• LePoisson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Hey you can elect this person that’ll slap you or this person that’ll stab you in the face.

    Oh well the slapping is so bad we should just not choose either and give the win to face stabby candidate. That’s the dumbass “logic” that got us here.

    I mean, I fully expect it was also mostly a foreign psyop to steer votes toward Trump or at least generate apathy and keep votes from going to Kamala (same outcome more or less). Mostly because it’s such a dumb premise of why you wouldn’t vote for Harris and just sit out the election. So I can’t imagine it was truly widespread and I think that’s also why it’s crickets now that the election is over and Russia’s orange gremlin candidate for president of the USA won.

    • dx1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      The actual choice:

      A) Stabs you in the heart

      B) Stabs you in the lung

      C) No stabbing, picks wildflowers for you

      And you guys go, “C isn’t viable! At least you’re less likely to die if you get stabbed in the lung - you have an entire hour to get to the hospital!”

      Bro, C is right there. Was there the whole time. Why the fuck would we, AS A POPULATION, choose anything but the best option.

      • LePoisson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        3 hours ago

        No, C is not “right there” when our electoral politics work the way they do. That’s a huge strawman argument.

        The reality is there were two choices, one clearly better for Palestinians.

        • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 hours ago

          A strawman argument is when they misrepresent something you’re saying, not when you think they’re wrong about how electoral politics work.

          • LePoisson@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Yes, they took my argument and created a false third choice that was never part of the argument. Then said to choose that.

            That’s misrepresenting what I said to have that third choice.

            Regardless we’re getting very pedantic here and I’m not really disagreeing with you if that matters to you.

        • dx1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 hours ago

          “Work the way they do”. Oh, OK. If that’s not how electoral politics work!

      • Saryn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        There are no wildflowers on the road to hell, but it is paved with good intentions.

        C is right there only if you’re naive enougn to believe it.

        Most people don’t want war. Yet they will go to war, each side convinced in their own self-righteousness. That is the human condition. Picking wildflowers isn’t going to stop the Nazi boot or anything else for that matter. Another way to think about it - Charlie Chaplin’s messages in the 1930s were great, full of hope, and reached a lot of people. But that was nowhere near what was needed. Tens of millions had to die. It’s not gonna be any different this time around, Chaplin or no Chaplin.

        • dx1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          It’s not the “human condition”. All of these things are products of cultural practices and belief systems. Not all societies wage war. Not all societies put mass murderers in control. You cannot be so careless with your logic and hope to ever arrive at a correct conclusion.