“Every previous president would have ended it by now.”

“Biden literally couldn’t do worse.”

  • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    There are two options: ‘some genocide’, and ‘a lot more genocide’. The race is close, so if not enough people vote for ‘some genocide’, ‘a lot more genocide’ will win. ‘No genocide’ is not one of the options. Do you vote for ‘some genocide’, or do you assent to letting ‘a lot more genocide’ win?

      • bobburger@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Will that actually help reduce genocide or just satisfy your need to be self righteous?

        • Sybil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          8 months ago

          I don’t believe any vote will reduce genocide. ballots don’t stop bullets.

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        As I said, ‘No genocide’ is not one of the two options that’s going to win. The race is close, not voting for ‘less genocide’ only helps ‘lots of genocide’. So you’re helping ‘lots of genocide’ beat ‘less genocide’, congrats.

        • Sybil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          8 months ago

          voting against genocide doesn’t help genocide. this is pure doublespeak.

          • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            Voting against genocide doesn’t reduce genocide. In American elections, the only votes that have an effect are those for one of the two front-runners. Any other vote is an admission of equivocation of the two front-runners. The two front-runners are ‘some genocide’ and ‘lots of genocide’. Equivocating the two means you think ‘some genocide’ and ‘lots of genocide’ are equally acceptable. Q.E.D. you accept lots of genocide.

            • Sybil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Equivocating the two means you think ‘some genocide’ and ‘lots of genocide’ are equally acceptable.

              no. i don’t find either of those acceptable. that doesn’t make them the same. it just means that neither of them meets the bar of acceptability.

              • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                Unfortunately the American electoral system is not ranked choice, so “bar of acceptability” isn’t a functionally meaningful concept. In American elections, the situation is as I’ve described above. Refusing to choose one of the two primary options functionally means you find both primary options equally acceptable.

                • Sybil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Refusing to choose one of the two primary options functionally means you find both primary options equally acceptable.

                  false.

                  • ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    You’re going to allow one of them to be president, so no it’s not false. Throwing your vote away on a third party is equivalent to not voting.

                • Sybil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  duverger’s “law” has no predictive value. it’s a tautology as empty as “supply and demand”.

                  • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    Tautologies are statements that are necessarily true by virtue of their construction. In order to show that something is tautological, you must reduce it to an open statement and be able to show that it’s true independent of the variables. Tautologies include “Not Q or Q” and the equivalent “If Q then Q”. Furthermore, stating that something is a tautology implies that you believe it’s true. The last time I encountered someone claiming that something didn’t have predictive value “because it’s a tautology” was a creationist saying the same of evolution, and I realized they had essentially granted their opponent’s conclusion.

                  • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    That’s not what a tautology is, Duverger’s Law is a mathematical derivative of First Past the Post election systems. Yes, under FPTP systems, voting third party is equivocating support for both primary parties. Performative ethics without pragmatics is moral masturbation.

                    Splitting your responses is rhetorically ridiculous.

                • Sybil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  “bar of acceptability” isn’t a functionally meaningful concept.

                  it is in ethics

            • Sybil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              Any other vote is an admission of equivocation of the two front-runners.

              false dichotomy

              • Hamartia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Loving your dauntless energy. Nothing gives a bully the shits quite like looking them in the eye.