So – and I want to be clear about this – to honour and respect those who fought and died for my right to vote, I should show up and put a cross next to the name of someone I think is a homophobic, transphobic, bigoted piece of shit just because she is less of a homophobic, transphobic bigoted piece of shit than the other person I could put a cross next to the name of?
To me that doesn’t suggest I am showing any honour or respect to anyone. It just says that I am giving up every bit of my dignity, integrity and shame and that when I stand before my ancestors in the Halls of Judgement they will look at me and shake their heads in disgust.
I should show up and put a cross next to the name of someone I think is a homophobic, transphobic, bigoted piece of shit just because she is less of a homophobic, transphobic bigoted piece of shit than the other person I could put a cross next to the name of?
Yes. Either voice your opinion for who is less bad, or have no voice. The game is rigged, but it’s the only game in town.
You seem to be missing my main problem – you are asking me to put a cross against the name of someone who will strip away the basic human rights of groups of people. Which is not something I am willing to do.
Especially if I am doing it in the name of those who fought and died for their rights.
If you want to protest against them, go ahead, I have no problem with that.
you are asking me to put a cross against the name of someone who will strip away the basic human rights of groups of people. Which is not something I am willing to do
Okay, but as I said, the reality of the situation is to put your cross on someone you don’t like or risk someone you really don’t like. I understand and empathize that it might feel like moral compromise, but I see it less like “I endorse this person and their principles” and more like harm reduction.
I have some integrity.
Is it integrity? If you are, by inaction, helping someone who will remove those human rights faster, aren’t you putting those high-minded morals above the physical reality of what will happen to those marginalized groups?
If you want to protest against them, go ahead, I have no problem with that.
you are asking me to put a cross against the name of someone who will strip away the basic human rights of groups of people. Which is not something I am willing to do
Okay, but as I said, the reality of the situation is to put your cross on someone you don’t like or risk someone you really don’t like. I understand and empathize that it might feel like moral compromise, but I see it less like “I endorse this person and their principles” and more like harm reduction.
And if they are as bad as each other?
I live in the UK and for the past five years the Labour party has been – from what I can see – turning into the Tory party. It has had no policies that aren’t Tory policies. Starmer is so scared of being seen as Jeremy Corbyn that he has become a Tory MP in waiting. He is so scared of not being elected that he is pandering to the far right. He doesn’t stand up for anyone who needs standing up for.
Voting for him… I really don’t see a difference between him and the Tories.
I have some integrity.
Is it integrity? If you are, by inaction, helping someone who will remove those human rights faster, aren’t you putting those high-minded morals above the physical reality of what will happen to those marginalized groups?
And if I put someone in power who enacts policies to the marginalised groups being erased, beaten, imprisoned or killed? Should I feel better about that?
If they are both truly as bad as each other, then yeah there is no harm reduction.
Should I feel better about that?
Would the other person have done it faster? Again, I don’t see voting as a complete endorsement; if there is an area in which one candidate is less bad than the other, then it is in your best interest to vote for them
Either voice your opinion for who is less bad, or have no voice.
That’s not how living in reality works. Tell that to the rioters of the stonewall inn. That was the most meaningful change to the fight for LGBTQ+ rights. They used their voices for multiple nights and it mobilized the community like never before. No thanks to the “repspectables” Also what do you tell the disenfranchised, the people that have been robbed of their opportunity to vote? You are essentially telling them that they are voiceless which isn’t true in the slightest. They are just living under a repressive government that people have voted for time and time again thinking they are doing something good. Yet what this allows people to do is say they don’t need to participate in direct action and they create “officials” that maintain narratives that further disenfranchise more people. And democrats do this too, not just republicans.
Funny choice of words, because in reality, it’s a zero sum game and you either vote for the person closest to your views or risk getting the person you disagree with more. That is the reality of the situation.
They used their voices for multiple nights and it mobilized the community like never before
Yes, direct action is very cool and very hip, and I encourage it, but we’re talking about voting.
You are essentially telling them that they are voiceless
No, I am telling people that abstain from voting that they are voiceless, because they are choosing to not use it because of ~dignity~ and ~integrity~
Yet what this allows people to do is say they don’t need to participate in direct action and they create “officials” that maintain narratives that further disenfranchise more people. And democrats do this too, not just republicans.
Nobody said anything like that, you are injecting that narrative out of nowhere. Nobody said voting for Biden is the only political thing you have to do this year. Go advocate and go protest, I encourage you, but also vote.
Yes, direct action is very cool and very hip, and I encourage it, but we’re talking about voting.
not voting and voicing why you are not voting has so far created more discourse around the failures of the democratic party than saying “vote blue, no matter who”. so to me this seems much more direct than just quietly voting.
dems thought they may have it in the bag with biden but they don’t. the biden admin has the lowest approval rating of any administration. enabling a genocide and aligning with the country perpetrating it for most of your political career will do that to your approval rating.
all they have to do is say permanent ceasefire and they get all those votes back. its not a hard concept. maybe instead of threatening voters with what will happen if they lose, they should do the thing that is preventing them from winning
not voting and voicing why you are not voting has so far created more discourse around the failures of the democratic party than saying “vote blue, no matter who”. so to me this seems much more direct than just quietly voting.
Sure, but is creating discourse the goal? Is the discourse even helping?
all they have to do is say permanent ceasefire and they get all those votes back. its not a hard concept. maybe instead of threatening voters with what will happen if they lose, they should do the thing that is preventing them from winning
Depends on a lot of things. I know I’m not the only one that feels this way. Ik there are aggressive democrat voters trying to shame and bully people into compromising themselves in an already compromising situation. They are told that what they think doesn’t matter and they “don’t have a voice” unless they vote. They don’t have a voice because y’all wont listen. We have voted, for what… to feel dirty and used by people you will never meet? I hope my replies and posts reach the eyes of those so they know that they aren’t voiceless and that this is an effective means of protest. Its obviously working by how much time and energy has been spent to try and convince us we are wrong. This is how democrats disenfranchise leftists. By saying this kind of protest and that kind of protest is ineffective, which is as ive pointed out demonstrably false because they are talking about it. You’re only allowed to protest a certain way even by democrats standards.
One fateful night, Marsha P. Johnson dropped a bag of bricks on a cop car and inspired millions of LGBTQ+ people over multiple generations. A trans woman that lived on the streets and was disenfranchised her whole life and couldn’t vote made real change happen that politicians could only dream of. Even trumps failed insurrection can’t put anything on that series of nights at the Stonewall Inn
There is a time to vote for people based on principle and that is what you are asking me to do by voting for biden. When the next major genocide is literally being conducted with the full support of the United States and the ones overseeing it are up for election and you can literally stop another holocaust like event from happening by telling those in power that they better do something or fuck off and make a lot of noise about it, then you have to take that opportunity.
which is as ive pointed out demonstrably false because they are talking about it
Again, is talking about it even effective? For all you know it could be having a negative impact.
and you can literally stop another holocaust like event from happening by telling those in power that they better do something or fuck off and make a lot of noise about it, then you have to take that opportunity
Can you though? Do you really think abstaining from voting will help at all? Either Biden wins anyway, or you get someone else even more pro-zionist. That’s it, those are the choices. Abstaining is literally just throwing your voice away.
Sounds like you think that one: we live in a democracy, and two: that democracy somehow equals more freedom. this is not the case.
Western democracy originated in ancient Greece. This political system granted democratic citizenship to free men, while excluding slaves, foreigners and women from political participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, this was what democracy meant. An elite class of free men made all the decisions for everyone. Before Athens adopted democracy, aristocrats ruled society, so “rule by the people”, or the idea of a government controlled (in theory) by all its (free) male citizens instead of a few wealthy families seemed like a good deal. But really it was just a new iteration of Aristocracy rule rather than the revolution it’s painted as. The rich still rule society by feeding voters carefully constructed propaganda and keeping everyone poor, overworked and desperate to be granted basic needs by the state.
In democracies today, only legal citizens of a country are granted democracy. In a lot of countries, people who have been convicted of a “crime” are denied the right to vote, regardless of how long ago they served their sentence. In the US, this is used to deny voting rights to minority groups, who make up a large proportion of the prison population.
In some societies only a small minority group are allowed to participate in the democracy. In Apartheid South Africa, the minority group (European settlers) granted themselves democracy and excluded the native majority, using democracy to deprive the native population of the rights granted to European settlers. Anarchy, of course, is an absence of government; of rulers. Democracy aims for the individual to be governed, ruled, controlled by others.
America is and always has been an illegitimate apartheid state.
In the US, this is used to deny voting rights to minority groups, who make up a large proportion of the prison population.
Sure sounds like The Powers That Be are trying to prevent marginalized people from voting, we should probably vote against that. I wonder which party is more favorable to enfranchising convicts and making voting easier.
So – and I want to be clear about this – to honour and respect those who fought and died for my right to vote, I should show up and put a cross next to the name of someone I think is a homophobic, transphobic, bigoted piece of shit just because she is less of a homophobic, transphobic bigoted piece of shit than the other person I could put a cross next to the name of?
To me that doesn’t suggest I am showing any honour or respect to anyone. It just says that I am giving up every bit of my dignity, integrity and shame and that when I stand before my ancestors in the Halls of Judgement they will look at me and shake their heads in disgust.
Yes. Either voice your opinion for who is less bad, or have no voice. The game is rigged, but it’s the only game in town.
I can still protest against them.
You seem to be missing my main problem – you are asking me to put a cross against the name of someone who will strip away the basic human rights of groups of people. Which is not something I am willing to do.
Especially if I am doing it in the name of those who fought and died for their rights.
I have some integrity.
If you want to protest against them, go ahead, I have no problem with that.
Okay, but as I said, the reality of the situation is to put your cross on someone you don’t like or risk someone you really don’t like. I understand and empathize that it might feel like moral compromise, but I see it less like “I endorse this person and their principles” and more like harm reduction.
Is it integrity? If you are, by inaction, helping someone who will remove those human rights faster, aren’t you putting those high-minded morals above the physical reality of what will happen to those marginalized groups?
And if they are as bad as each other?
I live in the UK and for the past five years the Labour party has been – from what I can see – turning into the Tory party. It has had no policies that aren’t Tory policies. Starmer is so scared of being seen as Jeremy Corbyn that he has become a Tory MP in waiting. He is so scared of not being elected that he is pandering to the far right. He doesn’t stand up for anyone who needs standing up for.
Voting for him… I really don’t see a difference between him and the Tories.
And if I put someone in power who enacts policies to the marginalised groups being erased, beaten, imprisoned or killed? Should I feel better about that?
If they are both truly as bad as each other, then yeah there is no harm reduction.
Would the other person have done it faster? Again, I don’t see voting as a complete endorsement; if there is an area in which one candidate is less bad than the other, then it is in your best interest to vote for them
That’s not how living in reality works. Tell that to the rioters of the stonewall inn. That was the most meaningful change to the fight for LGBTQ+ rights. They used their voices for multiple nights and it mobilized the community like never before. No thanks to the “repspectables” Also what do you tell the disenfranchised, the people that have been robbed of their opportunity to vote? You are essentially telling them that they are voiceless which isn’t true in the slightest. They are just living under a repressive government that people have voted for time and time again thinking they are doing something good. Yet what this allows people to do is say they don’t need to participate in direct action and they create “officials” that maintain narratives that further disenfranchise more people. And democrats do this too, not just republicans.
Funny choice of words, because in reality, it’s a zero sum game and you either vote for the person closest to your views or risk getting the person you disagree with more. That is the reality of the situation.
Yes, direct action is very cool and very hip, and I encourage it, but we’re talking about voting.
No, I am telling people that abstain from voting that they are voiceless, because they are choosing to not use it because of ~dignity~ and ~integrity~
Nobody said anything like that, you are injecting that narrative out of nowhere. Nobody said voting for Biden is the only political thing you have to do this year. Go advocate and go protest, I encourage you, but also vote.
not voting and voicing why you are not voting has so far created more discourse around the failures of the democratic party than saying “vote blue, no matter who”. so to me this seems much more direct than just quietly voting.
dems thought they may have it in the bag with biden but they don’t. the biden admin has the lowest approval rating of any administration. enabling a genocide and aligning with the country perpetrating it for most of your political career will do that to your approval rating.
all they have to do is say permanent ceasefire and they get all those votes back. its not a hard concept. maybe instead of threatening voters with what will happen if they lose, they should do the thing that is preventing them from winning
Sure, but is creating discourse the goal? Is the discourse even helping?
Agree
I can’t speak for everyone but for me, yes
Depends on a lot of things. I know I’m not the only one that feels this way. Ik there are aggressive democrat voters trying to shame and bully people into compromising themselves in an already compromising situation. They are told that what they think doesn’t matter and they “don’t have a voice” unless they vote. They don’t have a voice because y’all wont listen. We have voted, for what… to feel dirty and used by people you will never meet? I hope my replies and posts reach the eyes of those so they know that they aren’t voiceless and that this is an effective means of protest. Its obviously working by how much time and energy has been spent to try and convince us we are wrong. This is how democrats disenfranchise leftists. By saying this kind of protest and that kind of protest is ineffective, which is as ive pointed out demonstrably false because they are talking about it. You’re only allowed to protest a certain way even by democrats standards.
One fateful night, Marsha P. Johnson dropped a bag of bricks on a cop car and inspired millions of LGBTQ+ people over multiple generations. A trans woman that lived on the streets and was disenfranchised her whole life and couldn’t vote made real change happen that politicians could only dream of. Even trumps failed insurrection can’t put anything on that series of nights at the Stonewall Inn
There is a time to vote for people based on principle and that is what you are asking me to do by voting for biden. When the next major genocide is literally being conducted with the full support of the United States and the ones overseeing it are up for election and you can literally stop another holocaust like event from happening by telling those in power that they better do something or fuck off and make a lot of noise about it, then you have to take that opportunity.
Again, is talking about it even effective? For all you know it could be having a negative impact.
Can you though? Do you really think abstaining from voting will help at all? Either Biden wins anyway, or you get someone else even more pro-zionist. That’s it, those are the choices. Abstaining is literally just throwing your voice away.
Sounds like you think that one: we live in a democracy, and two: that democracy somehow equals more freedom. this is not the case.
Western democracy originated in ancient Greece. This political system granted democratic citizenship to free men, while excluding slaves, foreigners and women from political participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, this was what democracy meant. An elite class of free men made all the decisions for everyone. Before Athens adopted democracy, aristocrats ruled society, so “rule by the people”, or the idea of a government controlled (in theory) by all its (free) male citizens instead of a few wealthy families seemed like a good deal. But really it was just a new iteration of Aristocracy rule rather than the revolution it’s painted as. The rich still rule society by feeding voters carefully constructed propaganda and keeping everyone poor, overworked and desperate to be granted basic needs by the state.
In democracies today, only legal citizens of a country are granted democracy. In a lot of countries, people who have been convicted of a “crime” are denied the right to vote, regardless of how long ago they served their sentence. In the US, this is used to deny voting rights to minority groups, who make up a large proportion of the prison population.
In some societies only a small minority group are allowed to participate in the democracy. In Apartheid South Africa, the minority group (European settlers) granted themselves democracy and excluded the native majority, using democracy to deprive the native population of the rights granted to European settlers. Anarchy, of course, is an absence of government; of rulers. Democracy aims for the individual to be governed, ruled, controlled by others.
America is and always has been an illegitimate apartheid state.
Sure sounds like The Powers That Be are trying to prevent marginalized people from voting, we should probably vote against that. I wonder which party is more favorable to enfranchising convicts and making voting easier.
neither the republican or establishment democrats are interested in that
One is definitely more actively opposed