It’s not really a strawman argument, it’s closer to an ad hominem. In fact, the argument you are making is closer to a strawman.
“A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.” -Wikipedia
Saying that “if you can’t tell the difference between the two parties is a you problem” is attacking the person not the issue. Saying that the difference between the two parties isn’t the problem (when that’s what is being argued) and instead it’s the system is by definition a strawman. Using the strawman to make the discussion about the futility of voting in a flawed system just goes to show how much of a strawman it is.
Nope, the thread they were responding is this one (https://lemmy.one/comment/13175909) which is about the two parties (specifically whether higher turnout would benefit one party or the other). Someone else replied saying that it’s about the system being broken (itself a strawman). This guy made an attack on the person, but was still focused on the two party system. Then you made a strawman as well.
And comparing the two parties like they are both the same within this broken system is counterproductive. One party is openly planning an authoritarian coup, and the other is far too beholden to the capitalist class. Voting third party or abstaining (same thing) is a vote to end whatever shreds of democracy we still have.
Vote for the lesser evil and make a scene about whatever you don’t like but don’t pretend the two parties are the same. It kills morale and it’s bullshit to boot.
You are watching a victim forced to give a gun to either
sleazeball or
a psychopath who has an explicitly outlined plan to use the gun to get more guns and kill as many people as possible.
Instead of urging the victim to choose the lesser evil you are doing… nothing? Bravely doing nothing so that next time… the sleazeball will make better choices or arguments? Or maybe so that next time the victim will learn their lesson and find a third option?
Vote for the lesser evil and make a scene about whatever you don’t like but don’t pretend the two parties are the same. It kills morale and it’s bullshit to boot.
If we are clutching onto the shreds of democracy through bullshit votes where pointing out the obvious might break moral to the point of slipping fully into fascism… That just feels like the end of an empire. Wasnt a statement on how to end it but a genuine question of;
So you you think this is the last chapters? Cause that sounds bad enough to look at history and see you don’t normally come out the other side of this breakdown unscathed.
That’s a strawman argument. Pointing out that one of them is worse than the other ignores the real problem - the system is broken.
It’s not really a strawman argument, it’s closer to an ad hominem. In fact, the argument you are making is closer to a strawman.
“A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.” -Wikipedia
Saying that “if you can’t tell the difference between the two parties is a you problem” is attacking the person not the issue. Saying that the difference between the two parties isn’t the problem (when that’s what is being argued) and instead it’s the system is by definition a strawman. Using the strawman to make the discussion about the futility of voting in a flawed system just goes to show how much of a strawman it is.
It’s a strawman because they’re trying to shift the focus from one thing (the system is broken) to another (Republicans are bad)
Nope, the thread they were responding is this one (https://lemmy.one/comment/13175909) which is about the two parties (specifically whether higher turnout would benefit one party or the other). Someone else replied saying that it’s about the system being broken (itself a strawman). This guy made an attack on the person, but was still focused on the two party system. Then you made a strawman as well.
And comparing the two parties like they are both the same within this broken system is counterproductive. One party is openly planning an authoritarian coup, and the other is far too beholden to the capitalist class. Voting third party or abstaining (same thing) is a vote to end whatever shreds of democracy we still have.
Vote for the lesser evil and make a scene about whatever you don’t like but don’t pretend the two parties are the same. It kills morale and it’s bullshit to boot.
I find voting against my values to be a killer of morale, and bullshit to boot.
Then your values are flawed.
You are watching a victim forced to give a gun to either
sleazeball or
a psychopath who has an explicitly outlined plan to use the gun to get more guns and kill as many people as possible.
Instead of urging the victim to choose the lesser evil you are doing… nothing? Bravely doing nothing so that next time… the sleazeball will make better choices or arguments? Or maybe so that next time the victim will learn their lesson and find a third option?
Soooo… End of an empire?
There are better ways to end an empire than making a christofascist the emperor and hoping it burns to the ground eventually.
Oh sure but this
Doesn’t sound like it has a happy resolution.
I’m not sure what you are saying or what it has to do with ending an empire.
If we are clutching onto the shreds of democracy through bullshit votes where pointing out the obvious might break moral to the point of slipping fully into fascism… That just feels like the end of an empire. Wasnt a statement on how to end it but a genuine question of;
So you you think this is the last chapters? Cause that sounds bad enough to look at history and see you don’t normally come out the other side of this breakdown unscathed.