Even with those conditions, I would still do nothing. The “less mad” scientist is still responsible for creating the situation just as much as the “more mad” one. I’m not playing their little game. Strengthening a psychotic killer is not “minimizing harm.” Neither has even promised to let me out of the cage (not that I have any reason to trust anything they say), and both worked together to put me there. Your strategy is just to play along with their game and do what they want you to until the end of time.
The biggest problem with your worldview is that you’re allowing politicians to be treated as mechanical and immutable. The relation between voters and politicians is a negotiation, and offering unconditional agreement during a negotiation is about the worst thing you can do. The fact is that my moral convictions are the thing that are fixed and immutable, and it’s the responsibility of politicians to act in such a way that’s congruent with them if they want my vote.
If enough people think like me, then it would be Biden who would be forced into the trolley problem: either cave to our demands and you don’t get to genocide anyone but you do get to be president again, or don’t cave to our demands and lose. If you think I’m being unreasonably obstinate, well, good. I am a machine that doesn’t vote for people who do genocide, I cannot be reasoned with on that point and will continue that function regardless of circumstances or of my own best interests. That’s what I’m going to be doing no matter what so make your plans around that.
2016 is a great example of what I’m talking about. Hillary lost because she ran a bad campaign. But liberals only blame the left, because to them, as I said, the actions of politicians are immutable and set in stone. This inability to self-critique only leads to doubling down on bad strategies and failing to improve.
Biden is absolutely terrible on climate change. He literally just imposed a massive tariff on EVs and solar panels, for instance. We’re completely fucked regardless of who wins.
You and I seem to operate on different definitions of “unforgivable.” If there “isn’t a hill left to die on,” then I will die on the plains.
Lol, he used to be a member of that Congress for decades and was just as bad as the rest of them. I’ve always found it hilarious the way everyone just decided to pretend that he did a 180 on all the awful stuff he’d caused the moment he was nominated.
If Congress is capable of constraining the president to the point where he can’t do anything, then I don’t see why Trump would be such an existential threat. You can’t have it both ways of pretending that the most powerful man is actually powerless to do anything while also saying that someone else getting the exact same position would be the end of the world.
There’s all sorts of things Biden could do if he wanted. He just doesn’t want to. And the fact that he never wanted to was always very obvious from his record. He has always been terrible, people just pretended he wasn’t to ease their cognitive dissonance with voting for him.
Will my refusal to vote for Biden end all of humanity? You know what, maybe it will, who knows. Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter, because I am just a machine that doesn’t vote for people who do genocide. No amount of rhetoric or fear-mongering will change that, any more than you can persuade a vending machine to give you an item with words. The only thing that I will accept is actual policy concessions.
Well the plains will be flooded, so I think you know, the other commenter maybe should’ve put it along the lines of, there will only be hills left to die on.
Perhaps a more pertinent metaphor than we would otherwise care to admit.
Even with those conditions, I would still do nothing. The “less mad” scientist is still responsible for creating the situation just as much as the “more mad” one. I’m not playing their little game. Strengthening a psychotic killer is not “minimizing harm.” Neither has even promised to let me out of the cage (not that I have any reason to trust anything they say), and both worked together to put me there. Your strategy is just to play along with their game and do what they want you to until the end of time.
The biggest problem with your worldview is that you’re allowing politicians to be treated as mechanical and immutable. The relation between voters and politicians is a negotiation, and offering unconditional agreement during a negotiation is about the worst thing you can do. The fact is that my moral convictions are the thing that are fixed and immutable, and it’s the responsibility of politicians to act in such a way that’s congruent with them if they want my vote.
If enough people think like me, then it would be Biden who would be forced into the trolley problem: either cave to our demands and you don’t get to genocide anyone but you do get to be president again, or don’t cave to our demands and lose. If you think I’m being unreasonably obstinate, well, good. I am a machine that doesn’t vote for people who do genocide, I cannot be reasoned with on that point and will continue that function regardless of circumstances or of my own best interests. That’s what I’m going to be doing no matter what so make your plans around that.
That’s just incorrect and I point to 2016 as the perfect case study for how low voter turn out not motivating policy change.
I empathize that what is happening in Palestine is unforgivable however you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face.
If Trump acts as he promises to and accelerates climate change even further, there won’t be a hill left to die on.
2016 is a great example of what I’m talking about. Hillary lost because she ran a bad campaign. But liberals only blame the left, because to them, as I said, the actions of politicians are immutable and set in stone. This inability to self-critique only leads to doubling down on bad strategies and failing to improve.
Biden is absolutely terrible on climate change. He literally just imposed a massive tariff on EVs and solar panels, for instance. We’re completely fucked regardless of who wins.
You and I seem to operate on different definitions of “unforgivable.” If there “isn’t a hill left to die on,” then I will die on the plains.
I’m pretty sure everyone in my circles blamed the rampant obvious disinformation campaign that the public was ill educated to parse and see through.
He’s only terrible because he has to contend with a Congress that does not allow him to act which is why you need to appeal to Congress.
What you are choosing will kill everyone.
Lol, he used to be a member of that Congress for decades and was just as bad as the rest of them. I’ve always found it hilarious the way everyone just decided to pretend that he did a 180 on all the awful stuff he’d caused the moment he was nominated.
If Congress is capable of constraining the president to the point where he can’t do anything, then I don’t see why Trump would be such an existential threat. You can’t have it both ways of pretending that the most powerful man is actually powerless to do anything while also saying that someone else getting the exact same position would be the end of the world.
There’s all sorts of things Biden could do if he wanted. He just doesn’t want to. And the fact that he never wanted to was always very obvious from his record. He has always been terrible, people just pretended he wasn’t to ease their cognitive dissonance with voting for him.
Will my refusal to vote for Biden end all of humanity? You know what, maybe it will, who knows. Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter, because I am just a machine that doesn’t vote for people who do genocide. No amount of rhetoric or fear-mongering will change that, any more than you can persuade a vending machine to give you an item with words. The only thing that I will accept is actual policy concessions.
Well the plains will be flooded, so I think you know, the other commenter maybe should’ve put it along the lines of, there will only be hills left to die on.
Perhaps a more pertinent metaphor than we would otherwise care to admit.