There are arguments to be made in favor of that yes, in the sense accelerationism. But that is based on the delusion that the fascist state will eat itself in the end, which is not guaranteed. That and all the suffering of course.
What I’d really prefer is not to have a corrupt lying stooge between me and decision-making.
Accelerationism is a horrible idea. It’s based on the ideas that,
We can’t prevent having a fascist state now and then,
We can afford the waste and suffering this causes.
With climate change, it should be clear that we can no longer afford the luxuries of wars or even culture wars. Technological advancement should allow us to live with far less waste and far less labor than we do. But that would mean departing from capitalism entirely. We need that post scarcity society now. Resource wise it’s a lot cheaper than what we have now.
I agree that it currently is, but it doesn’t have to be.
I really don’t know how to solve these problems. It would require people to stop being selfish, scared , petty and mean to start with, but there is a huge propaganda machine fanning on those feelings constantly. Revolution is a huge waste of resources, energy and people and usually leads to a new government by the new batch of the most eager and ruthless opportunists.
At the moment, it’s hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel. People currently do seem as you describe, but I’m confident it’s not their inherent nature. They were taught to be that way, so perhaps there’s a way to unteach.
Eventually, I reckon we’re progressing towards a point where the state will no longer have sufficient funds for the most basic services towards their citizens. People at that point do have an incentive to be compassionate. Not sure if a state failing will provide for enough time for people to organize mutual aid groups and networks they can depend on, but at least it’s a glimmer of hope.
That’s what Chomsky said too, I don’t buy it. In my country there are 10+ parties, 6 of which in government, and people are still playing the lesser evil game in the deluded hope they can shift the window.
Yes and every time you vote in our little country it’s still for the least bad party. It’s the nature of politics. You may like a party, but it still has politicians in it, who are human. Humans seem to be inherently flawed.
The nature of parliamentary politics sure, but that’s just oligarchy with a thin veneer of democracy. No politician is ever responsible, stronger still, the more they push austerity, the more they are rewarded with top-level positions in international institutions. That is what drives politicians, not the betterment of their people. So I can’t undo myself of the impression that participating in this sham is reinforcing it, legitimizing it.
That’s the most important question of our time. We have only a few decades to not only come up with that answer, but also with its rigorous implementation.
There seem to be many theories and strategies, either working within and outside the current system, but few seem ideal. Further worsened by the fact that the more ideal a solution seems, the more change it requires of regular folks, thus the more resistance it will face.
But then again, I’m sure once more people see the necessity of it, more discussions will happen, hopefully resulting in better contemporary strategies.
It does, actually. Ice cream can put you at grave risk of brain freeze.
If you want to be philosophical about it, consider this: If there weren’t pros and cons, you wouldn’t be making a choice at all. (You would be acting arbitrarily.)
And even breathing has downsides. For instance, it means I must continue sharing the planet with you. This is terrible news. (Also my nose is cold.)
It does, actually. Ice cream can put you at grave risk of brain freeze.
Good point! Then again, I don’t think some flavors result in less brain freeze than others.
Even breathing has downsides.
True as well, every breath destroys lung cells.
If you want to be philosophical about it, consider this: If there weren’t pros and cons, you wouldn’t be making a choice at all.
This, however, I’m having a hard time to agree with. Come to think of it, I’m not even sure choice is something natural, but that will require some deeper investigation to ascertain. In a fictional natural state, when looking for a place to sleep, would a “family” really (have to) make a conscious choice between this cave and that one?
Good point! Then again, I don’t think some flavors result in less brain freeze than others.
That doesn’t mean it’s not a “lesser evil” decision. If you have to choose between chocolate ice cream (with brain freeze) or black licorice (with brain freeze), that would still be a case of lesser evil (because black licorice is disgusting and gives brain freeze).
Thanks! To your last point, I see any meaningful choice as fundamentally deliberative. If competing actions have no discriminating features (over which to deliberate), e.g., by being equally bad or good, then your decision would be arbitrary. Acting at random isn’t a deliberative procedure (evaluative, judgment-oriented, rule-bounded, normative, moral, or praiseworthy) and therefore not a meaningful choice.
What a fucking dipshit stupid non-answer that also exposes how little you think and how little empathy you have.
Oh I’ll just not participate and I’ll never be subject to whatever law/power that happens next, but more importantly fuck everyone around me that this will effect far more than I, because I’m privileged enough to not have to really think of dealing with it. I live in moron-land where only my thoughts dictate what happens in the world.
Your actions have affected lives around you whether you believe in it or not, stop being this fucking naive in the face of all the people you’ve let down. Shame on you.
P.S. to mods, before canning this comment, do a real good think about how uncivilized having an opinion like this really is. Weigh out who’s really affected by this type of thinking and spreading it vs. this one moron’s feelings for once.
That’s not an option. So that just means you are delusional.
If you didn’t vote for Harris, you helped Trump get elected. That’s basically the same as voting for Trump.
All the morons that for instance criticized how Democrats handled Israel/Gaza, and recommended not to vote Democrat, are partly responsible for what’s going on there now, with no help coming through, and widespread starvation and disease!
All the morons that complained about inflation, despite it was getting back to normal after COVID, are responsible for the economic chaos we have now.
By not supporting the lesser evil, you are actually helping the greater evil.
There are lots of way more constructive things to do, that can help push things in the right direction, than just being in denial.
One could argue that by voting you’re supporting the status quo, the bipartisan democracy heavily invested in said status quo. You are the one obstructing change.
Or to say it with a quote:
If democracy demands compulsory voting for candidates people can’t believe in, it’s not democracy, it’s extortion.
EDIT: One further thought on that reasoning: it might actually make one morally obliged to vote for a third party.
One can argue anything, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense.
If you want to change American democracy, which I agree is sorely needed, then you need to engage actively in politics. UNTIL such change has arrived, you are still a moron for not preventing a greater evil, when you are given that option.
You are saying you won’t use the democratic option you have because it’s not democratic enough. Well I got news for you, democracy can never be perfect, because democracy is about compromise.
Here we have 12 parties in parliament we can vote on, so we have options for mostly everyone. But it’s still a game of compromise.
If you can’t find the best compromise among 2 parties, you sure as hell can’t among several either. You just want to whine, so you would probably still whine even if you lived in the best democracy in the world.
Thanks, IDK if he was trolling or a Russian asset undermining the west, or if he really could be that stupid?
I just thought it important not to let his idiocy stand. Because I think people like him are harmful.
Harmful for sure, and unfortunately it has a very good chance of being idiot. Sad to say, but best case scenario is either Russian asset or trolling. I’ve met people, and I gotta say those options are unlikely.
Am I? I just hate the lesser evil bullshit.
You prefer the more evil?
There are arguments to be made in favor of that yes, in the sense accelerationism. But that is based on the delusion that the fascist state will eat itself in the end, which is not guaranteed. That and all the suffering of course.
What I’d really prefer is not to have a corrupt lying stooge between me and decision-making.
Accelerationism is a horrible idea. It’s based on the ideas that,
We can’t prevent having a fascist state now and then,
We can afford the waste and suffering this causes.
With climate change, it should be clear that we can no longer afford the luxuries of wars or even culture wars. Technological advancement should allow us to live with far less waste and far less labor than we do. But that would mean departing from capitalism entirely. We need that post scarcity society now. Resource wise it’s a lot cheaper than what we have now.
No argument here, I wholeheartedly agree. But let me state the obvious: parliamentary democracy is a feature of capitalism.
I agree that it currently is, but it doesn’t have to be.
I really don’t know how to solve these problems. It would require people to stop being selfish, scared , petty and mean to start with, but there is a huge propaganda machine fanning on those feelings constantly. Revolution is a huge waste of resources, energy and people and usually leads to a new government by the new batch of the most eager and ruthless opportunists.
At the moment, it’s hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel. People currently do seem as you describe, but I’m confident it’s not their inherent nature. They were taught to be that way, so perhaps there’s a way to unteach.
Eventually, I reckon we’re progressing towards a point where the state will no longer have sufficient funds for the most basic services towards their citizens. People at that point do have an incentive to be compassionate. Not sure if a state failing will provide for enough time for people to organize mutual aid groups and networks they can depend on, but at least it’s a glimmer of hope.
Hate it all you want, but until you can establish a viable third party (who isn’t also awful), “lesser of two evils” is the only choice you have.
Isn’t that literally life?
It’s every single choice these people have ever made and they still don’t get it.
That’s what Chomsky said too, I don’t buy it. In my country there are 10+ parties, 6 of which in government, and people are still playing the lesser evil game in the deluded hope they can shift the window.
Yes and every time you vote in our little country it’s still for the least bad party. It’s the nature of politics. You may like a party, but it still has politicians in it, who are human. Humans seem to be inherently flawed.
The nature of parliamentary politics sure, but that’s just oligarchy with a thin veneer of democracy. No politician is ever responsible, stronger still, the more they push austerity, the more they are rewarded with top-level positions in international institutions. That is what drives politicians, not the betterment of their people. So I can’t undo myself of the impression that participating in this sham is reinforcing it, legitimizing it.
What is the alternative though?
That’s the most important question of our time. We have only a few decades to not only come up with that answer, but also with its rigorous implementation.
There seem to be many theories and strategies, either working within and outside the current system, but few seem ideal. Further worsened by the fact that the more ideal a solution seems, the more change it requires of regular folks, thus the more resistance it will face.
But then again, I’m sure once more people see the necessity of it, more discussions will happen, hopefully resulting in better contemporary strategies.
nononono.
We either have it NOW or we vote for the lesser evil. There is no waiting, it only causes fascism to rise
That’s… life. You’ve never not made a lesser-of-two-evils choice. It’s metaphysically impossible.
Very interesting viewpoint but it doesn’t quite seem to apply when choosing flavors at an ice cream parlor.
It does, actually. Ice cream can put you at grave risk of brain freeze.
If you want to be philosophical about it, consider this: If there weren’t pros and cons, you wouldn’t be making a choice at all. (You would be acting arbitrarily.)
And even breathing has downsides. For instance, it means I must continue sharing the planet with you. This is terrible news. (Also my nose is cold.)
Good point! Then again, I don’t think some flavors result in less brain freeze than others.
True as well, every breath destroys lung cells.
This, however, I’m having a hard time to agree with. Come to think of it, I’m not even sure choice is something natural, but that will require some deeper investigation to ascertain. In a fictional natural state, when looking for a place to sleep, would a “family” really (have to) make a conscious choice between this cave and that one?
That doesn’t mean it’s not a “lesser evil” decision. If you have to choose between chocolate ice cream (with brain freeze) or black licorice (with brain freeze), that would still be a case of lesser evil (because black licorice is disgusting and gives brain freeze).
Thanks! To your last point, I see any meaningful choice as fundamentally deliberative. If competing actions have no discriminating features (over which to deliberate), e.g., by being equally bad or good, then your decision would be arbitrary. Acting at random isn’t a deliberative procedure (evaluative, judgment-oriented, rule-bounded, normative, moral, or praiseworthy) and therefore not a meaningful choice.
You seem vaguely intelligent. Why you act so stupid?
Funny how people like you is against LGBT, but you’re the first to lick Donald’s ass clean.
Yeah, you prefer the greater evil, we get it
You’re the one who brought him into the conversation.
Lol what is it that people like you don’t understand? Do you want to be kicked in the nuts twice or once? Easy fucking choice every single time.
I’d reckon it’s more natural to try and avoid any nut-kicking, but hey, that’s me.
I wasn’t going to comment on this originally but…
What a fucking dipshit stupid non-answer that also exposes how little you think and how little empathy you have.
Oh I’ll just not participate and I’ll never be subject to whatever law/power that happens next, but more importantly fuck everyone around me that this will effect far more than I, because I’m privileged enough to not have to really think of dealing with it. I live in moron-land where only my thoughts dictate what happens in the world.
Your actions have affected lives around you whether you believe in it or not, stop being this fucking naive in the face of all the people you’ve let down. Shame on you.
P.S. to mods, before canning this comment, do a real good think about how uncivilized having an opinion like this really is. Weigh out who’s really affected by this type of thinking and spreading it vs. this one moron’s feelings for once.
That’s not an option. So that just means you are delusional.
If you didn’t vote for Harris, you helped Trump get elected. That’s basically the same as voting for Trump.
All the morons that for instance criticized how Democrats handled Israel/Gaza, and recommended not to vote Democrat, are partly responsible for what’s going on there now, with no help coming through, and widespread starvation and disease!
All the morons that complained about inflation, despite it was getting back to normal after COVID, are responsible for the economic chaos we have now.
By not supporting the lesser evil, you are actually helping the greater evil.
There are lots of way more constructive things to do, that can help push things in the right direction, than just being in denial.
One could argue that by voting you’re supporting the status quo, the bipartisan democracy heavily invested in said status quo. You are the one obstructing change.
Or to say it with a quote:
EDIT: One further thought on that reasoning: it might actually make one morally obliged to vote for a third party.
One can argue anything, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense.
If you want to change American democracy, which I agree is sorely needed, then you need to engage actively in politics. UNTIL such change has arrived, you are still a moron for not preventing a greater evil, when you are given that option.
You are saying you won’t use the democratic option you have because it’s not democratic enough. Well I got news for you, democracy can never be perfect, because democracy is about compromise.
Here we have 12 parties in parliament we can vote on, so we have options for mostly everyone. But it’s still a game of compromise.
If you can’t find the best compromise among 2 parties, you sure as hell can’t among several either. You just want to whine, so you would probably still whine even if you lived in the best democracy in the world.
Very well put, I had the patience for one sentence, you did well
Thanks, IDK if he was trolling or a Russian asset undermining the west, or if he really could be that stupid?
I just thought it important not to let his idiocy stand. Because I think people like him are harmful.
Harmful for sure, and unfortunately it has a very good chance of being idiot. Sad to say, but best case scenario is either Russian asset or trolling. I’ve met people, and I gotta say those options are unlikely.
God help us all.
deleted by creator
Huh, why didn’t I think of that?
Not gonna bite on this? I wonder why.