Sybil

First-past-the-post voting systems inevitably trend to two-party systems over time. We see it play out in election models and we see it play out in real life.

this claim is not falsifiable. it’s a tautology with no genuine predictive power. it’s not science, it is storytelling.

everything you said after this was also wrong

unless the Democrats want to give up one of their main vote-driving issues, voting for them isn’t going to solve it either.

i don’t want the government involved in anything. why would i want them deciding the degree to which they should be involved in someone’s healthcare?

that’s been overturned. you cant get it reinstated without an act of congress.

, it’s a strategic decision taken to advance your goals.

this part also assumed universal goals. one of my goals is to smash capital and the state. the democrat party will most definitely be part of that. voting for them doesn’t advance my goals.

Voting is not about putting your support behind a candidate

this is the bit that i found most objectionable. almost all the rhetoric around an election talks about support: financial, popular, or political.

voting is definitely supporting a candidate, pretty much any way you slice it.

Voting is not about putting your support behind a candidate or identifying with them, it’s a strategic decision taken to advance your goals.

maybe for you, but your values aren’t universal.

It seems pretty clear that queer people would be persecuted a hell of a lot more under Trump than Biden.

from what i can tell, it’s getting wors, not better, in the last 5 years. i have no reason to believe it would get better with either of them.

hitler could never imagine having the power of the presidency under pax americana, but he would have loved to translate the “racial jungle” speech. the supreme irony of biden’s dog literally attacking federal law enforcement while people are in prison for the same thing is palpable. kids in cages, building a border wall, and supplying arms to the middle east to prop up an ethnostate. look… how much hitler are you willing to tolerate?

I mostly organize with mlms, actually. they are far more prevalent in my local scene

i didn’t paste anything. i’ve been conversing with you. you have been highly hostile with me, though.

i figured if you lost a bet you wouldn’t welch on it. and calling me tankie, when this whole discussion is about me opposing authoritarian regimes no matter how they wish to portray themselves, is simply dishonest.

i’m not trying to win anything.

i have been expressing my earnest feelings and doing my best to convey them to you. explaining your equivocation was no more debate bro than explaining the definition of communism is. please look back through here, and you’ll find that i’m quite happy to admit i don’t really know everything, i don’t have a perfect plan for every thing, and i don’t care to argue about any of it. i don’t mind discussing, but your accusation of debate bro-ing seems, to me, like projection.

i don’t really want the loaf of bread. please give it to someone who does though.

this isn’t a trial. it’s a discussion. you don’t win by trapping me into a false dichotomy.

your characterization doesn’t change whether i want to debate

i support overthrowing the czars and stalin. i support overthrowing the landlords and the maoist structures.

they can predict all they want. they can’t know, though.

don’t be intellectually dishonest, and i won’t call out your intellectual dishonesty. it’s not debate bro shit.