this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
885 points (87.2% liked)

Political Memes

5433 readers
2881 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (38 children)

Hold up. All I agreed with is that in this election, it wasn't realistic for a third party to win. You're trying to take that as meaning there's no reason to vote third party. As I explained, it's possible for third parties to wield influence, and giving them more votes gives them more ability to do that.

Again -- no shot. Not in FPTP. You virtue signaling every 4 years has never and will never change that.

I did no such thing. You're twisting my words and jumping to conclusions.

Yes you did. You agreed that that only Trump or Kamala will be president after this election. Don't backtrack, there's a reason I insisted on these answers.

I'm amazed that you managed to miss the point that hard. I don't give a shit which fire is more comfortable to burn to death in. If there's no way out, then I will still try to wail on the walls.

Again, why would you not wail on the walls in the room with less fire? What an absurd stance...

Kamala is fundamentally unacceptable.

Again, you already agreed she is the better option of the only 2 outcomes that will happen. Don't twist my words ;)

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 weeks ago (37 children)

Again – no shot. Not in FPTP. You virtue signaling every 4 years has never and will never change that.

That is incorrect. Lets say the polls show, Green 15%, Democrat 40%, Republican 45%, and the Greens say, "We'll endorse the Democrats if and only if they do X." You have not addressed why this is not a viable strategy at all. Saying "no shot" doesn't make it true.

Yes you did. You agreed that that only Trump or Kamala will be president after this election. Don’t backtrack, there’s a reason I insisted on these answers.

That's not the same thing. You're conflating "being able to win this election" with "being able to ever change things." It's possible to change things without winning, and it's possible for future elections to be different. You're taking a much more limited claim and expanding it to a much larger one that I never agreed with.

Again, why would you not wail on the walls in the room with less fire? What an absurd stance…

If anything, it'd be better to wail on the walls in the room with more fire, to die quicker. But the point is that that doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is escape.

Again, you already agreed she is the better option of the only 2 outcomes that will happen. Don’t twist my words ;)

And as I already stated, "better" does not mean "acceptable." In the same way if you push a vegan into saying beef is better than pork, that doesn't mean they consider beef an acceptable food.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (29 children)

You have not addressed why this is not a viable strategy at all.

Because you haven't demonstrated it to be a viable strategy...

Can you give examples of this tactic playing out favorably in the past? How does your 3rd party vote materialize into meaningful, actionable pressure on the Democrats? Why am I not surprised you didn't say "We'll endorse the Democrats / Republicans if and only if they do X."?

It's possible to change things without winning.

Not under FPTP.

If anything, it'd be better to wail on the walls in the room with more fire, to die quicker. But the point is that that doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is escape.

If the only thing that matters is escape, then the only thing that makes sense is choosing the scenario that's most likely to allow for it. Which is to move to the area with less fire. This should be absurdly obvious.

You can't have both. If you choose the room with more fire then you're admitting that your whole position is a facade and you're actually just a deluded accelerationist. Which we both know you aren't.

And as I already stated, "better" does not mean "acceptable." In the same way if you push a vegan into saying beef is better than pork, that doesn't mean they consider beef an acceptable food.

If you think both of the only 2 possible outcomes are unacceptable, then acceptability is a moot point. Better and worse still exist, and you already agreed on which is which.

[–] Rhoeri 4 points 2 weeks ago

You’re destroying them at their own game. This is fucking beautiful!

load more comments (28 replies)
load more comments (35 replies)
load more comments (35 replies)