• dubious@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      both are effective. it doesn’t have to be an either/or discussion.

      for example, you can neutralize your opponent in the polls when there are less of their supporters to show to up to vote.

      • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        It’s just a stark difference in how the would be freedom fighters want to ally with the rest of us. They want us to shed our blood but when we ask them to show up to the polls they say their principles prohibit it.

        • dubious@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          agreed. we need pragmatic problem solvers, not angsty revolutionaries. this is a problem solving mission, not your edgelord graphic novel.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      voting side by side in the voting booth is a bridge too far

      Electoralism - on lemmy.world, at least - is only a valid strategy if you vote straight ticket Democrat. Vote Republican, you’re anti-democratic. Vote Third Party, you’re anti-democratic. Stay home, you’re anti-democratic. Spoil your ballot, you’re anti-democratic.

      What good is electoralism in a system with only one “correct” answer? That’s not an election, its an exam.

      What good is the election booth as a tool for making collective choice if any deviation from a single partisan sect makes you an Enemy of the People?

      • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        What good is a revolution where the cost is human life with no guarantee of victory?

        No one is arguing the voting booth is the perfect. My only argument is, if you is you want to win, you have to win on all fronts. You have to have a strategy, not just a dream. Even if the US were to escalate to violent revolution, who is it you want at the helm of the US military when the fighting breaks out?

        No, it is wasteful for me to discuss with you if you cannot see any value in the vote. It is delusional of me to discuss with you if you think a revolution comes down to the villagers simply picking up pitchforks.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          What good is a revolution where the cost is human life with no guarantee of victory?

          What good is pacifity where the cost is human life with no guarantee of a better life?

          My only argument is, if you is you want to win, you have win on all fronts.

          Sure. That doesn’t preclude a certain degree of self-defense. A union that can be busted up by mob violence or a peace march that’s mowed down by the police isn’t worth much, except as a reminder of how fragile human life is.

          it is wasteful for me to discuss with you if you cannot see any value in the vote

          A vote is valuable in an institution that respects its value. Elections with only one candidate don’t mean anything.