Seem like not endorsing the government or the blue party will get you banned for trolling at climate@slrpnk.net
Yeah, those slrpnk admins, if there’s one thing they will instantly ban, it’s people who have negative things to say about the Democrats, or want extra-political solutions to climate change. It’s the one thing they really can’t stand. /s
I looked at your profile, and all I can say is wow.
You and I disagree on almost everything. But I agree with your support of slrpnk.
They even stood up for me, and almost everyone on Lemmy hates me! lol
Slrpnk is awesome. If they banned OP, then they probably had a really good reason, cuz they are pretty laid back over there.
Yeah, those slrpnk admins, if there’s one thing they will instantly ban, it’s people who have negative things to say about the Democrats, or want extra-political solutions to climate change. It’s the one thing they really can’t stand. /s
Wouldn’t be surprised if this is the case. Some solarpunk is greenwashing
dood. the problem is, you wrote
Anyone who call to imperatively vote for the red and blue party is an enemy of the climate cause and of humanity.
Which in an electoral college system means you want votes to be wasted and increase the risk the orange menace wins, who is the bigger enemy of the climate cause and of humanity.
Basically your words contradict your goals at the moment and it even raises the suspicion you’re trying to manipulate ppl for the GOP or foreign actors (which favor the GOP).
This is not the time to vote 3rd party or abstain. This is lesser evil time. The US isn’t a country where this is done with coalitions like in EU or so. If you wanted a 3rd party to win this election, that ship has sailed. For the next, maybe, but don’t confuse ppl who should vote now.
This is not the time to vote 3rd party or abstain.
Looks like plenty of people ignored that advice.
I think Greta Thunberg said it quite well:
It is probably impossible to overstate the consequences this specific election will have for the world and for the future of humanity.
The Democrats winning this election is in no possible universe sufficient for human survival and an end to industrial-scale murder and collective climate suicide, but it sure looks necessary.
Here’s her full quote, including her main point, which is the absolute urgency of going further than that, pressuring the whole system to do a hell of a lot better than the Democrats, not stopping with the election:
Saying we need to go way further than Democrats for success makes perfect sense. Saying there’s no point in electing Democrats, while pretending you think the climate is important, is a sign that you’re either lying on purpose or horribly and dangerously confused.
Edit: Fixed the image, I’m not sure why it won’t go bigger
No, you’re intentionally ignorant.
If both are unsuitable for the climate cause, it doesn’t mean you get a 3rd option. It means the climate is irrelevant for this election. In that case you lost the chance to have a climate relevant option many years ago. Voting a 3rd party or not voting will not pressure the candidates to do anything for the climate now. Even the threat of letting the authoritarian fascist win comes too late, because third parties are already out.
Also, if the US doesn’t elect the democrat candidate now, trump will be elected and there will be no way of doing anything for the climate with the US any more, likely forever.
The ship has sailed. You can only choose how bad you lose now.
Relax. I am agreeing with you, or was aiming to.
The whole US political system is unsuitable for dealing with climate change, but the Democrats are at least trying to some extent to push it in the right direction. Letting Trump get elected would be a massive catastrophe. That’s what I, and Greta Thunberg, and you, are saying, I think.
Coming out with “you’re intentionally ignorant” isn’t generally a good way to start the conversation, even if you don’t agree with the person.
voting a 3rd party or not voting will not pressure the candidates to do anything for the climate now.
Wrong, by losing votes the red and blue party are forced to change their policies to get votes back otherwise they lose elections. On the contrary if they don’t lose any support they are not really forced or motivated to do any change.
Also, if the US doesn’t elect the democrat candidate now, trump will be elected and there will be no way of doing anything for the climate with the US any more, likely forever.
Read what Greta Thunberg said
Wrong, by losing votes the red and blue party are forced to change their policies to get votes back otherwise they lose elections. On the contrary if they don’t lose any support they are not really forced or motivated to do any change.
And the red or blue party still have a majority even though some votes go to third parties. I don’t see how that make them lose elections?
dood, the election contest is over now. you’re chasing ghosts of the past
Really? Who’s the president elect?
Which in an electoral college system means you want votes to be wasted and increase the risk the orange menace wins, who is the bigger enemy of the climate cause and of humanity.
There’s not such thing as “wasted votes”. In elections every person is free to vote as they want for whoever they like, that’s the core of democracy. Trump alone is a corrupted politicians who represent the interests of elites and corporations, there’s a climate crisis because for decades governments have facilitated and paved the way for earth exploitation.
Basically your words contradict your goals at the moment and it even raises the suspicion you’re trying to manipulate ppl for the GOP or foreign actors (which favor the GOP).
Go ahead and explain what’s contradictory about any of my words. If you believe calling out the whole fucking government red and blue buffoons together is supporting any of them i’m lead to believe you are either malicious or extremely brainwashed.
If you wanted a 3rd party to win this election, that ship has sailed.
Unless you come from the future you cannot predict who is gonna win.
There’s not such thing as “wasted votes”.
In electoral college and winner-takes-it-all systems (like the one in use in that election) votes for candidates not endorsed by large groups of voters have no effect on the outcome. You can lie to yourself, but this is not a European country. If a party doesn’t get a huge group of voters committed long before the election, it’s over for them.
Yes, people can vote for whoever they like, but only two options ultimately count. The rest is basically discarded on the electors stage.
votes for candidates not endorsed by large groups of voters have no effect on the outcome
i think 2016 jill stein voters are owed an apology then. and the 2000 nader voters
All it takes for a party to get a huge group of voters is a pop start with a huge group of fans endorsing the party
And this will never happen in the US, which is in dire need of an election reform.
Wanna bet? It’s either Trump or Harris. You think like a loser.
If you want i’m gonna bet that regardless of who win climate crisis will get worst and people will get poorer
You should probably link to your comment: https://slrpnk.net/post/14805575/11883989
YDI: You called @silence7 a shill for phonebanking. As a mod, he has no obligation to take your abuse.
I said they are shilling for a party that is responsible for the climate crisis and a genocide among other things. How’s that trolling? And how’s that abuse?
