your comments specifically, and I haven’t seen it. Care to link or quote the comment where you answer this question? I can’t find it
suddenly when asked to show your work you stop responding huh? thought so.
I’m done hand feeding people, you want my help for comprehension demonstrate some critical thinking on your end. feel free to respond to this with a analysis of what happens in various situations when voting for candidates and add where you’re confused and I’ll address your questions. otherwise shrug its a you problem and I’m done playing games with people who just mouth breath talking points and their personal fears at me.
Welcome back to school I guess, remember show your work.
What? You can’t be done doing something you never started doing. You keep saying that your strategy will work, but haven’t said how, or given an example of it working, or really provide any kind of evidence or reasoning except repeatedly insisting.
It really seems like you’re the confused one here, mouthing talking points and your personal fears. I already told you my question and you’re just deflecting and trying to shift the burden onto me, which makes zero sense since you’re making a frankly wild and counter-intuitive claim. Based on the ratios, it seems like most people are in the same boat as me in having no idea how what you’re proposing is actually supposed to work.
I’m not really interested in a schoolteacher role-play with someone so insistent that they’re right and everyone else is wrong with zero evidence or justification, especially when you go on to denigrate and belittle people for asking you to show your work.
I mean, the DSA is doing a half way decent job of that in at least a few electorates…
Indeed they are. guess what candidates I’ve done work for…
Yeah… Reading your other comments, I think you actually have a decent take on this, but I think the way you’re communicating it isn’t working for the audience…
Reading comprehension on their end isnt my problem to solve. They are either incapable or unwilling to comprehend.
What’s the point of communicating if you know that you’re being misunderstood?
It’s not about reading comprehension, it’s about frame coherence. Other people don’t have your particular history of experiences, so some things that make obvious sense to you need more context for other people (the same is true in reverse, obviously).
This is a public forum, I’m not necessarily responding for them.
And when they’re unwilling to stop and comprehend that’s a them problem. Just like it was my problem when I did the same thing to @Souvenir@lemmy.dbzer0.com in that conversation.
But yes, frame coherence is a problem. its why these people annoy me so much they dont contextualize at all. voting patterns need to vary based on region. you can just be blasting ‘you must vote for dems!’ that’s entirely self defeating over the long term given their platform of being anti-worker, and its exactly what got us into this mess.
Hell voting patterns need to vary based on the position and the current makeup of the body.
Fair points! Definitely agree on the last one.