deaf_fish @ deaf_fish @lemm.ee

An Embedded Software Engineer who does game dev as a hobby.

---

Read more

Posts

2

Comments

487

Joined

2 yr. ago

How would having a more evil leader, one who hypothetically locks down freedom of speech and starts arresting people, make organizing easier?

Seems like that would make it harder to do.

I did watch the video. I agree that mass movements are what is required for change. I don't understand, what am I buying?

Ok how does advocating for voting for the lesser evil suggest that voting for the lesser evil is sufficient for progressive change? Is that better?

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.

Billionaires want to be both political and non-political. They want to be the average person who "worked hard to get where they are without help" and they want to be the special upper class who deserves special protection when one of their own gets shot.

This is very close to them admitting that class warfare is real.

Billionaires are reading this post and thoughtfully taking notes.

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?