Not once have I said people shouldn’t vote. If that’s your takeaway, you’re either arguing in bad faith or you’ve fundamentally misunderstood the point.
The argument is straightforward: voting is necessary, but insufficient. Believing it’s the only meaningful political act is what keeps power concentrated and change out of reach. Criticizing the limits of electoralism ≠ telling people not to vote. It’s telling them not to stop there.
If you can’t (or won’t) engage with that distinction, then this conversation has nowhere left to go.
You're the only one "flooding" my inbox and you're free to stop anytime.
But let's be clear: you're not arguing against a point anymore, you're just policing packaging. If you reduce "the system is broken and voting isn't enough" to "DEMOCRAT EVIL," that's a failure of your own comprehension not the message or mine. When you’re ready to engage with the substance instead of your own caricature, you know where to find the thread.
Until then, enjoy the view from that very high horse.
Voting is an act. Trusting the system is a strategy. You can do one without the other.
But when you treat voting as the only proof of "giving a shit," you're doing exactly what my original point warns against: funneling all political energy into a structurally limited mechanism. Real power is built between elections, not just at the ballot box.
Your straw man is a misread. The critique isn't "don't vote!" It's that voting in a rigged system isn't enough.
The "lesser evil" argument you defended is exactly what enables the cycle. Fascism grows when politics is reduced to choosing between harm and complicity. For what it's worth me pointing that out isn't pro-Nazi, it’s the basic leftist critique of a broken system. Real change requires power built outside it, not just a ballot every four years.
The choice isn't between voting and doing nothing. It's between trusting a corrupted system and building power outside of it. Critiquing the system isn't inaction, it's the necessary first step toward meaningful action.
You've perfectly illustrated the original point. You’re essentially arguing: ‘This side is objectively less bad, so you must support them, and if you don’t, you’re the problem.’But that's the very enablement they were talking about.
The argument isn't that "Harris vs. Trump is the same." It's that a system which only offers a 'lesser evil' every four years, while tolerating the growth of fascism and protecting oligarchic interests the rest of the time, is fundamentally broken. Demanding endless, un-critical support for the 'lesser evil' is what allows the whole cycle to continue. You're proving their despair correct by saying the only permissible choice is to play a rigged game.
Unfortunate you felt the need to change their words and ridicule them instead of engaging with their actual point.
They didn't say they were "fine with Nazis in power." They argued the system itself is broken; when the choice is between fascists and those who enable them, you're not living in a functioning democracy. Voting can't fix a game that's already rigged.
Mocking them just avoids the harder conversation but you do you boo.
You're misunderstanding my point. I have no doubt about your position on a trial. My critique is not about your legal conclusion; it's about your rhetorical choice.
You simultaneously said 'he needs a trial' and 'don't forget his philanthropy.' My argument is that the second part (however well-intentioned) functions to change the subject. In a discussion about alleged sex crimes, any addition of unrelated positive accomplishments (be it philanthropy, art, or scientific work) shifts the frame from the victims and the allegations to the balancing of a person's moral ledger.
You can believe both things, but introducing the philanthropy into this specific conversation is what I'm questioning. That's not a figment of my imagination; it's a direct observation of your words. If you believe that addition is necessary, please justify it without retreating to your stance on a trial, which I already understand.
I understand your concern about backlash. But doesn't that approach inadvertently prioritize Gates' reputation over the gravity of the allegations themselves? If the allegations are true, the victims and the pursuit of justice deserve the central focus. Introducing his charity work, even to prevent 'villainization,' inherently shifts that focus. It suggests the story about Bill Gates is more important than the facts of the case.
I understand the principle you're applying (that a person's positive and negative actions can be judged separately). My question was more about the conversational relevance.
In a discussion specifically about serious criminal allegations, introducing a person's philanthropic work often feels like a deflection tactic, whether intended or not. It shifts the focus from 'Did this bad thing happen?' to 'How do we weigh the good against the bad?'
So my 'why bring it up?' was really asking: In a conversation about alleged sex crimes, what is the purpose of directing attention to his charity work? Is it to ensure the allegations aren't overstated, or is it to steer the discussion away from the allegations themselves?
Excellent questions, and the answer to both is yes.