849
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] null@slrpnk.net 3 points 8 hours ago

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@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago

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

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 hours ago

Because you haven’t demonstrated it to be a viable strategy…

Can you give examples of this tactic playing out favorably in the past?

Parties are always looking at how to attract or retain voters. It's very intuitive that if a significant number of people defect from a party, the party will be reconsidering the issue that caused the break. I don't think this needs to be proven.

Why am I not surprised you didn’t say “We’ll endorse the Democrats / Republicans if and only if they do X.”?

Why would I? Are you suggesting that trying to influence the Republicans to become an acceptable party is a viable strategy?

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.

...what? I thought your whole reason for caring about the "more comfortable fire to die in" is because escape was ruled out entirely.

If you think both of the only 2 possible outcomes are unacceptable, then acceptability is a moot point.

No, it isn't. Unacceptable means unacceptable.

[-] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago

Dude… you are getting wrecked here. You should seriously start thinking about finding something else to do with your time. Because this Isn’t working out very well for you.

[-] null@slrpnk.net 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Parties are always looking at how to attract or retain voters.

And under FPTP there can only and will only be 2 parties with any real opportunity to enact policy. Do you think the Democrats are worried that you're going to vote Republican? That the GOP is going to start appealing to Leftists?

Why would I? Are you suggesting that trying to influence the Republicans to become an acceptable party is a viable strategy?

Of course not. But the implication is that the Democrats could be influenced. Which is exactly why I can't agree with advocating for swing state voters to do anything but vote against Trump.

...what? I thought your whole reason for caring about the "more comfortable fire to die in" is because escape was ruled out entirely.

Nah, I think escape is possible, but we need to move away from the bigger flames. You're the one who thinks standing still and letting the fire choose is the way to go -- for some reason...

Unacceptable means unacceptable.

It sure does. It's still moot in this context though.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 hours ago

Do you think the Democrats are worried that you’re going to vote Republican?

Yes? That's why they're all about Dick Cheney.

Nah, I think escape is possible, but we need to move away from the bigger flames. You’re the one who thinks standing still and letting the fire choose is the way to go – for some reason…

Then you agree that escape is what matters and choosing the more comfortable flames to die in is not what's important. There's a difference between claiming "I can survive longer in these flames which will help me to escape" vs the previous position you were arguing for, "Forget escaping, what matters is these flames are more comfortable than those flames."

It sure does. It’s still moot in this context though.

No it isn't.

[-] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

How many different analogies and what-if scenarios does it take for you to finally have a valid point?

Jesus man!

The moment someone calls out your bullshit you move on to another ridiculous version of reality to try and mold into something that resembles an actual point-

And you fail every time!

this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
849 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

5391 readers
3024 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