You were the one who started using particular rhetoric of a variety that I consider to be not the most accurate or relevant way to look at it. The Hitler example indicates why. I certainly wasn’t the one who brought up “lesser evil” way of looking at it. “Earn my vote” is another of those little encapsulated phrases for a way of looking at it that is just bonkers to me. These politicians are not your friends, and voting for them is not doing them a favor. They mostly make money either way. They’ll be fine. Getting the policies of the country and the governance more sensible and human is the goal.
I think I explained what I do advocate for already, and what I would consider as a more productive way of looking at it that isn’t quite as subject to being hijacked by people who just don’t want left-wing people to vote.
You were the one who started using particular rhetoric of a variety that I consider incredibly disingenuous.
The US is a representative democracy. Elections are held for candidates to represent potential voters in an attempt to win the election.
I was the first to mention “lesser evil”, but it was in direct response to you using that rhetoric specifically in 2025 - unless my reading comprehension is lacking (which it may be).
I’m not being disingenuous. I’m supporting people’s choice to vote however they wish and encouraging politicians to flexibly respond (i.e. represent Americans). I feel that these two things are fundamental to a healthy democracy.
My country treats progressives and anybody to the left of the Democrats as terrorists - they refuse to negotiate.
Progressives and leftists are willing to negotiate, but discourse is killed, public opinion is actively shaped to smear opposing voices and to delegitimize them, literally any meaningful change is seen as unrealistic or radical, and so forth.
I was the first to mention “lesser evil”, but it was in direct response to you using that rhetoric specifically in 2025 - unless my reading comprehension is lacking (which it may be).
It is. You said that coherently advocating for politicians to adhere to better policies, with credible threats of electoral consequences if they don’t, was “insufficient action to change our trajectory as a country.” I mean, that is true, definitely. I pointed out that just not voting is definitely also insufficient action to change our trajectory as a country. Which is also true (even more so).
Then you started talking about “lesser evil.” For what reason, I don’t know, it had literally nothing at all to do with what I actually said. Actually, what I was saying at that point was pretty much the opposite of “lesser evil.”
That’s why I talked about “the whole script.” You guys seem to have a particular thing you like to say, and a particular way you like to respond when someone disagrees with you, even if it doesn’t make sense. Good luck with it I guess, but please find someone else to do it at in the future.
You guys seem to have a particular thing you like to say
I live in the US. I was born here. My opinions and views are my own and they evolve every single day.
I don’t feel like it’s fair for you to stereotype me as being part of a particular group of people.
just not voting is definitely also insufficient action to change our trajectory as a country.
If I was a candidate running for election and somebody says they won’t vote at all because they are completely disenfranchised - that would blow my mind. I’d rethink everything and get to the heart of understanding why they feel that way and ask myself if there are other people who feel similarly. 33% of Americans don’t vote in the presidential election, Democrats could be looking at non-voters or politically-active people who refuse to vote without representation and win every election that they face.
For example, Kamala Harris was free to respond to the concerns of the Uncommitted National Movement and Abandon Biden/Abandon Harris movements and represent them instead of gaslighting everybody about tirelessly working for a temporary ceasefire (which is a far cry to the permanent ceasefire that these groups advocated for).
The end result is your advocacy for the lesser evil, or more accurately, giving the lesser evil the knowledge that people will vote for them anyway. You see it as more effective than having Hitler as the president, and I’m not disagreeing with you completely - I’m disagreeing with your strategy.
I’m just pointing out that in recent history, Democrats generally refuse to negotiate and fight people to the left of them with greater strength than they fight people to the right of them.
but please find someone else to do it at in the future.
I feel that “lesser evil isn’t a valid argument” rhetoric is part of how we got ourselves in the current screaming disaster, honestly.
Here is where you are specifically arguing the validity of lesser evil rhetoric. If I’m understanding correctly, you believe the pushback against such rhetoric is “how we got ourselves in the current screaming disaster”. I explained why lesser evil rhetoric is strategically invalid and why it is harmful (to discourse or otherwise).
Kamala was too busy to respond to anybody besides imaginary centrists and disenfranchised conservatives to realize that people really weren’t going to vote for her due to her refusal to properly address their serious concerns.
Hopefully, the next neoliberal that is shoved down our throats (in the primary or otherwise) learns to respond to the writing on the wall (large protest movements that demand a specific policy change) and clear widespread and public disapproval of our involvement in said atrocities.
You:
Is refusing to vote for that same neoliberal sufficient action to change our trajectory as a country? Seems like that is even more ineffectual, if that’s the metric.
You are indeed arguing for voting blocs and are seemingly criticizing people for independently refusing to vote for a neoliberal outside of those groups - by saying that voting blocs are more effectual. I’m agreeing with you, and I hope that people learn from the mistakes of the 2024 election and organize e.g. into more visible voting blocs. I don’t feel that it is totally necessary if candidates are truly representing us or are attempting to appeal to Americans, however.
And if I recall correctly, you loosely said that my principle of voting for politicians who “earn my vote” (or represent my interests) was disingenuous, but I’d like to clarify that it isn’t an impossibly high standard.
Regardless, if I’m still fucking up and misrepresenting you and your perspective - that’s on me and I apologize. I’ll amend one of my earlier, more visible comments and shed light to any developments that are buried down here.
You were the one who started using particular rhetoric of a variety that I consider to be not the most accurate or relevant way to look at it. The Hitler example indicates why. I certainly wasn’t the one who brought up “lesser evil” way of looking at it. “Earn my vote” is another of those little encapsulated phrases for a way of looking at it that is just bonkers to me. These politicians are not your friends, and voting for them is not doing them a favor. They mostly make money either way. They’ll be fine. Getting the policies of the country and the governance more sensible and human is the goal.
I think I explained what I do advocate for already, and what I would consider as a more productive way of looking at it that isn’t quite as subject to being hijacked by people who just don’t want left-wing people to vote.
The US is a representative democracy. Elections are held for candidates to represent potential voters in an attempt to win the election.
I was the first to mention “lesser evil”, but it was in direct response to you using that rhetoric specifically in 2025 - unless my reading comprehension is lacking (which it may be).
I’m not being disingenuous. I’m supporting people’s choice to vote however they wish and encouraging politicians to flexibly respond (i.e. represent Americans). I feel that these two things are fundamental to a healthy democracy.
My country treats progressives and anybody to the left of the Democrats as terrorists - they refuse to negotiate.
Progressives and leftists are willing to negotiate, but discourse is killed, public opinion is actively shaped to smear opposing voices and to delegitimize them, literally any meaningful change is seen as unrealistic or radical, and so forth.
It is. You said that coherently advocating for politicians to adhere to better policies, with credible threats of electoral consequences if they don’t, was “insufficient action to change our trajectory as a country.” I mean, that is true, definitely. I pointed out that just not voting is definitely also insufficient action to change our trajectory as a country. Which is also true (even more so).
Then you started talking about “lesser evil.” For what reason, I don’t know, it had literally nothing at all to do with what I actually said. Actually, what I was saying at that point was pretty much the opposite of “lesser evil.”
That’s why I talked about “the whole script.” You guys seem to have a particular thing you like to say, and a particular way you like to respond when someone disagrees with you, even if it doesn’t make sense. Good luck with it I guess, but please find someone else to do it at in the future.
I live in the US. I was born here. My opinions and views are my own and they evolve every single day.
I don’t feel like it’s fair for you to stereotype me as being part of a particular group of people.
If I was a candidate running for election and somebody says they won’t vote at all because they are completely disenfranchised - that would blow my mind. I’d rethink everything and get to the heart of understanding why they feel that way and ask myself if there are other people who feel similarly. 33% of Americans don’t vote in the presidential election, Democrats could be looking at non-voters or politically-active people who refuse to vote without representation and win every election that they face.
For example, Kamala Harris was free to respond to the concerns of the Uncommitted National Movement and Abandon Biden/Abandon Harris movements and represent them instead of gaslighting everybody about tirelessly working for a temporary ceasefire (which is a far cry to the permanent ceasefire that these groups advocated for).
The end result is your advocacy for the lesser evil, or more accurately, giving the lesser evil the knowledge that people will vote for them anyway. You see it as more effective than having Hitler as the president, and I’m not disagreeing with you completely - I’m disagreeing with your strategy.
I’m just pointing out that in recent history, Democrats generally refuse to negotiate and fight people to the left of them with greater strength than they fight people to the right of them.
Initially, you responded to me.
I’m going to need you to search in these comments for “forming up into a bloc” and explain to me what you find.
You:
Here is where you are specifically arguing the validity of lesser evil rhetoric. If I’m understanding correctly, you believe the pushback against such rhetoric is “how we got ourselves in the current screaming disaster”. I explained why lesser evil rhetoric is strategically invalid and why it is harmful (to discourse or otherwise).
Kamala was too busy to respond to anybody besides imaginary centrists and disenfranchised conservatives to realize that people really weren’t going to vote for her due to her refusal to properly address their serious concerns.
Hopefully, the next neoliberal that is shoved down our throats (in the primary or otherwise) learns to respond to the writing on the wall (large protest movements that demand a specific policy change) and clear widespread and public disapproval of our involvement in said atrocities.
You:
You are indeed arguing for voting blocs and are seemingly criticizing people for independently refusing to vote for a neoliberal outside of those groups - by saying that voting blocs are more effectual. I’m agreeing with you, and I hope that people learn from the mistakes of the 2024 election and organize e.g. into more visible voting blocs. I don’t feel that it is totally necessary if candidates are truly representing us or are attempting to appeal to Americans, however.
And if I recall correctly, you loosely said that my principle of voting for politicians who “earn my vote” (or represent my interests) was disingenuous, but I’d like to clarify that it isn’t an impossibly high standard.
Regardless, if I’m still fucking up and misrepresenting you and your perspective - that’s on me and I apologize. I’ll amend one of my earlier, more visible comments and shed light to any developments that are buried down here.