The position I most strongly endorse today (like all days) is radical skepticism about one’s own beliefs.
-
-
this is all besides the point. the reason to not vote for a person who you do not believe represents your interests is because they do not represent your interests. period. allowing yourself to be used as a pawn because you think there is, abstractly, some ideological win? wtf
-
It’s not about an ideological win, or making yourself feel good for voting for someone you like. Voting is about producing outcomes, and even if your choice is to select the least bad outcome, it’s still a moral choice to make. And then vote for someone else next time.
-
the next time will not include any better candidates if you keep voting for bad ones. it's iterated prisoners dilemma. if you never defect, then it never gets any better. tit-for-tat strategy is required to enforce, eventually, mutual cooperation.
-
It won’t get any better if you don’t vote, either. Mutual disgust is indistinguishable from apathy, and decisions are made by those that show up. Don’t like the options? Support other candidates, donate to those you believe in, or run for office yourself.
-
all of this is stuff that happens outside of the polling booth. I never said you shouldn't do those things. I said you shouldn't vote for bad candidates.
-
and yes, it will possibly get better if you don't vote. not voting is the defection case here (as opposed to voting for the greater evil, which was never on the table). parties need to receive clear messages that they have gone awry.
-
if you commit to voting for a party no matter what, no matter how bad their candidates are, they have not received the necessary negative feedback. this is how the downward spiral to hyper-polarization and broken politics happened in the first place.
-
if the only thing a party needs to get your vote is "we're not as bad as the other team" then they will never ever improve. in fact, they will worsen. calibrate their badness to as much as they can get away with. this has actually happened in America.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sure it is. It seems unconscionable to condone *not* voting for the lesser evil, when you know the consequences of not voting will lead to a greater evil. I don’t see where pragmatism and morality diverge here.
-
because you don't know what the consequences of your actions will be. you don't. you have a belief about it that is largely formed on ideology and disinformation campaigns.
-
You’re right, it’s a belief, not a certainty. That doesn’t abdicate you of the responsibility to gather and sift the information as best you can, and then make the best decision you can based on the beliefs you have.
-
Democracy isn’t the best form of government, just the best when compared to all of the others.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.
)