All this comes off as is petulant, ignorant, and unimaginative.
It's unimaginative because nobody who spends even half a minute thinking about the consequences of the election could come away believing there would be no little to difference between the two outcomes.
It's ignorant because it displays a lack of understanding about how the FPTP US election system works.
It's petulant because it's akin to demanding the system work for you, rather than you working within the system. You're refusing to participate in a choice that will affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people just because a system that hundreds of millions of people work to produce doesn't function the way you want it to.
Anytime I hear someone say Trump can't do something, I want to wave my hands in the air and point to everything.
Trump will pardon himself because he has no shame, and the people in charge of pointing out that he can't pardon himself will do fuckall, just like every single person with any repsonsibility has done fuckall the stop Trump from doing anything for the past 8 years.
There have been thousands of chances to prevent Trump from doing A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc. And every. single. person. has done nothing at all to stop him. He truly is above the law.
If there's a bad vibe to eliminating a candidate for following laws that were explicitly written down 150 years ago to stop such a candidate, then what kind of vibe does it give off if we flat out ignore that same law?
If we allow ourselves to be swayed by the idea that taking away a very specific privilege from a person gives off a bad vibe, then we'd be undermining our entire justice system and the very concept of law itself.
The law is unambiguous, and we must follow it. If we don't, then the rule of law truly has no meaning.
It's not a dick DM move as much as a lazy move. But it might feel like a dick DM move to some of them.
If the idea is to make them weaker, give them a long-lasting debuff rather than removing levels. 50% HP, -4 to attack rolls, etc. Removing levels requires a lot of work on the player's part, and feels like it takes the game backwards rather than forwards. Giving them a debuff that they have to work to restore, on the other hand, feels like there's a path forward to advance towards.
I think the right-leaning justices know pretty well that their positions are safe. They're already benefiting immensely from corruption. When democracy dies and they have no obligation to the law, they'll do whatever it takes to enrich themselves further.
This certainly tracks with me. I was familiar with the pro-Trump crowd on Facebook and Reddit for many years, but I never understood why liberals just failed to get the vote out until I came to lemmy/kbin. The sheer amount of people on the fediverse who are loudly choose to vote against their own interests due to a lack of understanding about how US politics work is a tragedy. It seems the right's war on civic education has reached its tipping point, and they no longer need to rely on policy or numbers; they just need to rely on the ignorance of those who might have voted against them. We seem doomed for a second Trump presidency because nobody wants to take responsibility for the future.
since we’re being forced to only vote for Trump or Biden, instead of other candidates we might align with better?
You're not forced to vote for one of them. But they are the only two for whom a vote matters.
You are free to not vote. You are free to vote for a third party. You are free to vote for a joke candidate. But if you care at all about the outcome of the election, there is absolutely a correct person to vote for. Until we elect a congress that will pass comprehensive voting reform laws, it doesn't matter who you align with; it only matters which of the "big two" you prefer to win.
The game we play has specific rules. If you care about the future, you should play by them. The hard work of changing the system into something better takes place in between elections, not during election years.
But the scenario you outline above is literally the opposite of that.
You said you'd choose to force feed everyone horse shit instead of food if it brought about the end you desired.
You're saying the completely opposite thing now.
I think maybe we do want the same thing, but we're disconnecting at some level of this conversation and we're not going to get anywhere unless we get on the same page.
I didn't lose the metaphor. You just took it for a turn I didn't expect.
I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not a horrible person, but here you are straight up saying, in your own words, that you'd rather eat horse shit than lima beans, and you'd rather force your children, your loved ones, and your neighbors to eat horse shit than lima beans too.
I was expecting that you'd have some amount of empathy and the sense to eat actually food over something that could make you extremely sick or kill you. But you don't. So as I said above, I don't think we can communicate on any meaningful level. You are completely irrational and lacking in empathy, and we don't value the same things.
Yikes. That's some bizarre logic. You'd actually choose to eat horse shit because maybe next time you won't have to eat horse shit, when you could just not eat horse shit now.
I don't think we can communicate on any meaningful level when you're this fundamentally irrational.
I don’t know if I have the privilege to keep serving them stale lima beans, when the stale lima beans are slowly killing them. I desperately need a new meal.
You have an obligation to do that, until there's a better choice.
In the meantime, we work on changing the restaurant. But until we do that, don't feel guilty at all about choosing the better of two options!
osarusan @ osarusan @kbin.social Posts 1Comments 357Joined 2 yr. ago
All this comes off as is petulant, ignorant, and unimaginative.
It's unimaginative because nobody who spends even half a minute thinking about the consequences of the election could come away believing there would be no little to difference between the two outcomes.
It's ignorant because it displays a lack of understanding about how the FPTP US election system works.
It's petulant because it's akin to demanding the system work for you, rather than you working within the system. You're refusing to participate in a choice that will affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people just because a system that hundreds of millions of people work to produce doesn't function the way you want it to.