Voting for a genocidal party with a history of invading countries full of people that look like you because they decided to not be slaves to multicolor capitalists is not better, in any way, than voting for a genocidal party with a history of invading countries like you because they decided to not be slaves to white capitalists except they might also target you openly.
Only if you’re a single issue voter, which is dumb. If they’re equally bad on that one issue, but one is objectively better than the other on most other issues, it is in fact objectively better to vote for the one who is better on the other issues. One of the two will win, damage control is the rational choice.
The rational choice would be throwing out every politician supporting genocide since genocide never limits its victims. If you vote for genocide you will always eventually become the victim if you do not physically start fighting your government.
What exactly did that accomplish? Now we have a politician that supports genocide AND Russia’s invasion of Ukraine AND stripping rights away from everyone who isn’t a rich, white, cishet male. “Doing your part” made things objectively worse domestically, and will probably make the genocide worse too since he’s BFFs with Netanyahu.
Reread your last sentence back to yourself. If you can’t figure out why people didn’t support your racist right wing genocidier, then irony truly is dead.
I don’t support either major party, but I oppose one more than the other. There’s a difference between support and damage control. I’m not so callous that I’ll allow suffering to increase so I can feel like my hands are squeaky clean. Next time you get a bright idea about how to “help”, ask an adult first.
But voting for people who might kill you because their opponents will kill you buys time while you develop better alternatives.
Voting for a genocidal party with a history of invading countries full of people that look like you because they decided to not be slaves to multicolor capitalists is not better, in any way, than voting for a genocidal party with a history of invading countries like you because they decided to not be slaves to white capitalists except they might also target you openly.
Only if you’re a single issue voter, which is dumb. If they’re equally bad on that one issue, but one is objectively better than the other on most other issues, it is in fact objectively better to vote for the one who is better on the other issues. One of the two will win, damage control is the rational choice.
The issue is genocide.
The rational choice would be throwing out every politician supporting genocide since genocide never limits its victims. If you vote for genocide you will always eventually become the victim if you do not physically start fighting your government.
Why didn’t you throw out every politician supporting genocide then? Perhaps because that’s not in your power to do as an individual?
I did my part in that, by not voting for any politician supporting genocide.
Lol. Even for anti-electoralists the point is to do something more impactful than voting. This is just an excuse to be lazy.
What exactly did that accomplish? Now we have a politician that supports genocide AND Russia’s invasion of Ukraine AND stripping rights away from everyone who isn’t a rich, white, cishet male. “Doing your part” made things objectively worse domestically, and will probably make the genocide worse too since he’s BFFs with Netanyahu.
With friends like you who needs enemies?
Reread your last sentence back to yourself. If you can’t figure out why people didn’t support your racist right wing genocidier, then irony truly is dead.
I don’t support either major party, but I oppose one more than the other. There’s a difference between support and damage control. I’m not so callous that I’ll allow suffering to increase so I can feel like my hands are squeaky clean. Next time you get a bright idea about how to “help”, ask an adult first.