webadict

Alright, so, let's follow your logic. If they're the same, then there's nothing lost voting for Democrats. Again, that's sort of the problem with your logic. You can say they're the exact same, but... That doesn't tell people not to vote for them. And that assumes you think they're the same, which we have established that you don't.

But like, then what about Democrats that aren't supported by the DNC? Are they also the exact same? What about the Democrats that pass ranked choice voting initiatives? Are they the exact same? I would say no.

See? You continue to have no stance. If they're the same, then voting for them should mean nothing to you. You should be okay with it, because, to you, it has no effect on anything.

Idk, pal, it just feels like you want a black and white world view, and you can only be good or bad. It's a really childish sort of mentality. It's weird that you continue to say Democrats are just as bad, and you attempt to label all Democrats as bad with that brush (and you do admit they aren't the same). But... That's not what your logic should conclude. And it makes me feel bad for you because you can't see that.

You write a lot of words for saying that you agree they are not the same. And, by that virtue, one must be better than the other. So, is voting the lesser evil bad or what? Or is your point that Republicans are the lesser evil?

I mean, I could go into a lot of depths about how the Supreme Court was stacked by Republicans, and that they give some unilateral power to Republican presidents in their ruling with the caveat that they get to decide at any point what is included in that.

But, I don't think you really know anything about US law or USSC rulings or anything like that. I also doubt you care.

Like, I get the analogy, but... Most people would still rather have a good cop than a bad cop. Does that not make sense to you? And since I have two options, yeah, I still think your logic points towards voting for Democratic politicians. Because that is what your logic points to, and you refuse to refute that.

Yes, that is not taking a stance. You just don't like it. You can't say what should be done, only one thing that shouldn't. That's what losers do because you can hide behind it and never take a real stance. Congratulations, you get to pretend you're winning.

Man, I'll just softball you. Can you list which elected Democrats believe that women should not be allowed to vote? Because there are a small but growing number of elected Republicans that have stated that women, in some capacity, should not be allowed to vote. Because they're the same.

I think you are the only one confused. I do not think your data shows that rapes of children was somehow less under Biden. Or even that rapes were less. They kinda cart out those pregnant children every day out there in New Jersey.

The only thing I see you do is take no stance. And that is because you have the privilege to take none. Maybe no one you know is being hurt worse from the decision of others. I think you should feel lucky. You must have a great life.

I like to point to another instance of something similar happening with left handedness. See, there was a huge stigma around being left handed that was very religiously ingrained (sinister being a term for someone being left handed), and children were mostly taught to be right handed because of this. Like, forcably switching hands for writing and eating and other activities if they used "the wrong hand". But, when this stopped being so poorly thought of and stopped being forced on children, left handedness SPIKED! You know, until it reached population levels, which is somewhere around 1 in 9. And then it stayed there.

Because, like, obviously left handed people didn't just appear out of nowhere. They were always there. They were just being forced to be right handed. And it was causing a lot of unnecessary trauma to force them to be right handed.

The OP doesn't really care about context. They just post "bOtH sIdEs ArE tHe sAmE" content, and if you call them out on it, they will call you a blue MAGA liberal. I am mostly sure that they're a troll, but it is still possible that they're simply terminally online. But feel free to browse their post history to confirm it.

Your study has a lot of issues, but mainly that it relies on data provided by ICE, but also that it does not clarify the difference in sexual assault under Obama vs. Under Trump. It could show a difference under Trump vs. Biden (or rather, Trump's first term), but I don't think you really read the report.

Regardless, there is currently ongoing rapes in concentration camps under Trump II, and a fuckton more than this study shows under both, so I really don't see how this proves me wrong. Thanks for confirmation.

Isn't this meme literally about you caring about the response?

Trump has concentration camps where children are being raped and disappeared. Like systematically. As part of the deportation process. I do not think that is better. Do you think it is better? I think that is worse. Obama didn't have fucking goon squads kidnapping and shooting people in the streets, camping out at bus stops and churches. Like, I get that Obama was cruel, but he did not let ICE fuck children and shoot people with impunity. And that is the difference. And you are trying to pretend it is better to have the 1.5 million even if severalfold more of them are raped and murdered as a result. I think that's worse. Do you not?

I think that is fair. I would argue that the multiple steps ahead would probably include things like primary voting and caucusing, and that is where we push for the greatest progressive advances. So, you are mainly right.

Basically, while I understand your approach, I mostly disagree that voting Democratic is the one step ahead... Well, no, that is probably correct, so long as the modifier is that the ONLY thing you do is vote blue. That would, to your credit, not necessarily push change. Like, if, for whatever reason, the Republicans suddenly were incredibly progressive, voting for them would be better than Democrats. It wouldn't happen, but purely hypothetically, voting Democratic in that instance would be bad. But, I think in order to get there, you have to primary or caucus out the worst choices. That is like two or three steps ahead. That choice can get better and better the more steps you do, like joining or starting a mutual aid organization, getting involved in your community, etc. That is like multiple steps. And each one is just their own sum to contribute.

What I will grant you is that we probably have been at a one- or two-step thinking for a long time now. And the hard part about accepting that is that it is difficult to get people out of that mindset. We are quite insular. We are quite individualistic. We are quite lonely. And telling people that it is their responsibility to change that is gonna get a lot of pushback. But, well, I think it is!

So, you are right, and your reasoning is right, but I think it concludes to something that might be wrong. I do push for voting Democratic because the alternative is worse, but I only push it until the alternative is better. And I go to the caucuses. I go to the primaries. I go to my local Democratic meet ups. I question my local representatives and senators, ask why they don't push progressive policies, and then if they fail to do better, I keep pushing for better, annoy the shit out of them, and then eventually, they get switched out or they get better. It looks like one-step, and sometimes (or often), it feels one-step.

So, right now, I criticize the shit out of Gaven Newsom. I criticize the shit out of bad Democrats. I push for better in primaries. And then... I vote the Democrat. Because the alternative is the Republican, and so far, they are worse.

There is no contradiction. That 3 million number is bad, but it is still better than the 1.5 million number because of the methods used. Because prisoners didn't go down under Republicans. The prison system didn't get better under Republicans. Police killings didn't get better under Republicans. Like, I know it's gauche to try to compare hurt, but I do not see any Republicans calling for a rehabilitation system instead of a punitive system, but I do see some Democrats call for it, even if very few.

Like, it's sort of like telling me to pick between 1000 thefts being committed vs 100 murders, and, like, yeah, obviously I'll take 1000 thefts over the murders. I don't want either, but I have two fucking choices.

Which would you pick? Remember, there's quantitatively less crimes with the murders! Oh, you didn't pick? That just means someone else gets to pick for you.

That doesn't make sense. If people kept voting for any Democrat, then the Republican party would cease to exist. A new major party would pop up to take its place. I mean, that's sort of how we got the Democratic and Republican parties. We didn't start with them.

But, like, there's also the fact that if the Democratic party took over, it would likely fracture into it's progressive and centrist factions. That would push the Overton window further to the left. That's how it works, and also how it has worked, and until some form of ranked choice voting is implemented federally, it's how it will continue to work.

As a counter to your example, imagine your algorithm, but it's an infinite tree. You can seek every possible sum S~n~ to some number n. Doesn't matter what n is, but it can never see the entirety of the tree because not only does our view of the future get fuzzier the further we see, but the number of possibilities will become unmanageable to measure. There will occasionally be some sum T~n+k~ that'll outcompete S~n~. But, that doesn't mean S won't converge to an even better sum later on. Because we can only see so far down the tree. That's why a greedy algorithm is used. You have so many resources, and it's just a debate on how much big you can make n. You would have to determine exactly how your T sum is better, and right now, history doesn't really agree with you.