I’m curious why you frame your vote as a reward to a candidate for checking your boxes, and not a tool to exert some control over your material conditions. It just seems like such a strange way to treat your vote.
How though? How does withholding your vote accomplish that? You keep saying that it does, but you haven’t described the mechanism by which that happens.
American politics is an emotive subject if you’re American, which I assume you are.
Apply your argument to the brexit referendum, where many of the same arguments you’re making were made by pro-brexit campaigners, and where mainstream politicians on both sides of the aisle have also failed many British people, especially the working classes.
While the latter was and still is absolutely true, it was also used by Cambridge Analytica, to decrease voter turn-out in targetted demographic groups.
Would you have voted in that referendum?
The end result was arguably emboldened racists, a divided Europe, lack lustre economic and job growth, poor treatment of migrants, a country closer to far-right rule than it has been in a long time, and a select elite getting richer. But then life would have gotten worse for many people even if the UK had voted to stay in the EU, and the leave result did give the establishment a much necessary bloody nose, so you could argue there wasn’t much point voting either way.
This is a genuine question. I don’t have easy answers.
Here’s the thing though, you could argue that voting in favour of brexit, would have emboldened the centrists and the establishment in the UK, to keep making the lives of the working class worse. Brexit gave them a much necessary bloody nose.
In French they say “Choisir entre la peste et le choléra”. Choosing between plague or cholera. Let’s take the French example:
The French will likely soon get to choose between Le Pen and Macron’s successor. The latter is a likely corrupt centrist dickhead from a party which has lead the country to the brink and emboldened fascists. The former is Le Pen, a Russian aligned fascist.
The propaganda will tell people Macron’s successor is a neo-liberal thief and part of why France is in deep trouble. Which is absolutely true. But the alternative is a literal fascist. You can vote for Macron’s successor, but then the establishment thinks it’s business as usual. You can not bother voting at all, but then it’s likely Le Pen wins…
Electoral systems which favour multi-party governments are often better. But then look at Germany, where ever more parties are forced into a coalition against the far right AfD, because people vote for AfD(or don’t vote against them) in increasing numbers. The propaganda tells them that mainstream parties are incompetent, corrupt, and have ended up costing thousands their jobs. Which is absolutely true.
If Germans don’t vote or vote for smaller parties, they potentially let the fascists in.
If they do vote for a bigger party, who are often quite pro-Israel for historical reasons, it’s likely these parties will think they can get away with business as usual, which emboldens the fascists and further disenfranchises voters for next time around…
Personally, I would always vote for the lesser evil, but I get where you’re coming from.
Is macron’s successor literally enabling a genocide like harris did
France/Macron has continuously sold Israel weapons, yes. But they’re also being more critical of Israel, want to ban goods from settlements, etc.
Le Pen is a fascist and friend to Israel, so much so that a Likud minister has said she would be an excellent president, they’ve been in secret talks with Israel, and she has been critical of Macron for not supporting Israel enough, etc. The Israelis are almost certainly pushing propaganda to get people to not bother turning out to vote against Le Pen.
By not taking away your vote/support you are directly responsible for their actions.
You can vote for Macron’s guy, who’ll likely continue selling weapons to Israel, and that arguably makes you complicit in genocide. Correct.
Or you can not vote, and risk a Le Pen victory, and even closer ties to Israel. You’re doing what the Israelis want you to (not) do. You not voting, is an implied ok, you’re not going to do anything to stop them.
Rosa Luxemburg: ‘Those who dont move, do not notice their chains’
Do you think Rosa Luxemburg would have abstained from voting against the Nazis, because the other German political parties were corrupt and inept?
I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong to not vote.
I’m saying it’s not a morally pure choice. Your hands aren’t clean either way.
To quote Sapkowski: “Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference. The degree is arbitrary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another… I’d rather not choose at all.”
I notice you didn’t answer my question about if Rosa Luxemburg would have voted against the Nazis had she been alive to do so. I find that telling.
In any case, I didn’t shame you for not voting, I simply pointed out that not voting(not choosing) is also a choice and not necessarily a morally pure choice, especially when faced with fascists. Even if there are good reasons not to vote, it does not absolve you of the risks you take in not doing so. And the same goes for those who do vote, and perpetuate the current malaise and risk lending it legitimacy.
I tried to illustrate this with non-American examples, so you’d be less emotional about it, but given you’ve resorted to name calling and insults clearly I’ve failed.
deleted by creator
Yes that is just as bad as Trump and Co actively dismantling institutions and lining their pockets at our expense. What a tough choice.
deleted by creator
I’m curious why you frame your vote as a reward to a candidate for checking your boxes, and not a tool to exert some control over your material conditions. It just seems like such a strange way to treat your vote.
deleted by creator
How though? How does withholding your vote accomplish that? You keep saying that it does, but you haven’t described the mechanism by which that happens.
That is certainly a lovely list to vote for.
American politics is an emotive subject if you’re American, which I assume you are.
Apply your argument to the brexit referendum, where many of the same arguments you’re making were made by pro-brexit campaigners, and where mainstream politicians on both sides of the aisle have also failed many British people, especially the working classes.
While the latter was and still is absolutely true, it was also used by Cambridge Analytica, to decrease voter turn-out in targetted demographic groups.
Would you have voted in that referendum?
The end result was arguably emboldened racists, a divided Europe, lack lustre economic and job growth, poor treatment of migrants, a country closer to far-right rule than it has been in a long time, and a select elite getting richer. But then life would have gotten worse for many people even if the UK had voted to stay in the EU, and the leave result did give the establishment a much necessary bloody nose, so you could argue there wasn’t much point voting either way.
This is a genuine question. I don’t have easy answers.
deleted by creator
Here’s the thing though, you could argue that voting in favour of brexit, would have emboldened the centrists and the establishment in the UK, to keep making the lives of the working class worse. Brexit gave them a much necessary bloody nose.
In French they say “Choisir entre la peste et le choléra”. Choosing between plague or cholera. Let’s take the French example:
The French will likely soon get to choose between Le Pen and Macron’s successor. The latter is a likely corrupt centrist dickhead from a party which has lead the country to the brink and emboldened fascists. The former is Le Pen, a Russian aligned fascist.
The propaganda will tell people Macron’s successor is a neo-liberal thief and part of why France is in deep trouble. Which is absolutely true. But the alternative is a literal fascist. You can vote for Macron’s successor, but then the establishment thinks it’s business as usual. You can not bother voting at all, but then it’s likely Le Pen wins…
Electoral systems which favour multi-party governments are often better. But then look at Germany, where ever more parties are forced into a coalition against the far right AfD, because people vote for AfD(or don’t vote against them) in increasing numbers. The propaganda tells them that mainstream parties are incompetent, corrupt, and have ended up costing thousands their jobs. Which is absolutely true.
If Germans don’t vote or vote for smaller parties, they potentially let the fascists in.
If they do vote for a bigger party, who are often quite pro-Israel for historical reasons, it’s likely these parties will think they can get away with business as usual, which emboldens the fascists and further disenfranchises voters for next time around…
Personally, I would always vote for the lesser evil, but I get where you’re coming from.
TLDR: I’m going to watch a shitty vampire show.
deleted by creator
France/Macron has continuously sold Israel weapons, yes. But they’re also being more critical of Israel, want to ban goods from settlements, etc.
Le Pen is a fascist and friend to Israel, so much so that a Likud minister has said she would be an excellent president, they’ve been in secret talks with Israel, and she has been critical of Macron for not supporting Israel enough, etc. The Israelis are almost certainly pushing propaganda to get people to not bother turning out to vote against Le Pen.
You can vote for Macron’s guy, who’ll likely continue selling weapons to Israel, and that arguably makes you complicit in genocide. Correct.
Or you can not vote, and risk a Le Pen victory, and even closer ties to Israel. You’re doing what the Israelis want you to (not) do. You not voting, is an implied ok, you’re not going to do anything to stop them.
Do you think Rosa Luxemburg would have abstained from voting against the Nazis, because the other German political parties were corrupt and inept?
I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong to not vote.
I’m saying it’s not a morally pure choice. Your hands aren’t clean either way.
To quote Sapkowski: “Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference. The degree is arbitrary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another… I’d rather not choose at all.”
But I don’t think we get to not choose.
deleted by creator
I notice you didn’t answer my question about if Rosa Luxemburg would have voted against the Nazis had she been alive to do so. I find that telling.
In any case, I didn’t shame you for not voting, I simply pointed out that not voting(not choosing) is also a choice and not necessarily a morally pure choice, especially when faced with fascists. Even if there are good reasons not to vote, it does not absolve you of the risks you take in not doing so. And the same goes for those who do vote, and perpetuate the current malaise and risk lending it legitimacy.
I tried to illustrate this with non-American examples, so you’d be less emotional about it, but given you’ve resorted to name calling and insults clearly I’ve failed.
Good luck to you.
deleted by creator