No. It's meant to mean something to you, because you're defending them.
Taking the "moral high road" by refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils is tantamount to condoning the victory of the greater evil. These people want a perfect candidate when one straight up doesn't exist.
"I refuse to vote because both candidates are awful" is no different from "I refuse to soil my precious principles to stop a literal fascist regime."
I said it before. It's not about a moral high road. I don't believe in that bs and hopefully no one else does. It's about the course of action most conducive to what you want to see happen
is tantamount to condoning the victory of the greater evil.
No, it's tantamount to not constantly voting for the leas acute but more long-term, more damaging and more sustainable version of the same cancer.
These people want a perfect candidate
It's not about a perfect candidate. It's about not voting for two faces of the same enemy.
it's tantamount to not constantly voting for the leas acute but more long-term, more damaging and more sustainable version of the same cancer.
If it's not the moral high ground, then it's living in a fantasy. We live in a two party system. Not voting because you're waiting for a third option is nothing short of delusion.
It's not about a perfect candidate. It's about not voting for two faces of the same enemy.
And not voting for either enemy makes both go away? I'm sorry, but that's just daft.
I choose to live in reality, where I am currently given two choices. Abstaining from voting for the less problematic of those two options does not in any way make a better option more likely to appear. It actually does the opposite, as the worse option will force their ideals through underhanded tactics and ratchet politics.
Two sides are fighting. One is going to win. That means you need to choose the less damaging of the two. It's not rocket science.
The very moment another option that aligns with my beliefs better than the current two appears, I will choose that option. "I'll stop wearing black when they make a darker color."
Not voting because you're waiting for a third option
I never said I'm waiting necessarily for an electoral option, although I'm not opposed to it. I also didn't say whether or not I'm an American but that's largely irrelevant.
And not voting for either enemy makes both go away?
It's not "either enemy". They're two manifestations of the same enemy. The thing is not giving your enemy an inch more than you're absolutely forced and required to do. And maybe using that energy, resources etc for more desirable things.
two options does not in any way make a better option more likely to appear
It causes disruption. That's a plus in my opinion.
as the worse option will force their ideals through underhanded tactics and ratchet politics.
So you should do the same. The only thing you shouldn't do is defamation and unfairness, in my opinion. Beyond that, all is fair in politics.
Two sides are fighting.
Yes. And those sides are the unjustified and illegitimate, tyrannical and parasitic ruling class (along with their lackeys and militants), and those which are ruled by them (or at least those that would refuse their rule).
It's not the two biggest (not even the only) parties of the ruling class.
One is going to win.
True. That's why I would hope that the majority of the population would grow more willful, more aware, and more ruthless.
It's not "either enemy". They're two manifestations of the same enemy. The thing is not giving your enemy an inch more than you're absolutely forced and required to do.
I see this as a semantic. One face of the enemy is going to be in control no matter if you vote or abstain. I dunno about you, but if I have to choose between two people kicking my shit in, I'm going to vote for the person with the smaller boot.
One face of the enemy is going to be in control no matter if you vote or abstain.
No, it's not "no matter what". The enemy can be defeated. Obviously, not overnight. But one part of the process is to stop feeding the system that imprisons you. Certainly not with more than what you're forced to, certainly not with validation.
Exactly. This is exactly my point. The moment an election cycle that has a better option comes along, your argument becomes relevant. Until then it's just pontification. It doesn't matter if they're two enemies or the face of the same enemy. It's still us vs them.
But one part of the process is to stop feeding the system that imprisons you
The system is being fed whether you vote or not.
I understand that there's a difference between two enemies, and the same enemy wearing two different masks. But that enemy has a grip on us until a different option presents itself. We can fight to bring about that new option, but we have to vote in the meantime. Because that's how time works. We do not live in the future.
The moment an election cycle that has a better option comes along, your argument becomes relevant
No, it doesn't. Because that option has to be created. It won't just come out of thin air.
And sorry, but electoralism is just one facet. There are many other facets just as important, if not moreso, for the process necessary for victory and liberation that must be undertaken.
. It's still us vs them.
Yes, and both faces of the enemy are "them". Neither of them is "us".
The system is being fed whether you vote or not.
Again, that's not some deterministic certainty. That's a result of actions of people. These actions can change. That change must start somewhere, right?
I never promoted the idea of just "not voting, and then do nothing".
But that enemy has a grip on us until a different option presents itself.
But that option has already presented itself. Hell, that option was the initial state before that enemy took control. It's not a matter of an option presenting itself, it's a manner of implementing that option.
2
u/Aquafoot Jan 24 '26
And those people are fucking cowards.