• OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    17 days ago

    more concerned

    I agree that they are more concerned about the center-right (mostly because the center-right is more prone to defecting while the left just falls in line), but that does not mean that they are not at all concerned about losing the left, or that a change in strategy couldn’t make them concerned about that.

    There it is. You don’t care any of the work that has to happen over the next 4 years to push for positive change. You just care about virtue-signaling.

    How does not being an act utilitarian mean that I just care about virtue-signaling? Do you know what act utilitarianism is? Do you think it has something to do with taking actions vs not taking actions?

    Act utilitarianism is an ethical framework that is based around judging specific acts to determine which action produces the most utility, in contrast to rule utilitarianism, which is about judging which general rules tend to produce the most utility.

    • null@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      I think I see where this is headed.

      Am I right to say that you view casting a vote as an endorsement of a candidate/party (like MAGA does), rather than as a chess move (like Liberals do)?

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 days ago

        Obvious, a vote is an endorsement, yes. Whether MAGA does or Liberals don’t, I don’t know anything about that and don’t particularly care.

        But even if you want to treat it as a chess move, it’s a bad one. It’s tactically wrong as well as ethically.

        • null@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          17 days ago

          Obvious, a vote is an endorsement, yes.

          Nope, that’s merely your opinion.

          It’s tactically wrong

          False.

            • null@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              17 days ago

              Then prove that voting is objectively and endorsement of a candidate/party. That’s your claim.

              For the second, you already agreed previously that it is tactically the best move.

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                17 days ago

                Then prove that voting is objectively and endorsement of a candidate/party. That’s your claim.

                That’s just definitionally what those words mean. To say “This candidate is the best choice, I’m voting for them and others should to” is an endorsement, and to say “I endorse this candidate” means, “This candidate is the best choice, I’m voting for them and others should too.” I suppose you could argue they’re technically different if you lie about how you’re voting or don’t tell anyone about it.

                For the second, you already agreed previously that it is tactically the best move.

                Blatant lie. I have consistently disagreed with that at every single point of this conversation.

                • null@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  17 days ago

                  That’s just definitionally what those words mean. To say “This candidate is the best choice, I’m voting for them and others should to” is an endorsement, and to say “I endorse this candidate” means, “This candidate is the best choice, I’m voting for them and others should too.”

                  Under FPTP, one can absolutely use their vote to denounce a candidate and vote against them taking office. Especially if that vote has a chance of actually pushing the needle far enough to make that happen.

                  Blatant lie. I have consistently disagreed with that at every single point of this conversation.

                  Blatant lie.

                  You agreed that:

                  • Kamala or Trump will be elected president
                  • Trump losing would be better overall in the short term
                  • Trump losing would be better overall in the long term

                  Do you need me to link that for you?

                  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    17 days ago

                    Under FPTP, one can absolutely use their vote to denounce a candidate and vote against them taking office.

                    Only by contradicting yourself. To denounce a candidate is to say that you shouldn’t vote for them.

                    Do you need me to link that for you?

                    None of those things are the same as concluding that voting for Kamala is tactically correct, which I have repeatedly explained to you and been completely consistent on. That you think I should conclude that is not the same as me concluding it. To say that that’s what I concluded and that I already conceded the point when I’ve plainly told you otherwise is a blatant lie. You will retract that claim or this conversation is over, I will not continue with someone who lies about what I said.