The position I most strongly endorse today (like all days) is radical skepticism about one’s own beliefs.
Show this thread
-
the simplest form of it is in the case where there are only 2 candidates on the ballot and they are both unacceptable choices. the so-called "choosing the lesser of two evils" dilemma. well, voting for a lesser evil is still voting for evil.
)
Some other arguments: 1. By voting at all, you implicitly endorse a system you may not want to endorse. 2. If you’re not informed enough, you’re likely to inadvertently vote for a bad outcome. 3. (a selfish reason) It’s not worth the time and effort.
-
-
2. and 3. seem like variations of “I just don’t care that much”, and I agree that’s a valid, and arguing that someone should care when they don’t is a waste of time. It must be nice to have a position in a society so favored that you don’t have to care about political outcomes.
-
A counterpoint on 2: there are sometimes (in CA at least) ballot propositions on needlessly arcane policy points, where it’s unreasonable to expect voters to be informed as to the likely outcome of passing the law or not. Not voting on that specific issue makes sense to me.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
1. Do you mean something more specific than “Democracy”? I suppose if you felt like the system was “rigged” and elections were neither free nor fair, declining to participate in a sham election is a sensible choice.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
#1) A harm reduction lens eliminates this. You don't have to support a system, you can fight a system but still use it to bring less harm to yourself and others. #2) Look around you please. #3) It's usually 1 hour or less and fucking affects many people's real lives. Shove it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.