Image Transcription:

A tweet from the George Takei Twitter account which states:

"A Democrat was in the White House when my family was sent to the internment camps in 1941. It was an egregious violation of our human and civil rights.

It would have been understandable if people like me said they’d never vote for a Democrat again, given what had been done to us.

But being a liberal, being a progressive, means being able to look past my own grievances and concerns and think of the greater good. It means working from within the Democratic party to make it better, even when it has betrayed its values.

I went on to campaign for Adlai Stevenson when I became an adult. I marched for civil rights and had the honor of meeting Dr. Martin Luther King. I fought for redress for my community and have spent my life ensuring that America understood that we could not betray our Constitution in such a way ever again.

Bill Clinton broke my heart when he signed DOMA into law. It was a slap in the face to the LGBTQ community. And I knew that we still had much work to do. But I voted for him again in 1996 despite my misgivings, because the alternative was far worse. And my obligation as a citizen was to help choose the best leader for it, not to check out by not voting out of anger or protest.

There is no leader who will make the decision you want her or him to make 100 percent of the time. Your vote is a tool of hope for a better world. Use it wisely, for it is precious. Use it for others, for they are in need of your support, too."

End Transcription.

The last paragraph I find particularly powerful and something more people really should take into account.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
16 points
*

How? It is exactly what it sounds like when people say to vote for the “lesser evil”, especially in this post.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

But that IS still better than voting for the greater evil.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

If there was absolutely no chance for some one other than the two child beaters getting elected, then it would make sense. But that’s not the case for the US presidency.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Really?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Alright. Here’s the scenario.

You’re at the ballot box. It is between Biden and Trump. In this hypothetical it is so far a tie. They are neck to neck. Let’s say it is 5 mil votes to 5 mil. Either needs one more vote to win. Your vote is the deciding one to be president.

What do you do?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Refuse to vote because the right-wing bias of the electoral college would give that hypothetical election to Trump either way, just like it did in 2016.

For the sake of argument let us ignore the electoral college, in which case I would still refuse to vote since a tie must be broken by Congress in an undemocratic process that harms the government’s claim to legitimacy just like when the supreme court gave the 2000 election to Bush.

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil. Those who find it morally acceptable to legitimize evil out of fear are called “cowards”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

I guess it’s fine to be responsible for letting the greater evil into power as long as you can tell yourself that you were morally correct at the end of the day. Because that’s what you’re doing. You’re making a selfish moral point, and in turn actively increase the odds of a worse outcome. You feel better about yourself at the expense of everyone (including yourself).

Because what do you even gain by not voting here? The moral high ground? You just make it look like the greater evil is more desirable. At least spoil your ballot, so that it counts in the percentages…

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Not voting for the lesser evil is very much akin to supporting the greater evil because the greater evil is receiving a larger share of votes.

Who would you vote for: Adolf Hitler or some person who stole a child’s lollypop once, who seeks to improve everyone’s lifes? According to you, voting for neither would be the best since you’d be legitimizing evil eithet way.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Frederick Douglas was legally barred from voting. He still worked for politicians who wouldn’t promise to end slavery. Was he a dupe? Are you more moral than he was?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I assume you see a magical third option somewhere?

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Because it’s a stupid fucking reason not to vote and it’s a misrepresentation of the post itself. You can’t get much more idiotic than that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Look up logical fallacies. Specifically straw man, slippery slope, and black and white. The guys isn’t even making an argument, he’s pointing out an outlandish example that wouldn’t realistically exist in the given context to elicit an emotional response.

permalink
report
parent
reply