@benroyce @fraying

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.

@benroyce

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

@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.

@fraying Just the opposite,

Those lazy people, who as the only political activity just vote once every 4 years should not claim anything to those who are doing polithics every single day.

This said, i'm in the lazy 'only vote' team who annoy my even lazier 'not even voting' environment, to vote.

I just realize that not all the not voters are the same , nor their motivations are just 'moral narcissism'

@fraying googled.

It seems to be a pretty usa centric concept with this full thing about saying vs doing, i was just applying the concept of narcissism to moral until now.

My full point is that Do > say and do every day > vote once every 4 years, so nothing against critizise those who doesn't vote as a pose (possing?) but all against about simplifying all the not voters in the same category

------

To avoid missunderstandings this is the definition that i'm managing from https://www.commentary.org/articles/roger-simon/moral-narcissism-least-great-generation/
-------

«That form is moral narcissism—a pathology that underlies the whole liberal left ethic today and some of the right as well. What exactly is this form of narcissism that is destroying—if it hasn’t already destroyed—our families, friendships, workplace atmosphere, and democratic republic?

The short form is this: What you believe, or claim to believe or say you believe—not what you do or how you act or what the results of your actions may be—defines you as a person and makes you “good.” It is how your life will be judged by others and by yourself. In 19th-century France, the gastronome Jean Brillat-Savarin told us that “you are what you eat.” In 21st-century America, almost all of us seem to have concluded that “you are what you say you are. You are what you proclaim your values to be, irrespective of their consequences.” That is moral narcissism.»