Darorad

Why not use a rolling release distro?

If you don't care about trans people, women, various other marginalized groups, sure.

Voting lets us pick a weaker enemy.

The Democrats having practically negative effectiveness is still infinitely more effective.

Obviously voting for dems isn't going to produce the fundamental changes we need, neither is voting third party or not voting.

Dems will at best slightly slow our descent into fascism. That gives us slightly more time to build dual power and engage in direct action.

We're far behind, and need every second of time we can squeeze in.

Say the orphan crushing machine crushes 100 orphans an hour.

Influencing the orphan crushing machine does not impact your ability to try to destroy the orphan crushing machine.

You can influence the orphan crushing machine towards crushing 99 orphans an hour.

In what possible scenario should I not take that action. It doesn't stop the orphan crushing machine, but if it takes us a year to destroy the orphan crushing machine, that's 8,700 orphans we saved from getting crushed.

Please explain how

I voted to make the system get worse slightly slower while I work on non-electoral direct action

Is worse than

I abstained from an action that could make the system get worse slightly slower while I work on non-electoral direct action

Even if both evils are equal, they are the same. You chose to take an action that's at best the same as the other option.

Are you suggesting that a feeling of moral superiority while things get worse isn't a better solution?????

Yes, what shade of grey is closest to green is unclear, but there are only two shades of grey that can win. I'd be ecstatic about dumping my shade of grey if anybody could explain how it would bring us closer to green.

That is something you do outside of electoral politics. You will not achieve that by not voting for the lesser evil.

No, you should vote for a different lesser evil that they prefer even though it will be even less effective

For the 'true threat' standard, it doesn't matter since she had no connection to the shooting.

Not broken necks, but from the Wikipedia page: "In at least 10 instances, individuals who violated the boycott experienced instances of violence, including shots fired into their homes, bricks thrown through their windshields, and tires on their cars slashed."

The supreme court has defined legally actionable threats extremely narrowly. Yeah that's a pretty direct threat, but I don't think it meets the legal standard of a "true threat"

In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. The Supreme Court ruled someone saying "If we catch any of you going into these racist stores, we're going to break your damn neck." was protected speech.

That's more direct than her threat.

There's an insanely high standard for convicting someone over a threat.