All of this (gestures broadly) is the direct and inevitable result of lesser-evilism. A few people not sitting out the last election may have delayed this timeline (though I’m doubtful there were even enough protest-non-voters to make any difference), but this has been building for a long time and Harris hadn’t talked about any plans to reverse that trend.
Immigrants and trans people are just collateral damage to you
You’re literally justifying Palestinians as collateral damage. You don’t have the moral high ground here. You’re perfectly willing to sacrifice the lives of others.
False equivalence. Palestine was fucked either way, and Harris winning was probably the better outcome of the two. No outcome was going to stop the genocide, so it’s not particularly relevant to the choice. Except that the outcome we got was almost certainly the worse one.
Trans people and immigrants did have outcomes that were radically different based on who won. The choice changed the outcome, so it was relevant
I think you misunderstood me. Voting for the “lesser evil” is a valid strategy if it comes up every once in a while and you can use it to avert disaster, but when every single election comes down to voting for the “lesser evil”, then you just end up on a steady march toward an evil outcome.
We’ve been on this path for decades, with today’s Democrats being far to the right of where Republicans were fifty years ago. Even if Harris wasn’t as bad as Trump (which she almost certainly wouldn’t be), she would help build the framework for the next Trump-like monster that followed her.
You don’t fix an evil system by voting for evil over and over again, evil if it’s the lesser evil. We need to stop seeing Democratic candidates like Harris and the like for any movement away from evil to happen.
We need to stop seeing Democratic candidates like Harris and the like for any movement away from evil to happen.
And we need to stop electing fascists if we ever want a chance to “see” (read: vote for) such a candidate. It’s actually not about this abstract, undefined “greater evil vs lesser evil” bullshit, it’s about what the two viable candidates were actually likely to do once in power. Everyone knew Trump was a fascist who would try to literally end democracy, he’s done it before and it was essentially his entire platform. Yet here we are. Dems, as experience has taught us, were likely to piddle around for four to eight years and do some performative but ineffectual lip service to their base, while keeping what passes as democracy in place. Seems like a pretty easy choice to me. You can’t fix a system from within if the system has been burned to ground.
I totally agree. I think keeping the extreme evil of Trump out of power was worth voting for a controlled opposition establishment Democrat (and of course I voted for Harris and didn’t sit the election out).
A campaign based on lesser evil drives down voter turnout if it’s used every single election, which it has been for so long. The one reprieve we’ve had was Obama (the first time, when he still seemed progressive) running on a campaign of hope and change. Trump is the worst we’ve seen so far, but all of the Republican candidates back to at least Reagan were pretty awful people and the Democratic stance was mostly just pointing out how awful they are.
If we consistently don’t get opposition candidates with a positive message and plan for fixing things, we end up with low voter turnout and monsters like Trump in office.
Pulling your head out of the sand doesn’t make you an accelerationist. Nobody with any sense wanted Trump, but thinking that a Harris win was going to set us on the right track is delusional.
Get out of here with this tired stuff.
All of this (gestures broadly) is the direct and inevitable result of lesser-evilism. A few people not sitting out the last election may have delayed this timeline (though I’m doubtful there were even enough protest-non-voters to make any difference), but this has been building for a long time and Harris hadn’t talked about any plans to reverse that trend.
Immigrants and trans people are just collateral damage to you?
Our suffering is a necessary evil?
What if I don’t want to be a pawn in your fucking game? What if I just wanted to live a happy life?
Fuck me for wanting a normal life rather than being fodder for your battles?
Your assumption that we’d defeat this so called “inevitable threat” throws people like me into the fire, and you could be wrong.
What if you’re wrong?
What if NOT letting this happen was our last chance, and we will never be free the way we used to ever again now… because of people like you?
You’re literally justifying Palestinians as collateral damage. You don’t have the moral high ground here. You’re perfectly willing to sacrifice the lives of others.
Here. Take a look. I dare you. https://archivegenocide.com/
False equivalence. Palestine was fucked either way, and Harris winning was probably the better outcome of the two. No outcome was going to stop the genocide, so it’s not particularly relevant to the choice. Except that the outcome we got was almost certainly the worse one.
Trans people and immigrants did have outcomes that were radically different based on who won. The choice changed the outcome, so it was relevant
I think you misunderstood me. Voting for the “lesser evil” is a valid strategy if it comes up every once in a while and you can use it to avert disaster, but when every single election comes down to voting for the “lesser evil”, then you just end up on a steady march toward an evil outcome.
We’ve been on this path for decades, with today’s Democrats being far to the right of where Republicans were fifty years ago. Even if Harris wasn’t as bad as Trump (which she almost certainly wouldn’t be), she would help build the framework for the next Trump-like monster that followed her.
You don’t fix an evil system by voting for evil over and over again, evil if it’s the lesser evil. We need to stop seeing Democratic candidates like Harris and the like for any movement away from evil to happen.
So the answer is yes.
Minorities are collateral damage to your moral crusade.
Maybe look in the mirror every so often before repeatedly spouting off about evil.
And we need to stop electing fascists if we ever want a chance to “see” (read: vote for) such a candidate. It’s actually not about this abstract, undefined “greater evil vs lesser evil” bullshit, it’s about what the two viable candidates were actually likely to do once in power. Everyone knew Trump was a fascist who would try to literally end democracy, he’s done it before and it was essentially his entire platform. Yet here we are. Dems, as experience has taught us, were likely to piddle around for four to eight years and do some performative but ineffectual lip service to their base, while keeping what passes as democracy in place. Seems like a pretty easy choice to me. You can’t fix a system from within if the system has been burned to ground.
I totally agree. I think keeping the extreme evil of Trump out of power was worth voting for a controlled opposition establishment Democrat (and of course I voted for Harris and didn’t sit the election out).
A campaign based on lesser evil drives down voter turnout if it’s used every single election, which it has been for so long. The one reprieve we’ve had was Obama (the first time, when he still seemed progressive) running on a campaign of hope and change. Trump is the worst we’ve seen so far, but all of the Republican candidates back to at least Reagan were pretty awful people and the Democratic stance was mostly just pointing out how awful they are.
If we consistently don’t get opposition candidates with a positive message and plan for fixing things, we end up with low voter turnout and monsters like Trump in office.
So you’re an accelerationist and can be totally disregarded.
Pulling your head out of the sand doesn’t make you an accelerationist. Nobody with any sense wanted Trump, but thinking that a Harris win was going to set us on the right track is delusional.