After a day and several replies from people. I’ve come to the conclusion that people here are ok with their party and leaders supporting genocide and they attack the questioners (instead of their party leaders) who criticize those who support genocide. Critical thinking is scarce here.

I’m shameful of humanity.

  • WrenFeathers@lemmy.worldM
    2·
    2 months ago

    It’s FAR too late in the game to explain to you how a non-vote or a throwaway vote helps Trump. It’s explained nearly every time this comes up. So you either know- or you refuse to accept reason when it’s provided to you.

    Either way- you’re entirely wrong. But you’re free to be wrong, so long as America remains a democracy.

    Lets hope that there are enough of us trying to save America from a “dictator for a day” to make up for the willful ignorance of protest voters.

    • Ephoron@lemmy.kde.social
      14·
      2 months ago

      It’s explained nearly every time this comes up.

      It’s so disheartening to see society descend into this monolithic, unthinking, blob.

      An argument doesn’t become an ‘explanation’ just because you agree with it.

      People have made their case. I’ve disagreed with it and given reasons. That’s how rational debate works (or at least it used to in better times).

      What’s happening here is people are disagreeing about a matter and exchanging reason why they reached their differing conclusion.

      It’s not one party ‘explaining’ some fact to another. It’s not maths, people disagree. Experts disagree. It’s an open question still.

      • WrenFeathers@lemmy.worldM
        21·
        2 months ago

        Some things are empirical. Like… throwing away your vote on third parties- and how protest votes are batshit stupid.

          • WrenFeathers@lemmy.worldM
            2·
            2 months ago

            No it means absolute truth- as in, it’s an absolute truth that a protest vote is stupid.

            … we’re done here

            • Ephoron@lemmy.kde.social
              13·
              2 months ago

              Well, no, it doesn’t mean that either, but I get the point anyway. You’re not here to defend your position, that’s fine. It’s not obligatory.

              • WrenFeathers@lemmy.worldM
                2·
                2 months ago
                1. :originating in or based on observation or experience**. empirical data.
                2. :relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory.

                Observation and experience.

                By observation, protest votes are stupid.

                By experience, third party votes are stupid.

                And I love the IMAX quality projection you’re displaying here. it’s obvious you have no position to defend. You just put people on the defensive to cover up for it. None a so or one of you have provided any policy offered by third party candidates. Not one of you have explained any logic that can argue against the concept that you’re knowingly tossing away votes while simultaneously allowing a much worse candidate to win.