No one says you can’t vote, or think how you want to think, by all means this is a free country.
The issue I run into is that everyone is being purity tested to an extent that no individual who is at least somewhat tolerable to much of the political middle in the U.S., is acceptable to a specific subset of people who are constantly outraged by something.
Many of these same people complain endlessly about many of the issues a Trump presidency is going to greatly exacerbate, and don’t seem to understand, none of us get what we want, but helping to elect him by not voting for the only real alternative seems insanely illogical in my mind. Much like the post states.
It makes no sense to me, “this person is going to burn everything down, but I’m not going to support the only alternative who does things that aren’t nearly as bad…”
Because you are taking these ideas and applying them to a large swath of people, and then fighting that idea. “Everybody” isn’t doing what you are saying. A few people you know MIGHT be somewhat doing something that you are saying.
You are fighting a straw man
Edit for clarity:
The issue I run into is that everyone is being purity tested to an extent that no individual who is at least somewhat…
They aren’t. You’re ignoring what we are talking about to throw gas on the fire, which hurts us all.
You don’t agree that, speaking in generalities, people with more progressive values (obviously everything is a spectrum), are more likely to purity test their candidate than people with more conservative ideologies?
Speaking, again in generalities, the people I know that vote for conservative candidates do not seem to care what candidates do, no matter how much it runs counter to their core beliefs systems. Look how many, what I would consider abhorrent individuals are elected simply because they are a means to whatever end they are looking for.
Look around on political comments, especially on Lemmy, I see the exact behavior/thought process I’m speaking of on a very regular basis, and I truthfully only check in on this app when I have a client out or maybe before bed.
I’m not ignoring anything, I understand there are a variety of significant concerns about many candidates and processes within the Democratic party, especially when it comes to addressing the concerns of the more progressive issues. However; I think that many on the outer edges of the progressive spectrum over estimate how progressive the average American is, and often fail to consider just how disastrous a second Trump presidency would be for many many people.
So I’m a bit drunk right now and I will happily respond tomorrow. My rough read through here makes me think we are close to being on the same page though. People live and die in the details
i think the main difference between us is the path to the end goal. from my perspective, we are fucked. on a grand scale, we will all (or most of us) eventually succumb to global warming and its effects. thus far, most of our elected officials can be bought for surprisingly cheap to do whatever their owners say. personally, my first approach is soft. suggesting/voting for people who somewhat align with my views. the idea is that it promotes the slow change. when (and as it always does) that fails, you start voting more aggressively and for more progressive candidates (while also letting your rep know what you are unhappy with and why). when that - and as it still does - fails, i see two options: on a campaign trail, while your rep/senator/president is pandering to you, you are obligated to call them out. to not do that is a failure as a person in the system. the final alternative is to burn it to the ground. pull the band-aid off, deal with the pain, and move on.
i think your main point at the start of this was about how silly “in-vogue” concerns can be. i think that idea is flawed. there are a lot of problems and a person can only handle so much at a time. when one is called to the forefront, you evaluate it and respond.
maybe we will always disagree on these things, but i hope i was able to clarify my position a bit better - and i hope i understood yours better. sorry for being a dick yesterday.
No one says you can’t vote, or think how you want to think, by all means this is a free country.
The issue I run into is that everyone is being purity tested to an extent that no individual who is at least somewhat tolerable to much of the political middle in the U.S., is acceptable to a specific subset of people who are constantly outraged by something.
Many of these same people complain endlessly about many of the issues a Trump presidency is going to greatly exacerbate, and don’t seem to understand, none of us get what we want, but helping to elect him by not voting for the only real alternative seems insanely illogical in my mind. Much like the post states.
It makes no sense to me, “this person is going to burn everything down, but I’m not going to support the only alternative who does things that aren’t nearly as bad…”
I feel like these “people” in your examples are simply scarecrows in your head.
You’re running full on through a straw man argument, dude.
I don’t have to scarecrow people I know, who are examples of this exact behavior. If I didn’t know people like this why would I bring it up?
Because you are taking these ideas and applying them to a large swath of people, and then fighting that idea. “Everybody” isn’t doing what you are saying. A few people you know MIGHT be somewhat doing something that you are saying.
You are fighting a straw man
Edit for clarity:
They aren’t. You’re ignoring what we are talking about to throw gas on the fire, which hurts us all.
You don’t agree that, speaking in generalities, people with more progressive values (obviously everything is a spectrum), are more likely to purity test their candidate than people with more conservative ideologies?
Speaking, again in generalities, the people I know that vote for conservative candidates do not seem to care what candidates do, no matter how much it runs counter to their core beliefs systems. Look how many, what I would consider abhorrent individuals are elected simply because they are a means to whatever end they are looking for.
Look around on political comments, especially on Lemmy, I see the exact behavior/thought process I’m speaking of on a very regular basis, and I truthfully only check in on this app when I have a client out or maybe before bed.
I’m not ignoring anything, I understand there are a variety of significant concerns about many candidates and processes within the Democratic party, especially when it comes to addressing the concerns of the more progressive issues. However; I think that many on the outer edges of the progressive spectrum over estimate how progressive the average American is, and often fail to consider just how disastrous a second Trump presidency would be for many many people.
So I’m a bit drunk right now and I will happily respond tomorrow. My rough read through here makes me think we are close to being on the same page though. People live and die in the details
All good, enjoy your night and thanks for the convo. Be safe.
had a great night, hope you did too.
i think the main difference between us is the path to the end goal. from my perspective, we are fucked. on a grand scale, we will all (or most of us) eventually succumb to global warming and its effects. thus far, most of our elected officials can be bought for surprisingly cheap to do whatever their owners say. personally, my first approach is soft. suggesting/voting for people who somewhat align with my views. the idea is that it promotes the slow change. when (and as it always does) that fails, you start voting more aggressively and for more progressive candidates (while also letting your rep know what you are unhappy with and why). when that - and as it still does - fails, i see two options: on a campaign trail, while your rep/senator/president is pandering to you, you are obligated to call them out. to not do that is a failure as a person in the system. the final alternative is to burn it to the ground. pull the band-aid off, deal with the pain, and move on.
i think your main point at the start of this was about how silly “in-vogue” concerns can be. i think that idea is flawed. there are a lot of problems and a person can only handle so much at a time. when one is called to the forefront, you evaluate it and respond.
maybe we will always disagree on these things, but i hope i was able to clarify my position a bit better - and i hope i understood yours better. sorry for being a dick yesterday.