No, you lack nuance
The democrats are the people telling to duck for cover, they are not solving the problem, but they are delaying the bullet to the head
You are also not advocating anything against the system. That would require at least some action.
In your example, you are not rallying agaist Alice, you are just refusing to make a choice so the rest will do it for you
The reality is, however you got there, that either 2 or 5 people will die. Your lack of participation ensures 5 people will die
In my example I very clearly am rallying against Alice. In every possible way. I would be fuming, throwing stones, screaming to everyone around me. But I would not accept her proposition to Bob. I would not claim that I “have” to play Alice’s game, because she’s in charge and I have to accept that. I don’t have to accept that. At all.
I would do everything I could to stop her, and almost all of my Anger would be towards her, not towards Bob (I obviously would be angry with him too but he’s after all not a murderer - Alice is).
Keep in mind that in the example, Bob probably believes for some reason that when Alice says two, she means ten.
Yes but in your example, not voting for 2 people to die guaranteed 5 did
You talk like voting for Kamala to prevent Trump means you nowbside with Kamala and the system in every way. Voting for the lesser evil does not stops you at all from rallying against the system and doing everything possible to change it.
You almost get me!
Vote for whoever you want! What I am saying is that your anger towards your peers who happened to indulge in different propaganda and voted for something different is misdirected.
The voters are not the problem.
