Death of Rats wrote: »Death of Rats wrote: »Death of Rats wrote: »Death of Rats wrote: »Death of Rats wrote: »Death of Rats wrote: »A common refrain I hear from the nonvoting side is that just voting isn’t good enough, past activists had to do more than just vote, etc. What I have not heard yet is why the answer becomes to not vote at all, instead of voting AND doing the other stuff.
Hypothetically, if both candidates were to say.. support a genocidal ally and the activism was about not supporting the genocide being committed by that genocide, voting for either candidate would be voting in support of genocide, which depending on the person could be a moral red line that one is not willing to cross for the sake of helping team blue.
In this purely hypothetical situation, it comes down to degree. Do both candidates support this imaginary genocidal ally equally, or is one of them basically pushing to have an entire country turned into a parking lot? It might feel good to throw your hands up and say “both sides bad, I’m out”, but lives depend on that difference of degree.
I in no way will ever knowingly give my approval to anyone who supports a genocide. Doesn't matter to what degree.
Fortunately this is just a hypothetical.
So in this hypothetical, even if voting one candidate over the other would definitely reduce the overall suffering and death, you’d value your own peace of mind higher?
No, I value my soul more. I have some sort of faith that my actions beyond not pulling a lever will balance out the harm caused by both political parties deciding that "evil" is the choice they have to put on offer.
Man, that’d be a heck of a conversation to have at the Pearly Gates. “Yeah, I could’ve taken EVERY legal action freely available to me to help you out, but I had to keep my soul PURE, you know? If you really think about it, it’s actually super moral of me to care about my own wellbeing more than all of yours!”
I don't know, maybe supporting genocide would factor in there more than you apparently think.
But does voting for the lesser evil mean supporting genocide or trying to reduce genocide? To you, it’s clearly just semantics, but I have to imagine that the people actually being affected would have a very different opinion.
It's supporting genocide. You're saying "I want this person who supports this genocide to lead us and here's the proof, it's my vote. Here you go, one genocide supporter for leading me please, that's what I like government daddy".
That's literally what everyone in this hypothetical is doing if they vote for either person. In those words exactly.
And what you’re saying is “I’m okay with this genocide being even worse if it means I get to have a clear conscience about the whole thing”.
Nope.
It has always fascinated me on these forums that the math starting with "Republicans are literal Evil Monsters" doesn't automatically end with "so I will do everything I can to oppose them" for everyone.
This has been deep thoughts with Jack Handy.
minor incident wrote: »I genuinely can’t imagine being so in love with a politician that I freak out and storm out of work when they get convicted of 34 felonies, but I guess this world takes all kinds
Evil Multifarious wrote: »The cats have made contact
Some good positive parallel play, and then Murph went for Finn and swatted at him and was swatted in retaliation
About what we expected tbh. But I'm a bit surprised Murph was such a naked aggressor.
I’m not going to be complicit in it. I’m fucking not.
neverreally wrote: »Poor Pixar. Can't come up with a new napkin idea to save their lives.
What was Pixar's last original idea?