I reject the premise that voting necessarily works, but even for a person who is operating under the assumption it does, no one is forcing you to choose between the two bad candidates.
There are third parties, a person can leave a position blank, and even if a person believes that voting works, they could still simply choose not to engage with that system and do something else instead.
I personally do not accept your premise that voting works.
but for a person who does, a third party, blank selection or just not engaging with that system are all ways to not be complicit in the actions of candidates.
If you want to talk about the repercussions of someone believing that voting works, I’ll gladly listen to you, but that’s not me and I’m gonna have to deal with it hypothetically.
We’re talking about a post that uses a meme image about the trolley problem to make a statement about the American election.
Part of the whole conceit of that rhetorical structure is that voting works. If I don’t agree with it personally that’s fine, but I didn’t comment in opposition to the premise that voting works, but instead in opposition to the premise that a person who does believe voting works is compelled by any structure, physical or otherwise, to choose between the two worst candidates.
You brought up voting working in reply to me. I’m interested in hearing what you want to build off that. Why not just lay it out?
I brought up “voting works” because without it, the claim people are complicit because they voted is just bizarre. How can I explain why one should vote when we don’t even agree on what it means to be complicit?
I can also choose to share my reasoning in a space that is more visible than here, buried deep in the replies. This thread is best for having a conversation about your reasoning.
To accuse others of being complicit for voting you first have to admit voting works in some way.
I reject the premise that voting necessarily works, but even for a person who is operating under the assumption it does, no one is forcing you to choose between the two bad candidates.
There are third parties, a person can leave a position blank, and even if a person believes that voting works, they could still simply choose not to engage with that system and do something else instead.
You literally don’t have to be complicit.
Voting 3rd party is literally engaging the system on the belief it works. Sounds like you don’t agree on strategy.
I personally do not accept your premise that voting works.
but for a person who does, a third party, blank selection or just not engaging with that system are all ways to not be complicit in the actions of candidates.
If you want to talk about the repercussions of someone believing that voting works, I’ll gladly listen to you, but that’s not me and I’m gonna have to deal with it hypothetically.
Let’s say I agree with you that voting doesn’t work, how does voting make one complicit when their involvement doesn’t matter?
In that case it wouldn’t.
We’re talking about a post that uses a meme image about the trolley problem to make a statement about the American election.
Part of the whole conceit of that rhetorical structure is that voting works. If I don’t agree with it personally that’s fine, but I didn’t comment in opposition to the premise that voting works, but instead in opposition to the premise that a person who does believe voting works is compelled by any structure, physical or otherwise, to choose between the two worst candidates.
You brought up voting working in reply to me. I’m interested in hearing what you want to build off that. Why not just lay it out?
I brought up “voting works” because without it, the claim people are complicit because they voted is just bizarre. How can I explain why one should vote when we don’t even agree on what it means to be complicit?
You can always explain your own reasoning about why a person should vote for people who might be reading.
I can also choose to share my reasoning in a space that is more visible than here, buried deep in the replies. This thread is best for having a conversation about your reasoning.