this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024

159 points (92.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35700 readers

3556 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

159

Serious statement: I don't understand the argument that not voting for Harris was the morally correct thing to do, because of Gaza. Why does anyone believe this? (lemmy.sdf.org)

submitted 5 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

And I'm being serious. I feel like there might be an argument there, I just don't understand it. Can someone please "steelman" that argument for me?

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 1 points 24 minutes ago

Due to the failings of the electoral college system, my state was almost guarenteed to vote the same way as it has for the last 30 years
I did not strongly agree with either party/candidate
I dispise the current two party system that both major parties are incentivized to maintain
Voting for a third party who is incentivised to push for change via ranked voting and other methods does aid them even if they don't win

If my state was likely to be contested, I may have voted differently. Voting for a third party in my case however had a greater impact than fighting or joining the tide of my state

[–] [email protected] 0 points 57 minutes ago

Oh it was, she was way to restrictive on Israel.

Also the argument for most of the voters was "woman" wich isn't my opinion (I'm not voting in USA) but its clear that the minorities she counted on... Don't like her.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 hour ago

Now Gaza burns faster. Congrats 3rd party fuckers.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Before I start let me note that in the end this particular group of people didn't affect the election. Harris is on the way to losing all swing states. Her failure is much deeper than Gaza policy. Blaming anti-genocide voters for this is just copium.

With that out of the way, you can divide people with this position into two groups: Arab Americans and everyone else. Arab Americans are people who are feeling the genocide firsthand. So, obviously, they tried to appeal to the Harris campaign and get them to move from Biden's position on the topic. The result: They were either ignored or antagonized by Harris. That led to the abandon Harris campaign in Michigan and elsewhere. Harris considered those people acceptable casualties in her failure of a campaign, and so they were burnt out and the momentum behind the Uncommitted movement and others turned from "let's save our Palestinian brothers" to "fuck us and Palestine (because let's face it, that's basically what Harris was saying)? Then fuck you too". Harris thew them under the bus and was thrown under the bus in turn. Maybe not very logical, but a very predictable reaction. Harris treated Arab Americans with just that much contempt, and then she and her enablers had the gall to tell the people attending a funeral every other day to "shut up and vote for her".

Now as for everyone else, it's a more simple instance of taking a stand against a politician for doing something you cannot accept. Now there is a pragmatic idea here that if you allow the DNC to get away with this they'll think supporting genocide actually wins elections, or that their electorate are such pussies that it doesn't matter what they think. Add in the goal of pressuring Harris to drop that policy that was important at the start of the Harris campaign and of course the idea of not wanting to vote for genocide and this was the result.

Of course it's not all 100% logical, but there is logic here beyond "omg bad guy I no vote".

[–] [email protected] 4 points 31 minutes ago

Now that the election is out of the way, maybe I can continue talking about this. I held my tongue during the past months, but I think now is a good time to think about this result.

While the result is unfortunate and disappointing, there are sides to it that aren’t all that bad. They pushed towards the right, pandering, and now the voters told them that this isn’t a winning strategy. I think it helps setting them straight for the future.

I think you put it very aptly. Of course it would’ve been best if Harris had won, but at least now we can think about it from a neutral perspective: Had she won despite all the right-pandering and genocide-enabling stances, it would either send the message that pandering to the right works, and the progressives are, indeed, either too small a group to listen to in the future too, or too much of pussies to listen to in the future, too — they’ll toe the line no matter what kind of shitty positions you take.

At least now they know that a change is needed. It’s almost unthinkable to lose to such a weird fascist populist that barely behaves cohesively. They did, by ignoring the progressives. That means something. At least it ought to.

Things don’t often change unless things hurt. If doing shitty things keeps working, nothing changes. But when things hurt, it opens some eyes at least. Forces re-evaluation on everyone’s part.

But that being said, this fucking sucks. Despite all the reasoning we can do to make it feel a bit better, this really should not have happened.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

You're wrong that it didn't impact the outcome. MI flipped to Trump directly because of the uncommitted movement. Slotkin won the senate race, but Trump won by a narrow margin. Independent votes and low turn out siphoned off enough to make that happen. Low turn out also directly impacted the results. PA is a different story, but low turn out was true there, too

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 minutes ago

You're wrong that it didn't impact the outcome. MI flipped to Trump directly because of the uncommitted movement.

I mean maybe (I haven't seen the turnout numbers as opposed to protest/non-voters) but the point is that Harris lost before Michigan even finished counting. She could've won Michigan and she still wasn't winning this, is the point.

Low turn out also directly impacted the results. PA is a different story, but low turn out was true there, too

I mean yeah, because the DNC pushed an unelectable candidate whose position was a mix of "nothing will fundamentally change", wishy washy non-promises and right wing positions. I doubt even 10% of the 15 million in reduced turnout came from Uncommitted and similar movements. The DNC blew it; it's that simple.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Chatgpt translation of a french politician's analysis on the matter :

Spoiler

In this election, the United States of America couldn’t choose the left because it simply wasn’t an option. Vice President Kamala Harris aligned herself with President Biden and thus approved everything he did—and everything he didn’t do, especially when it comes to the genocide in Gaza. Biden allowed it to continue in all its aspects, month after month, for over a year now. And today, he stands by as Lebanon is invaded and airstrikes occur in neighboring countries. Therefore, the Democrats are directly and personally responsible for this genocide, and it has sparked outrage around the world. How could such a powerful and wealthy country, a political model for so many, which funds and arms 70% of Netanyahu’s war, do nothing to stop this genocide? This heavily discouraged working-class voters and, more broadly, people with a strong humanitarian conscience sensitive to the suffering of others.

Trump won because Kamala Harris and this American "left" were unable to mobilize the popular electorate. One could even say they kept their distance from it to appeal to opposing voters. Yet, society showed its left-leaning pulse in referendums held alongside the presidential election. Even in states where Trump won, votes on reproductive rights resulted in victories for the “pro-choice” side. In states where referendums on wages or quality of life were held, left-leaning solutions often won. So we are witnessing a shift to the right in the United States, as in France, but it is driven by the political and media elite. The elites on both sides resemble one another, with their media outlets and pollsters, seeing society as more right-leaning than it actually is. This is devastating when the left fails to stand its ground: the right gains free rein, and the popular left demobilizes. There was no political expression available for those voting in favor of leftist measures in various states. The Harris presidential candidacy didn’t represent these views, so voters didn’t turn out. They gave up. Out of frustration, some may have even voted for Trump, but I believe this was minimal.

Harris tried to convince people that, since all the economic indicators were positive, their lives were therefore better. And here we touch on another dimension of this election’s outcome. In the U.S., as in France when President Macron boasted, we heard on all sides that things were improving: lower unemployment, rising income levels, and so on. But ordinary people, those who live by their labor, don’t see things that way. Most Americans know their wages haven’t improved. Most Americans see that they must work harder to maintain a lower quality of life, working more to earn more only to pay for things that cost increasingly more due to inflation, like food. But also the everyday essentials that go unmentioned! While we discuss taxes to denounce social security contributions, we never talk about “private taxes.” Profits and dividends are essentially private taxes on production, benefiting only a few, while public taxes benefit everyone. This is the reality. How many other costs are never counted in mandatory contributions? You’re required to insure your car, your home; you’re required to buy a certain number of things without which you could be penalized for not having. All these costs have risen!

[...] So, if you work more, maybe you earn more, but you live less comfortably and life becomes increasingly difficult. And ultimately, you live in an ocean of poverty. Even if you have a quiet home, which is your right, when you walk through the streets, you see people sleeping on the ground. You find all kinds of signs of human distress, which hurt you because you can’t pass by without noticing. Above all, you feel personally threatened by it. That’s why what just happened in the United States is a preview of what will happen in all democracies. Today, leaders shift further to the right, scapegoating immigrants, young people, and, broadly speaking, life itself, criticizing it and its risks. All while saying that people are ungrateful because things are supposedly getting better. These leaders will be increasingly punished at the polls. But the situation for those in power remains the same. Trump is a billionaire surrounded by billionaires. He still plans to cut taxes. He still plans to raise tariffs on imports, hoping to make it more attractive to produce things domestically. His form of protectionism is not the same as the protectionism we advocate for. We support “solidarity-based” protectionism, which aims to protect local production where it's necessary. For instance, we need to protect local agriculture from imports. But in other areas, we must stop letting the market dictate everything as is happening now. We see factories closing one after another because they can’t compete globally against countries with cheaper social and environmental standards.

If Trump imposes the tariffs he has planned, prices in the U.S. will rise until domestic production fills the gaps. It’s simple: these goods will cost more. You can’t avoid them, and they aren’t made locally, so you’ll pay more. He hopes this will push Americans toward local products. Let’s hope there are any to turn to. Personally, I don’t believe the U.S. can rebuild a productive base strong enough to compete with “the world’s factory” in China and the rest of Asia. This goes for us in France, too.

Let’s draw some lessons from this. First, for democracy to thrive, there must be real debate on programs, not just on personalities. When all candidates say the same things, there’s no space for real discussion. This is why it all ends in insults and a pitiful spectacle, as we saw in the U.S. There must be genuine policy choices that engage society’s intelligence rather than relying on rejection, hatred, and the discrediting of others. Two worldviews are facing off, in the U.S. as elsewhere. And society understands this. Is it “everyone for themselves,” or is it “all together”? We need this discussion, but in the end, we need to make choices based on concrete, opposing options—not just endless repetition of the same ideas.

We must also draw a strategic lesson: society needs alternative choices. That’s why we’re fine with being called the “radical left.” It’s not how we, see ourselves, but at least people understand we are proposing something different. Otherwise, people turn away from voting or lean increasingly to the right, looking for scapegoats. The second lesson is that good or bad economic numbers alone don’t convince people to vote a certain way. When people are told the numbers look good, it’s really just a way of saying they have no choice but to vote to keep things the same. People know that under capitalism, their lives are unlikely to improve, but their environment could be entirely devastated. And for those with bad numbers, it’s a way to say nothing can change because of that, as we see in France. Good numbers, bad numbers—the conclusion is always the same. But if we keep things the same, we’re heading for disaster.

We can’t win against the “every man for himself” mindset unless we explain why “all together” is essential. An election should be a vision for the future. The world is entering a dangerous phase. At each step, we must reflect on what has just happened and learn from it. The next time challenges come, we must reflect and make informed choices.

Kamala Harris, like President Joe Biden, bears personal responsibility for the genocide against Palestinians. They armed those responsible and stood by when they had the means to stop this catastrophe. Harris and Biden are responsible for once again mocking the public, providing none of the answers that American workers expect from a Democratic Party that wants to be the U.S. left. Americans need to break free from this stifling two-party system that prevents progressive choices. I regret that Bernie Sanders and the left of the Democratic Party continued to carry water for Kamala Harris and that Party.

Everywhere, we need the courage of our convictions. We must stand firm. Even if we lose because we couldn’t convince others, at least we fought. The worst thing is to lose both our ideas and the elections. That’s why we must learn a lesson from this. And broadly, everyone who wants to break with today’s system must take this lesson seriously—politically, socially, ecologically. We must all believe it’s crucial to stand firm, without compromising to seem more acceptable to our opponents, as Kamala Harris did. This world is unbearable for the majority. A different future must be possible for life to be bearable. And we must take this personally. We must act, not just let events unfold without doing anything, shedding tears before and after—tears of fear, then tears for what we’ve lost.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago

And the following are statements from before Nov 5th, before the election results:

Spoiler

When both candidates say the same thing, it creates a stifling environment. It becomes impossible to discuss topics that neither candidate has brought up—such as the ongoing genocide against the Palestinian population and the invasion against the Lebanese people. This is an issue that provokes a reaction and deep thought globally. But in the United States, whether it’s Trump or Harris, both support the genocide. The current Biden administration, being Democratic, provides weapons and financial backing to Netanyahu, supplying nearly 70% of Israel’s arms. Occasionally, they make hypocritical statements about ensuring humanitarian aid access, while funding the genocide and destruction.

Trump and Harris both support the genocide and give unconditional, if differently worded, support to Netanyahu’s government. They also agree on handling capitalism, with neither willing to tax windfall profits of corporations. They both avoid addressing public health issues, among other critical matters. Although Democrats at least recognize environmental issues, Harris has boasted about the strong oil industry performance under Biden’s administration. There’s little space to discuss anything outside a narrow range of topics, which is why U.S. election campaigns inevitably become personality battles and insult matches.

There’s a lot here that we recognize because we see it at home, too. I find it amusing when the media says U.S. campaigns are “too personality-driven,” or that “the arguments are rudimentary,” or that polling institutes are always wrong! Isn’t that also the case here? We have dominant narratives that are just as basic, comparable to Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric. We also have racist discourses that rival Trump’s, and our polling institutes are often off the mark, misleading the public about voter intentions. There is a reflection of the American system in the French system: Kamala Harris and the Democrats resemble the Socialist Party and Le Monde, while Trump is like the National Rally, Eric Ciotti, and Le Figaro.

Right now, we’re being cornered to take a position on the U.S. election. Recently, I watched the morning news with two French left-wing representatives. Both were asked to choose between Trump and Harris. But let’s remember: we are not U.S. voters. If we take a position, it’s to clarify our general political priorities. What matters to us in this election? The campaign has been reduced to very little, offering no choice on major issues impacting North Americans’ daily lives or those of people living under U.S. dominance. These issues, tied to critiques of capitalism, are unaddressed. Inflation erodes the income of the poorest Americans as much as it does in Europe or France, yet this is never discussed. Nor is anything said about what will be done for industrial areas where factories have closed and everyone has been laid off. What will come next? No one knows, except that both Trump and Harris favor tariffs to revive their industry—a strategy unlikely to bring them to a competitive market position with China, which is why both are anti-China. A Democratic leader went so far as to admit, “There’s no market solution to compete with China.” In other words, both support war.

I’ve just outlined how both candidates agree on key issues that we strongly oppose. I read that Harris is “the lesser evil” compared to Trump. I reject that notion. The lesser evil is still evil. As Hannah Arendt said, “Those who choose the lesser evil forget that they chose evil.” I’d add that Harris, by being complicit in genocide and pro-capitalist policies, has alienated working-class voters in swing states.

There is, however, a crucial difference between them on an individual liberty: Trump opposes the right to abortion, while Harris supports it. This is a fundamental difference—not a minor detail—since it affects the personal freedom of half of humanity: all women. If I were in the U.S., this would weigh heavily in my voting decision. They are similar but not identical. One might wish for a Harris victory, though it would not bring substantial change. However, a Trump loss would stir greater turmoil in the U.S., as he would not accept defeat. For us, that might be positive. A divided U.S. might reduce its global interference, including support for regimes like Netanyahu’s and others, especially in the Asia-Pacific.

If I were a voter in a swing state, I would vote Democrat. But in a Democratic state where their majority is assured, adding more votes wouldn’t increase the Democratic electoral college count. In such a case, breaking the stranglehold might be worthwhile, and I would consider my options. If in a solidly Democratic state, I’d vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, because their platform closely aligns with our goals here.

Let’s briefly review the American Greens’ proposals, which neither Harris nor Trump supports. They advocate for free public education throughout life. They propose abolishing student debt and medical debt, and strengthening a social security system that doesn’t exist there. They support heavy taxes on large fortunes and corporations—something we just voted for in our National Assembly. They call for a minimum wage indexed to inflation and productivity growth, which we push for at each parliamentary session, and a guaranteed income above the poverty line. They would make housing a human right, place the pharmaceutical industry under public ownership and democratic control, and replace the two-party exclusionary system with a multiparty democracy. This includes proportional representation in all legislative elections and the abolition of the death penalty. They also champion gender liberties and reducing migration pressures by ending crises that force people to migrate—a statement nearly word-for-word from our party.

[...] In any case, the United States is a far more fractured and disjointed country than it may appear from a distance. And if this country is fractured and disjointed, it’s not because of the crudeness of the campaign rhetoric. That crudeness is actually a result of the fact that, since the candidates say essentially the same things on major issues, they can only confront each other through personal attacks. They both say the same things because both defend the same global order, the same widespread presence of NATO, the same dominance over the world, and the same aggression toward anything that resists them. Why with such force and violence? Because they are defending a system that has torn apart American society. The American people are better than the political figures who represent them. Sooner or later, the collective spirit of grassroots America, as it manifests when mobilized for major causes, will reemerge.

But today, the American public is being deeply influenced by the far right, much like public opinion in Europe, especially in places where there is no way to express an alternative viewpoint outside the two-party system that dominates and blocks any broader perspective.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)

Not voting for someone who is aiding and abetting genocide is morally correct, it's not complicated.

If genocide isn't a red line for you, what is?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago

But, given that Trump will very likely be as bad or worse, why give him the chance? Just to be able to make the statement?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

So you didn't vote for anyone for president?

Stein and Kennedy were only on ballots to help Trump win, and he is even worse on Palestine than Harris.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

So you didn’t vote for anyone for president?

I'm not American, if I was I would have voted for Stein though.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

For me: Voting represents support for both the process and the government that results from that process. By voting you are essentially expressing that you submit to the electoral process as the sole means for the exercise of political power. Even if you don't like the results, you've agreed to accept it because the rules are more important than the results.

Some obvious problems with that: What if the process itself isn't fair in the first place? We don't really get to choose our leaders. We get presented with a set of options which are acceptable to capitalists and are asked our opinion on which we like more. You could write multiple books on the ways the US electoral process has been structured to disenfranchise people and reduce the impact they can have on their government, but fundamentally it comes down to the fact that the government doesn't represent people and that's a feature, not a bug.

So we end up with a pair of awful candidates who both have done and will do more awful shit. If the election randomly fell out of the sky without context, sure, you could argue about one being technically better than the other. But it didn't. It's this way for a reason. It's this way because people are willing to cede their expression of political power to it despite the fact that it's clearly unaccountable to them.

Voting is just supporting the system that's deprived us of any real democracy while normalizing fascism to protect itself. Voting is a fairly low information form of political expression. You don't get the choice to be like "Oh I'll begrudgingly support this candidate, but this this and that are things I don't like and want them to change." You get two boxes. Each one represents EVERYTHING the candidate stands for plus the implicit choice of accepting the process in the first place.

If people want things to get better, they have to organize and take real, tangible actions rather than just begging capitalist politicians to do stuff for us every 2-4 years. People should be doing this regardless of who's in office, but let's put a fine point on it: People are worried that Trump is gonna be fascist, take away people's rights, and end democracy. Are you just going to accept that because he won the election? Are the rules that bind the process more important to you than the results? If not, you should be willing to do what it takes to stop him instead of chastising that people didn't show up to participate in a sham of an electoral system.

For what it's worth, I actually did go to the polls to vote specifically on an equal rights ballot measure in NY. At least that has a semblance of direct democracy. There I'm explicitly saying "I support this policy specifically" instead of supporting a candidate who just says they support those things while also doing awful shit. It passed, so that's nice. If anything I'm more pissed at Californians for voting against a measure to END SLAVERY than I am with people who didn't want to vote for a person currently engaged in supporting a genocide.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I'm curious where this notion comes from:

By voting you are essentially expressing that you submit to the electoral process as the sole means for the exercise of political power.

Do you? Does voting necessarily mean that you can't also express political power in other ways? Sure, it's true that most voters don't really engage with politics outside of the major elections, but that's got nothing to do with them being voters, many Americans don't even engage with the elections at all. Why would it be the case that participating in voting means you submit to the electoral process as the sole means of exercising political power? In fact this seems easily disproven by the fact that most political power in this country is exercised by the capital class, but those people still vote.

Even if you don’t like the results, you’ve agreed to accept it because the rules are more important than the results.

Is this actually a condition of voting? What sets these conditions? Are you talking about the social notions of 'civility politics' or 'decorum' that liberals are so fond of? They'll try to hold you to those standards regardless of whether or not you vote.

For what it's worth, I agree with you broadly that there are serious problems with the electoral system, capitalism, the United States, whatever. I also agree that chastising nonvoters is also counter productive. I also agree that voting is probably not going to get us the broad systemic changes that we need. I just don't really understand the argument that voting somehow precludes one from also doing the actual organizing and activism work we need.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

There's a philosophical and a practical side to this:

Philosophically, the core of a democratic system is the peaceful transition of power. The idea that you won't just try to force your will over people with violence and will respect the will of the populace. This is a fine principle in a proper democracy with a fair process and political outcomes that fall within acceptable ranges. If you wanted more money for the trains and someone else wanted more money for the busses, that's a disagreement you can live with. And if the voting system is set up so you had equal chances both to introduce topics/candidates and vote on them, then great. By accepting the election and not trying to go outside the system to get your way, you keep the peace and allow for that process to be a viable vehicle for change.

If this is a requirement for democracy, then the converse is that if a system isn't fair and produces unacceptable results (eg, Nazis and genocide), participating in it merely legitimizes it. Obviously nothing physically stops you from organizing, but symbolically you've shown that you view the system as the sole legitimate way to exert political power and garner authority. And people will then turn around and say you should vote instead of doing xyz actions. "I don't agree with your methods."

On the practical side of this: people put a lot of time, energy, and political capital into supporting candidates in these elections. It eats up the public bandwidth, crowding out other forms of political participation. In addition, once someone works hard to get their candidate elected, there is an impulse, an incentive, to defend them. The people who said to suck it up, vote for Biden, then push him to the left turned around and chastised leftists for protesting over things like the continued anti-immigration policies or the support for Israel's genocide. US electoral politics is a team sport. People get psychologically invested in their team. They don't like it when you criticize their team. This makes them resistant to change even on policies they nominally support. I think encouraging people to maintain that emotional investment in elections is harmful. It hinders organizing efforts. It hurts attempts to build class consciousness because it gets people to think about their fellow workers as the enemy and capitalists as potential allies. And the corresponding obsession with 24 hour news cycles turns politics into a TV show. Trying to talk to libs about any history older than like a week ago or maybe at most a presidential term is impossible. If it wasn't on their favorite TV show it doesn't exist.

We need to be drawing people's attention to actual types of political participation. Elections don't just distract from that, they make people think they're doing the right thing. It's a release.

All that said, that's not to say there's never value in any part of the electoral system, it's just very limited. Bernie's attempts at running were part of what got me more engaged in politics and shifted me from being a progressive-ish lib to being more of a socialist. Important to that though was not just the policy platform, but the structure and messaging of the campaign promoted the importance of mass political participation. I ended up meeting some local socialist groups in the process of going to campaign volunteering. However, most of the time and energy still went into the election only for the system to block us at the end and Bernie to give in. Tons of hours of volunteer time went into doing little more than getting people to sign ballot petitions. We weren't getting those people into a union or a mutual aid group or anything. We basically just tossed our energy into the void.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Because most haven't I will actually answer the call of the question. Voting is perhaps the most important way one can voice their opinion. And carries more effect than most words the average man or woman can utter.

The largest argument against these types of stances is that it will create a spoiler effect. This usually operates on the premise that a vote to a candidate is owed and not earned and or that it is impossible to achieve a different outcome besides one of the two establishment candidates. This second premise being the results of people who decry voting 3rd party as useless based on a restriction with no physical or legal basis imposed on our society by our society. There's nothing stopping people from electing anyone else on the ballot.

If you can acknowledge that we as a society have this power the idea of accepting a lesser evil is weakened. If you vote for a lesser evil you perpetuate the broken system you hate. In your example Gaza, if someone feels that the issue is so important it merits a principled stance how can they not take the stance?

It's a matter of pragmatism vs principles.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The best argument I came across went something like this: if we show the Democratic Party that we’ll accept something as horrible as genocide as long as the Republicans are worse, then we’ve completely surrendered our agency as voters.

Powerful statement. It was the most coherent, rational, well thought out explanation I’d seen. It didn’t come off as a condescending lecture on morality, either. I actually considered their argument for a couple days, but ultimately, I decided it wasn’t strong enough to risk another Trump administration.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 hours ago

It is a stupid fucking statement. "If you aren't perfect on every single issue, then we won't vote for you."

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

The moral argument that one should not vote for someone who has been and continues to provide massive material support to a genocide is as clear as day.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

But considering the alternative to Harris, it doesn't seem as clear as day to me.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 hours ago

The moral argument against voting for Harris doesn't imply that one has to vote for Trump instead.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 hours ago

Consider how you'd go about exploiting the opposite case.

If people will always vote for the slightly-less-worse candidate, then you only ever have to be slightly-less-worse than the opposition. You can sleaze right up to them and be almost as corrupt and evil as they are, so long as there's just a little bit of extra sleaze sticking out that you can point to as the worse alternative. And you can farm the shit out of that, because then the other side never has to improve either - it's an anti-competitive duopoly, where they both agree to only compete over surface details, not their overall horribleness, leaving them free to sleaze right up to the fucking-monster end of the spectrum.

Presumably a percentage of people refused to enable that behaviour, and said that slightly-less-genocide is a bridge too fucking far.

They made it plain from the outset that if the dems wanted to play chicken on this, the dems would lose. That they were not to big to fail, that daddy wouldn't bail them out this time; put down the bombs or you're getting kicked out for real.

The morally-correct choice would have been for the dems to stop supporting genocide, especially with so much at stake.

There's this huge narrative that's been consistently pushed that the actions of politicians are beyond accountability, sent down from on high like acts of god, and that moral responsibility lies only with the voters; that it's meaningless even imagine any obligation for the ruling class to try and be good enough to vote for.

You know, the way the fossil fuel lobby found ways to shift the blame onto the consumer instead of themselves. The way the opioid manufacturers did the same. The way the gun manufacturers did the same. The way plastic manufacturers did the same fucking thing as well. We'll act however we fucking well want to, and if you don't like it, that's literally your problem.

Oh no, you can't hold us accountable now, it's the worst possible time. It's too soon to have this conversation, how can you be so insensitive, can't you see there's a highschool full of dead kids?

Somewhere, sometime, people have to say enough. And they did.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago

If you have a friend or family member, living or dead in Palestine, how could you vote for her? Even knowing Trump would probably be worse, it's hard to imagine the pain it would cause to choose her name, knowing what she supported, and would have continued to encourage.

(Others mentioned other reasons, and I won't repeat theirs.)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 hours ago

If you have a particular ideological hang up revolving around the difference between explicit and implicit consent to be governed...

You can view yourself as morally correct for not voting for anyone whom you do not fully support.

Thus you have not given explicit consent to either candidate, or the voting system itself.

Its basically 'Don't blame me, I didn't vote, therefore I am not responsible.'

Its the trolley problem, but you just walk away from both tracks and the lever, and then claim that you did not consciously act to cause any harm, therefore you are guiltless.

...

Unfortunately by this logic it does also mean that you give implicit consent to literally everything your government does if you do not speak out against everything it does that you don't like, or take some explicit action to countermand.

...

It's an extremely sophomoric, cowardly and irresponsible stance to take in a situation like this, but there is an underlying logic to it... its just that this logic is ridiculous and absurd.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago

I believe that Harris had indicated her policy on Biden would’ve been different but I wasn’t entirely sure how.

She could’ve probably said something like “October 7th WAS a terrorist attack and Israel has a right to defend itself. However, there is a difference between defense and suppression” and likely not pissed any sensible people on any side off too much.

That said; My opinion matters very little as I do t have a meaningful connection to the conflict other than hating to see un necessary suffering.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

You see, IQ is on a bell curve and 100 is the median. That means half of people must have an IQ below 100. At some number, the exact number is debatable, higher reasoning ability diminishes.

The second factor is education/knowledge. Having none, partial, or incorrect information can lead even rational people down the wrong path.

If you combine these, you get what you are observing.

I'll leave you a quote from Deming... "Every system is perfectly designed to get the results that it does." I say this because we need to change something if we want a different result.

"Remember, I'm pullin for ya. We're all in this together."
Red Green

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago

Actually several percent of people have 100, so higher and lower are each less than 50%. Not to mention there isn't a huge difference from 90-110 and that range covers a huge chunk of the population.

Carlin was exaggerating for comedic effect.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Since no one seems to be taking OP's question seriously, I'll take a stab at this. There are a variety of reasons.

Some people feel that voting is offering material support to a specific candidate or system, and they simply cannot bring themselves to do so given the horrors that that person or system is either supporting or failing to condemn.

Others may feel that strategically withholding their vote as a punishment may motivate democrats to take these types of issues more seriously in the future.

Or they may feel that their vote is more impactful in magnifying the voice and power of third parties who offer more meaningful solutions to end the killing, even if they won't win.

Others still may believe that Trump's incompetence will accelerate the end of America imperialism and lead to a better global political situation sometime in the future.

Finally, some people feel that voting won't matter at all and is a distraction from efforts to directly slow or stop the war machine.

I don't personally endorse any of these viewpoints, but some are relatively serious positions and others are not, in my opinion.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 hours ago

Others may feel that strategically withholding their vote as a punishment may motivate democrats to take these types of issues more seriously in the future.

They never learn though.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

If Democrats knew they'd lose for supporting genocide,.they wouldn't have done it. It's precisely because blue-no-matter-who voters convinced them that they were invincible that they ended up losing. They thought they could bully the base into voting for them because enough of the base was willing to be bullied and proud of it.

On the other side, Trump is more likely to lose the war on Palestine.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)

They did know it had a serious impact on likely Dem voters, and likely Independent voters, in swing states, and they did it anyway.

... Unless you're going to tell me her campaign was somehow unaware of this fairly widely published IMEU poll.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/kamala-harris-israel

From July 25 through August 9, pollsters asked voters if and how the Democratic nominee pledging "to withhold more weapons to Israel for committing human rights abuses against Palestinian civilians" would impact their vote. In Arizona, 35% said they would be more likely to vote for her, versus 5% who said they would be less likely. The figures were similar in Georgia (39% versus 5%) and Pennsylvania (34% versus 7%).

Even bigger shares of voters said they would be more likely to support her in November if President Joe Biden—who dropped out of the race and passed the torch to Harris last month—secured a permanent cease-fire in Gaza. In Arizona, 41% said they would be more likely to vote for her, versus 2% who said they would be less likely. In both Georgia and Pennsylvania, it was 44% versus 2%.

...

Biden dropping out and being replaced with Kamala was an opportunity for Kamala to change the Dem stance on this.

Kamala would have stood a much better chance at winning if she massively broke with Biden and did an about face on Gaza, and there is basically no way her campaign did not know this.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 20 minutes ago

So how could she have broken with Biden as the current VP?

She sides with Palestine, so she supports Hamas? She doesn’t support Israel? She supports Iran too!?

That’s just the tip of the media iceberg that would have been thrown at her.

Let’s say she does that. Do you think with the numbers that DJT turned out that she’d have gained so much more than she would have lost that it would have made a difference?

Let’s further say that she did, and it was, and she won the election. She’s now thrown a long-term, strategic ally under the bus on the world stage. Not only that, she’ll have to forcibly disarm them, potentially feeding them to the wolves in the Middle East.

How does she politically recover from that? ALL of that?

And please don’t mention “genocide” in your reply. That’s already a know variable in play.

Can you (or anyone) provide a politically viable path through the above ‘top level’ landmines which would have gotten her into the White House and into a position where she could take direct action to stop the genocide?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

… Unless you’re going to tell me her campaign was somehow unaware of this fairly widely published IMEU poll.

They were in a bubble of other blue-no-matter-who media and were assured by the consultants from Clinton's campaign and the Labour Party that they could ignore those polls.

So really, it would have taken a big enough push from the public that MSNBC became anti-genocide. Hypothetically it could have happened, but the Democratic base is too disorganized to pull that kind of bottom-up messaging coup off.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 50 minutes ago* (last edited 48 minutes ago)

Nurse bursts in to OR

Doctor!

This new study show that there is a 30% chance the patient will die if you ignore this allergic reaction they may have if you keep pursuing your current treatment plan!

Doctor scoffs

It can't be that big a deal, if this was serious, the patient's family would have let me know by mailing me that study with appended handwritten notes from my favorite peer reviewers from JAMA, and a gold star sticker!

But Doctor! It's not the job of the family to know how to practice medicine, that's your job! And anyway, I have a copy of the study right here!

Pff, no appended notes, no gold star, ignored.

Patient dies.

Huh, damn, things might have been different if the family had told me how to do my job in the exact, precise manner in which I accept advice. Oh well! Maybe the next patient's family will figure out the correct way to tell me how to do my job next time. After all, I can't be held responsible for not accepting information readily available to me... without a gold star sticker!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 hours ago

Only if you don't recognize that Trump would be much, much, much worse. And what we see from the election, many can't seem to see that (in any way).

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 hours ago

Honestly for a portion of the ones here online, I don't think they actually care that much about Gaza except as a convenient tool to attack Americans. It's academic to them. I don't expect it'll stop once Trump is in, they'll just switch to criticizing Americans overall. They're mostly leftist agitators, and I honestly think they hate moderate progressives the most, since we're trying to improve capitalism which makes it harder to undermine and destroy.

For people that actually do care, it's a personal, emotional argument about not being able to feel good about it, which I understand. It's a sort of trolley problem. If they don't vote, they kinda just walk away and the trolley runs over a bunch of people, but they don't have to watch and bear a sense of personal responsibility at that emotional level for being a part of it. It doesn't actually benefit Gaza, but there's only so much they could really do anyway.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago

Maybe if they are young. Its comes up again and again. I voted for ross perot but was lucky it did not effect the election. I mean just the 50 cent gas tax would have been great for the environment given it would have gone into effect in the 90's as a federal tax. Electronic direct democracy. Increase in education and infrastructure. It was hard not to like his proposals.

load more comments