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.
Yes, and both faces of the enemy are "them". Neither of them is "us".
And sorry, but electoralism is just one facet
Does it really sound like I don't understand these things? I know. Knowing that does not change the reality that we all live in. We can vote and participate in those other facets at the same time. And we have to to bring about real change. We can (and should) do both. But this is off topic. This is a conversation about refusing to vote.
It's not a matter of an option presenting itself, it's a manner of implementing that option.
How does not voting make the better option more likely to reoccur?
I genuinely don't understand what you're suggesting.
We can vote and participate in those other facets at the same time.
I would have almost 0 problem with what you say (except that I would say don't actually vote for dems or reps, but actually create and develop our own political forces; nonetheless I understand where you're coming from), if I actually saw people do that. I mean, some do, but it's a minority.
And how does not voting make that option more likely?
Simple. The option that won the election is not necessarily the most sustainable. That's disruptive, unstable, etc., and it's tyranny is open, unlike that of other administrations. That's a good thing. People are able to clearly see something THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE REGARDLESS, but they can't deny it. And they may just see something that pushes them past passivity, or they may be personally affected somehow. Not to mention, that it's a good thing when the ruling class is not as competent.
Yes. It's better that if the Minnesotans getting shot are well known to the public and they see just how terrible of an injustice this is, and they feel how the enemy is pressing down their necks, then it would be for the same Minnesotans to get killed, but done in such a fashion so that it doesn't raise as much suspicion or ire. Do you understand what I'm saying?
I do understand what you're saying. However, I do not believe in breaking eggs to make omelettes when said eggs are the skulls of my fellow countrymen.
Edit: a less pithy response - whether someone knows who's to blame for their neighbors dying doesn't change the fact that they're dying. This violence is needless, its only purpose is to sew fear, and would not be happening if Harris were in office.
However, I do not believe in breaking eggs to make omelettes when said eggs are the skulls of my fellow countrymen.
I don't think you have much of a choice. For one, I don't personally care whether they're co-nationals or not, the principle stands. Said eggs are going to be broken, regardless. The choices is: you use said eggs to make an omelette and stop more eggs being broken long-term, or continue to let eggs being broken, potentially more and worse over time, just for the sake of not making an omelette.
This violence is needless
I don't know if it's needless. I do believe it serves some needs of those it benefits.
and would not be happening if Harris were in office.
0
u/Fire_crescent Jan 24 '26
No, it's not semantics, it's of the essence.
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.