Lemdro.id

-4 points

14 days ago

Because you haven’t demonstrated it to be a viable strategy…

Can you give examples of this tactic playing out favorably in the past?

Parties are always looking at how to attract or retain voters. It’s very intuitive that if a significant number of people defect from a party, the party will be reconsidering the issue that caused the break. I don’t think this needs to be proven.

Why am I not surprised you didn’t say “We’ll endorse the Democrats / Republicans if and only if they do X.”?

Why would I? Are you suggesting that trying to influence the Republicans to become an acceptable party is a viable strategy?

If the only thing that matters is escape, then the only thing that makes sense is choosing the scenario that’s most likely to allow for it.

…what? I thought your whole reason for caring about the “more comfortable fire to die in” is because escape was ruled out entirely.

If you think both of the only 2 possible outcomes are unacceptable, then acceptability is a moot point.

No, it isn’t. Unacceptable means unacceptable.

report

[ - ]

null@slrpnk.net

2 points

14 days ago

Parties are always looking at how to attract or retain voters.

And under FPTP there can only and will only be 2 parties with any real opportunity to enact policy. Do you think the Democrats are worried that you’re going to vote Republican? That the GOP is going to start appealing to Leftists?

Why would I? Are you suggesting that trying to influence the Republicans to become an acceptable party is a viable strategy?

Of course not. But the implication is that the Democrats could be influenced. Which is exactly why I can’t agree with advocating for swing state voters to do anything but vote against Trump.

…what? I thought your whole reason for caring about the “more comfortable fire to die in” is because escape was ruled out entirely.

Nah, I think escape is possible, but we need to move away from the bigger flames. You’re the one who thinks standing still and letting the fire choose is the way to go – for some reason…

Unacceptable means unacceptable.

It sure does. It’s still moot in this context though.

report

[ - ]

-6 points

14 days ago

Do you think the Democrats are worried that you’re going to vote Republican?

Yes? That’s why they’re all about Dick Cheney.

Nah, I think escape is possible, but we need to move away from the bigger flames. You’re the one who thinks standing still and letting the fire choose is the way to go – for some reason…

Then you agree that escape is what matters and choosing the more comfortable flames to die in is not what’s important. There’s a difference between claiming “I can survive longer in these flames which will help me to escape” vs the previous position you were arguing for, “Forget escaping, what matters is these flames are more comfortable than those flames.”

It sure does. It’s still moot in this context though.

No it isn’t.

report

[ - ]

null@slrpnk.net

3 points

14 days ago

Yes? That’s why they’re all about Dick Cheney.

“The Democrats are all about this hardcore Republican as a means of capturing the Leftist vote”

…huh?

Then you agree that escape is what matters and choosing the more comfortable flames to die in is not what’s important.

Yes I agree, your burning house analogy isn’t actually applicable to the scenario at hand (like the vegan analogy you keep doubling down on). That’s my bad for trying to take it in good faith.

report

[ - ]

-3 points

14 days ago

“The Democrats are all about this hardcore Republican as a means of capturing the Leftist vote”

They are trying to appeal to right-leaning democrats and centrists who might consider voting republican. What I mean is that they are concerned about the possibility of their voters changing sides, not Leftists specifically.

Yes I agree, your burning house analogy isn’t actually applicable to the scenario at hand

Whether it is directly applicable or not isn’t important, and if you’re trying to take it that way, I guess that explains your absurd takes on it. The purpose of the analogy is to demonstrate that one thing can be marginally less bad than another, but both options still fundamentally unacceptable and not worthy of consideration. “Would you rather burn to death in these flames or those flames,” “Would you rather eat a bowl of rusty nails or a bowl of arsenic,” whatever, I could give you an answer if you really push me, but if you can’t take my answer and serve me one and expect me to accept it. Because the real answer is that both are fundamentally unacceptable, so which one is preferable doesn’t really matter.

report

[ - ]

null@slrpnk.net

1 point

14 days ago

They are trying to appeal to right-leaning democrats and centrists who might consider voting republican.

Correct. What they are not concerned about is far-Leftists somehow becoming Republicans. Which is why your game of pressuring them by voting 3rd party in a federal election is ridiculous.

Whether it is directly applicable or not isn’t important

It doesn’t matter if your analogy is analogous? Gee, that explains a lot.

The purpose of the analogy is to demonstrate that one thing can be marginally less bad than another, but both options still fundamentally unacceptable

No shit. But it completely ignores the part where you are stuck with one of those “unacceptable” options no matter what.

Every single one of your analogies conveniently ignores that vital factor.

report

[ - ]

-1 points

14 days ago

Correct. What they are not concerned about is far-Leftists somehow becoming Republicans. Which is why your game of pressuring them by voting 3rd party in a federal election is ridiculous.

That doesn’t follow at all. Just because they’re not concerned about leftists becoming republicans, that in no way shows that they’re not concerned about leftists voting third party.

It doesn’t matter if your analogy is analogous? Gee, that explains a lot.

I don’t think you understand how analogies work. An analogy doesn’t have to reflect every aspect of reality. It only has to be comparable as far as it’s relevant to the specific point that it’s attempting to establish or explain. The specific point of the analogy is that one option being better than another does not mean that either option is worth considering. That’s not specifically about the election, it’s a general point.

All analogies deviate from reality in some way, that’s what an analogy is. The question is whether it deviates in a way that’s relevant to the specific point being discussed. I only made the analogy to establish that specific point, and not as a more general reflection of the election, as you’re trying to take it.

you are stuck with one of those “unacceptable” options no matter what.

There’s a difference between there being two possible winners and there being two possible choices. Just because Trump and Harris are the only ones likely to be elected doesn’t mean I have to vote for either of them. We’ve been over this, I feel like.

report

[ - ]

3 points

14 days ago

How many different analogies and what-if scenarios does it take for you to finally have a valid point?

Jesus man!

The moment someone calls out your bullshit you move on to another ridiculous version of reality to try and mold into something that resembles an actual point-

And you fail every time!

report

[ - ]

Rhoeri@lemmy.world

4 points

14 days ago

Dude… you are getting wrecked here. You should seriously start thinking about finding something else to do with your time. Because this Isn’t working out very well for you.

report