In their moral justification, the argument of the lesser evil has played a prominent role. If you are confronted with two evils, the argument runs, it is your duty to opt for the lesser one, whereas it is irresponsible to refuse to choose altogether. Its weakness has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget quickly that they chose evil.
-Hannah Arendt, German-American philosopher and political theorist, in fuckin 1964 lmao. some things never change!
IMO the disconnect lies in the fact that many don’t see Biden as the “lesser evil.” They want to vote for Biden, because they’ve been influenced to think it is the only option.
Voters want a solution to that situation, so they make assumptions to come to a conclusion that fits the narrative they tell themselves.
Some, when faced with a no-win situation, choose to not play the game. Others, convince themselves that the lesser-evil is a desirable outcome. Many, myself included, want to “change the conditions of the test.”.
There is no viable solution. All choices are valid and should be respected.
I’m going to assume, from your replies, that you don’t think this election is a no-win situation?
But others do, which is illustrated in OP’s Arendt comment. Those concerns are material, whether true, or not. Dismissing vote abstainers, or third party voters, doesn’t address those concerns. Only Biden and the DNC can do that.
Then Congress would appoint the President. If, somehow, a Congress was also not elected, then the states would likely send delegates to do the same thing, but not all of Congress is even up for election.
It’s a frigging figure of speech. It doesn’t literally mean both options are “evil” anytime it is used. And you’re not “choosing evil” by voting for Biden — not for the people whose lives will be ruined if Trump wins. For many you are preventing evil.
If a few more people in a few states had chosen the “lesser evil” of Hillary over Trump, the Supreme Court wouldn’t be delivering supreme evil every few months for the foreseeable future.
(I don’t need to hear about how Hillary did a bad job in the election — it doesn’t change the fact that the consequences are what they are.)
-Hannah Arendt, German-American philosopher and political theorist, in fuckin 1964 lmao. some things never change!
Yeah the Nazis would’ve never come to power if everyone just abstained from voting instead of coalescing under one lesser evil /s
So, explain how not voting assures us that we don’t get Trump again.
Simple. If nobody votes, neither candidate will win.
I’m going to assume that you’re being sarcastic.
For those who think this is an option, remember that the MAGoos vote in every election.
IMO the disconnect lies in the fact that many don’t see Biden as the “lesser evil.” They want to vote for Biden, because they’ve been influenced to think it is the only option.
Arendt is making an observation of a “no-win situation”.
Voters want a solution to that situation, so they make assumptions to come to a conclusion that fits the narrative they tell themselves.
Some, when faced with a no-win situation, choose to not play the game. Others, convince themselves that the lesser-evil is a desirable outcome. Many, myself included, want to “change the conditions of the test.”.
There is no viable solution. All choices are valid and should be respected.
The only way to change the conditions of the test is to get out and support Left-leaning Dems in primaries.
And no, not all choices are valid. Voting doesn’t just affect the voter, it affects the whole country.
You have no idea what I’m trying to communicate and it’s disconcerting to me. It’s a failure on my part to communicate effectively. I’m sorry.
Keep at it. You learn by doing something; making a mistake; then doing it again a little better.
I’m going to assume, from your replies, that you don’t think this election is a no-win situation?
But others do, which is illustrated in OP’s Arendt comment. Those concerns are material, whether true, or not. Dismissing vote abstainers, or third party voters, doesn’t address those concerns. Only Biden and the DNC can do that.
Then Congress would appoint the President. If, somehow, a Congress was also not elected, then the states would likely send delegates to do the same thing, but not all of Congress is even up for election.
It’s a frigging figure of speech. It doesn’t literally mean both options are “evil” anytime it is used. And you’re not “choosing evil” by voting for Biden — not for the people whose lives will be ruined if Trump wins. For many you are preventing evil.
If a few more people in a few states had chosen the “lesser evil” of Hillary over Trump, the Supreme Court wouldn’t be delivering supreme evil every few months for the foreseeable future.
(I don’t need to hear about how Hillary did a bad job in the election — it doesn’t change the fact that the consequences are what they are.)
Except that Biden is in no way evil. Being old is not evil, and his administration has done a lot of great things.
That’s right, the man bypassing congress to ship weapons for Israel to bomb refugee tents with is actually a smol bean good guy, that’s SO true