• agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    17 days ago

    Let’s build some towers out of blocks and see whose is biggest!

    The Dem tower is 48 blocks tall. The GOP Tower is 49 blocks tall. The 3rd party tower is 3 blocks tall. That 3 block tower isn’t enough to win, but if they stacked onto the Dem tower, that’s the difference between 4 years of status quo and 4 years of fascism.

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      15 days ago

      Seems to me that the 48 blocks could also be moved to the 3 blocks, and that might be less convenient but then it wouldn’t just be 4 more years of the same deteriorating status quo that produced Trump in the first place.

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        that might be less convenient

        Bit of an understatement there, don’t you think? That convincing 80 million people to switch their vote to an inexperienced and unproven spoiler candidate with questionable motives and vague policy proposals, with 2 weeks before the election, might be less convenient than convincing a rounding error of voters to vote strategically according to their own stated goals? It would be fair then to say that planets might be a bit bigger than protons, and WWII may have been a bit of a kerfuffle.

        Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been known to indulge, recreationally, in impossibly improbable fantasies. I think we all do from time to time. I’m no lover of the status quo, I yearn unironically for fully automated luxury gay space communism. It’s certainly titillating to imagine the people collectively gaining class consciousness and walking to the polls arm in arm to vote “The Proletariat” for President in a landslide. Buuut…

        I’ve worked various customer service roles, I believe anyone who has can corroborate the surprising prevalence of, shall I say, simpletons in the general population. As valid as your policy positions may be, the average American has the attention span of a TV ad and the political depth of a celebrity tweet.

        Do you have an actionable plan to spontaneously educate and persuade 80 million people in under 2 weeks? If so, why have you waited until now to suggest it? We could’ve had the revolution years ago.

        As fun as the fantasies are, there are lives at stake. In serious circumstances, I prefer not to gamble on historically unsuccessful schemes. Identify the options available to you and their consequences. What levers of power do you hold, how long are they and where is their fulcrum?

        It’s not enough to just try stuff that sounds good and hope it works, well-intended actions have unintended consequences. What evidence suggests converting half the voting population in 2 weeks is remotely conceivable?

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          14 days ago

          In two weeks, no, it’s not conceivable. But in the long term, there are only three possibilities: the democrats move left to meet us, or, people move to a new party, or, the system decays into fascism. The democrats will never move to meet us if we support them unconditionally, so the way I see it, voting third party works towards both of those aims at once.

          The country is in decline and has been for quite some time. The policies that I advocate for are necessary to stop that decline. As long as Democrats both paint themselves as defenders of the status quo and refuse to do what’s necessary for the status quo to actually work for people, it’s a losing proposition, and one that will only get worse over time. And that’s a problem, because the biggest faction that positions itself as critical of the status quo, and is therefore posed to take advantage of deteriorating conditions, is a right-wing one. Therefore, to accept merely clinging to the status quo as the only option is the same as accepting defeat - it isn’t a viable approach. Building a third party is unlikely to win this particular election, but at least it is part of a strategy that could theoretically work to stop fascism.

          In any case, I will not be moved from my position by any amount of words. Either the Dems can give the concessions necessary to move me, or the 80 million can join me over here, or they can win or lose without me. Am I being obstinate? Yes. But I am being obstinate for a reason, because my positions have to happen, or we’ll all be fucked regardless.

          • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            14 days ago

            there are only three possibilities: the democrats move left to meet us, or, people move to a new party, or, the system decays into fascism.

            Correct! Now let’s consider these possibilities, from the perspective of a person who wants to accomplish a goal with their actions:

            A new party is the best option, but it will take time to build. That’s gonna look like several election cycles of local and state elections.

            I’m the meantime, there is the immediate threat of the system decaying into fascism. If that happens, the new party is doomed anyway, so we need to delay the fascism as much as possible while we get members of the new party elected to lower offices so they can build the experience, skills, and connections necessary to implement their superior policies.

            Naturally, we come again to the only rational strategy for a disgruntled leftist: vote Dem every election to buy time until the new party is viable. Jill Stein is not a serious candidate and very possibly an deliberate spoiler bankrolled by Russia. West is not a serious candidate. De la Cruz seems sincere, but she lacks the experience to be a serious candidate; try Governor or Congress first before applying for President.

            The democrats will never move to meet us if we support them unconditionally, so the way I see it, voting third party works towards both of those aims at once.

            I didn’t see it the way you see it, in fact I think you might have something in your eye because there is no evidence that voting third party accomplished any stated goal, and in fact makes the problems worse.

            The country is in decline and has been for quite some time. The policies that I advocate for are necessary to stop that decline.

            I sympathize, but your strategy does not implement your policies faster, it in fact pushes them further away. You’re right that we need a new party, but it’s too late this cycle, and the fascists winning may mean it never happens. A vote for Harris is a vote for 4 more years of status quo while we do the real work locally.

            In any case, I will not be moved from my position by any amount of words. Either the Dems can give the concessions necessary to move me, or the 80 million can join me over here, or they can win or lose without me. Am I being obstinate? Yes. But I am being obstinate for a reason

            Yikes. I’m glad your life is stable enough to gamble with fascism to appease your own obstinance, but however noble your reasons, this strategy is counterproductive. People will suffer so you can say you were stubborn in the face of overwhelming evidence against your strategy.

            • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              14 days ago

              Time is not on our side. In four years, no matter who wins, the rich will be richer, the poor will be poorer, the climate crisis will be worse, and more and more money will be funneled into the military. “Buying time” is not a valid goal, especially not when it comes at the expense of efforts to actually build an alternative. In four years, anyone looking to build an alternative is going to face the exact same criticisms you’re using now, it will again be “the most important election of our lives” and there’s a good chance that the republican candidate will be worse than Trump, and more people will have turned to the right out of dissatisfaction with deteriorating conditions. Why on earth should we put off building an alternative when future conditions will just make it worse and harder without removing any of the issues that make you say that right now is “an inconvenient time?” When will it be the right time to start building a third party?

              I didn’t see it the way you see it, in fact I think you might have something in your eye because there is no evidence that voting third party accomplished any stated goal, and in fact makes the problems worse.

              Of course not, because they haven’t been built yet. That’s like saying that there’s no evidence that liberalism could ever work when monarchy was all people knew. What we do know is that the people in power are fundamentally unwilling or unable to address the problems that are leading to the rise of fascism, and therefore must be replaced.

              Yikes. I’m glad your life is stable enough to gamble with fascism to appease your own obstinance

              Stable enough to gamble with fascism? No, it’s the opposite. It’s precarious enough that I insist on taking a strategy that has a nonzero chance of actually stopping fascism rather than accepting it as an inevitability.

              • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                14 days ago

                Time is not on our side. In four years, no matter who wins, the rich will be richer, the poor will be poorer, the climate crisis will be worse, and more and more money will be funneled into the military.

                Correct!

                “Buying time” is not a valid goal, especially not when it comes at the expense of efforts to actually build an alternative.

                That logic does not follow. Buying time is an imperative intermediate goal.

                In four years, anyone looking to build an alternative is going to face the exact same criticisms you’re using now, it will again be “the most important election of our lives” and there’s a good chance that the republican candidate will be worse than Trump, and more people will have turned to the right out of dissatisfaction with deteriorating conditions.

                Yes, that’s the meme. The time to be talking about third parties is not 2 weeks before the election, it’s the day after the election, and consistently for the next 3 years. Anyone trying to build an alternative in 4 years deserves the criticism they get. Build the alternative the whole time.

                Why on earth should we put off building an alternative when future conditions will just make it worse and harder without removing any of the issues that make you say that right now is “an inconvenient time?” When will it be the right time to start building a third party?

                No one said to put off building alternatives. The current alternatives aren’t viable, and voting for them not only doesn’t help, it hurts. Again, as per the meme, the right time is any time except right before an election without any viable third parties. Buy time in 2024, build in 2025-2027, buy time in 2028, build in 2029-2031, repeat until we have a candidate with Governor/Senator experience and enough of Congress to get past gridlock.

                It’s precarious enough that I insist on taking a strategy that has a nonzero chance of actually stopping fascism rather than accepting it as an inevitability.

                Incorrect unfortunately, your strategy’s chance of stopping fascism is much closer to zero than mine. In fact, the strategy you insist on taking actually has a much higher chance of enabling fascism than stopping it.

                • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  14 days ago

                  Yes, that’s the meme. The time to be talking about third parties is not 2 weeks before the election, it’s the day after the election, and consistently for the next 3 years. Anyone trying to build an alternative in 4 years deserves the criticism they get. Build the alternative the whole time.

                  I didn’t start supporting a third party candidate 2 weeks before the election. If you spend the next three years building a third party and then ditch them at the last minute, then what was the point? That makes absolutely zero sense, it’s even less coherent than just unconditionally and uncritically supporting the democrats forever. Why would I tell other people to vote for a third party for three years and then suddenly change my messaging and vote for the democrats and then switch back to telling people to vote third party right after? If you actually think through that at all, what you’re saying is incoherent.

                  Incorrect unfortunately, your strategy’s chance of stopping fascism is much closer to zero than mine. In fact, the strategy you insist on taking actually has a much higher chance of enabling fascism than stopping it.

                  Incorrect, my strategy has a low, but nonzero chance of stopping fascism, while yours is zero.

                  • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    13 days ago

                    If you spend the next three years building a third party and then ditch them at the last minute, then what was the point?

                    To get a candidate 3 years closer to being viable, you know you don’t have to start over every 4 years. It’s going to take several election cycles before we have a qualified third party candidate.

                    Why would I tell other people to vote for a third party for three years and then suddenly change my messaging and vote for the democrats and then switch back to telling people to vote third party right after?

                    That’s a silly thing to do, and not something I recommended. Don’t do that. Do promote third parties in local races they can actually win, as well as state elections in solid states where they can actually win. Once you have enough of those to have presidential candidates with actual experience, then, with sufficiently positive polling data, start pushing for a popular third party candidate.

                    That’s going to be at least 3 election cycles though, and if you fool around like this every 4 years it may well be a moot point. What good is a third party if the fascists end elections? Any other strategy is incoherent. Unless of course your goal is to split the vote for the benefit of the fascists, then promoting a spoiler candidate is exactly aligned with your goal.

                    Incorrect, my strategy has a low, but nonzero chance of stopping fascism, while yours is zero.

                    My strategy is to buy time while we build a functional and electable third party that has the means to change the status quo. Your strategy is to throw away votes on a non-functional candidate, and in the process accelerate the fascist takeover.

                    I’m not gonna nuh-uh-yuh-huh with someone who doesn’t understand elections, or the trolley problem.

    • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      Huh sounds like the people who have 3 blocks have a lot of influence. Considering the stakes shouldn’t the ones with the big towers be trying to appease the ones with three blocks?

      I mean this doesn’t sound insignificant at all. I thought they were “not moving any metrics”?

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        17 days ago

        Huh sounds like the people who have 3 blocks have a lot of influence. Considering the stakes shouldn’t the ones with the big towers be trying to appease the ones with three blocks?

        By appeasing the 3 blocks, you’ve now lost 10 blocks from your own tower. Congratulations!

      • Soup@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        17 days ago

        Sounds more like the people with three blocks know the consequences of a Trump victory and are using their vote as ransom to make demands over a single issue that will get far worse if Trump wins.

        So in essence. The people with three blocks are entitled and ignorant and quite possibly purposefully helping Trump win.

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          15 days ago

          Yes, that’s correct. And that single issue is genocide, which is absolutely worth taking a stand against. But whether you agree with it or not, that’s the situation. We are holding our votes ransom and if they want them then they’ll have to give in to our demands. Their choice.

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        17 days ago

        Sure, let’s go down this line of reasoning. You appease the 3 blockers, and lose 10 blocks in the process. Now the Dem tower is 41 and the GOP tower is 59. Objectively a bad trade. What incentive does that provide?

      • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        17 days ago

        so it’s, “our way or Hitler 2.0?”

        doesn’t sound very progressive to me. kinda sounds like…

        Screenshot_20241018-214843_Firefox

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          17 days ago

          so it’s, “our way or Hitler 2.0?”

          Isn’t “Our Way” the whole Green New Deal to save everyone on the planet from roasting alive due to climate change?

          • keegomatic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            17 days ago

            And when your analytics shows that adopting those policies will lose you more voters than you’d gain from the likely third party vote, what then?

            • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 days ago

              Then it sounds like you’re just whining about the inevitable.

              If there is genuinely no way for the Democrats to win then stop arguing about it and start getting ready to do something to help your neighbors survive a Republican administration.