I keep hearing people I know who I thought genuinely cared for the people on the ragged edges of US society saying that theyâre not going to vote for Harris. I wish theyâd see voting as a thing we do *for each other* instead of something that speaks to your own self-centered opinion.
Itâs just moral narcissism - the idea that how it makes you feel about yourself is the most important thing. Itâs wildly, WILDLY selfish. And these are the same people who lecture others about privilege.
Wild.
People say I shouldnât shame others for not voting, but fuck that. We have this one lever we get to pull. This one task. If you canât make that bare minimum requirement to participate in a democracy, I have no goddamn respect for you. Youâre not more morally pure for opting out, youâre just a petulant child.
Voting isnât everything, but itâs the first thing. If you have this right that so many fought and bled for and you donât use it, shame on you.
louder for the toxic idealists in the back:
if you don't #vote, you don't have morality, you have self congratulatory ego masturbation
belief without action is not morality. withholding action when the stakes are clear on things you *say* you care about is not highmindedness, it's impotency
one order out: not being aware of the stakes makes you absurdly clueless
and finally "both sides the same" is a moronic lie. i will consider you a russian troll for that in intellectual charity
You're cutting yourself out of the process.
After Nov 2024 I expect to frequently be asking "Who did you vote for?". If the answer isn't "Harris", I'll know it's not worth spending my energy engaging with you.
"Harris, reluctantly", or "Hated myself, but in the end Harris" are fine, just fine. Voting often involves unpleasant options, and I'll be thankful to you that you did a difficult thing.
Most just like the aesthetics of rebellion and violence... it's just another way of glorifying hatred and death for those you think are "bad" for society.
Doctor Who had a really good episode on this: "Truth or Consequences". The problem is not with wanting "revolution" it's that people aren't thinking about the after revolution. At a certain point, unless you just want 24/7/365 war and death (which a good portion do want), you need to become the person arguing against revolution and finding a way to incorporate other views. And then you're right back where you started, needing to vote. The only difference is how many people you killed and made suffer.
So, unless the goal is increasing that number, you vote.
#Politics #Philosophy #Revolution #BurnItAllDown #BIAD #DoctorWho #BBC #Rebellion #Violence #Death #Suffering #CivilWar #USPol #Europe #EU
exactly
say those romanticizing revolution somehow live through the endless suffering death and injustice of an actual civil war
what appears on the other side?
well, as stakeholders in the glorious struggle, they get a voice in the decisions the new govt makes
that means they, uh, will vote?
setting aside those who think "no govt" is possible and the warlords that appear in the vacuum of power
and set aside those who want a left leaning totalitarian govt
@fraying
This is something I never could, and probably never will, understand.
"I don't agree with anything he says, but she isn't quite aligned with my beliefs either, so I'm not going to vote!"
And I've noticed there are 2 separate and distinct types of people who do this - those who are well enough off that they will barely notice the hit to their livelihood that letting The Other Guy win will entail, at least at first, and those who will suffer the most.
And I dont get either of them.
@stuartb @fraying One is privilege and the other is fatalism.
There's also the third crew: the ones who think if things get horribly worse, then "complacent" public will have no choice but to fight in their bloody revolution. But seeing as how even a pandemic that killed a million plus due to malevolent mismanagement didn't trigger that, nothing else will, either.