Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)D
Posts
3
Comments
405
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • I am confused by your reply. What is the "rock" I am buying?

  • I don't think it does.

    Don't get me wrong. I know people who want to believe voting is all that is necessary for progressive change, but they are wrong.

    Edit: How does voting for the lesser evil suggest that it's sufficient for progressive change?

  • Advocating voting for a lesser evil could be considered harmful, though.

    Why?

  • At the end, yes, both outcomes are the same unless organization is successful. Why make organizing any harder than it needs to be?

  • Right now, it is looking like we have missed our chance to do much about it. The only other options on the table are pretty grim.

  • Ok, this could just be me getting lost in the comment chain. To be clear you don't think voting for the lesser evil is harmful, but you also don't think it is a valid strategy. If that is true, I see no inconstancies in your arguments.

  • Yes! The problem is, non-evil is not currently on the menu. So I think one should limit the rate of evil increase by voting for the lesser evil.

  • Yes! Why not vote for the lesser evil to prevent harsher crackdowns than you would otherwise get?

  • Ok, so why not vote for the lesser evil then? It would increase the amount of time we have to organize without fascists cracking down on us.

  • Sounds like you aren't clear on what that video is suggesting either. Why should I spend time to watch a video that no one seems to have understood?

  • So the only way to keep and maintain a progressive government is to teleport from where we are now to the desired outcome? Is that the argument of the video?

    If so, that seems not currently feasible.

  • Native Americans have a different claim. They are not claiming their ancestors give them the right to use the land. They have agreements with the US government. The US then promptly turned around and ignored their promises. The native Americans have the receipts.

  • If you don't clarify, then I and everyone else, have to assume that is your position based on your original post.

  • Well, the Native Americans have actual agreements that were made with the US government, that were then broken immediately by said government. They have the receipts. So this is a bit different.

  • So your concern is that OP legitimately thinks that Komoto Dragons have a legitimate claim to all land? Or am I missing something?

  • Just ignore the part you don't like because it makes you feel bad. Typical.

  • Both sides can be bad in different ways. Just because both sides are considered bad, doesn't mean they are the same.

  • Yes, it is nice that billionaires give away their money, it would be nicer if the people could choose how that money was spent instead of the billionaires.

  • Deceiving myself about what?

    Yeah, all those qualities are a basic requirement to get a job. I have never worked with someone who didn't have those qualities. There not something you can leverage to get a raise.