There is no difference between this and a strike. Just like with striking if enough people are willing to take the risk the goal will be achieved. If not it results in a loss.
By actively opposing the activism you are ensuring the goal will not be reached. Which in the end will not even be to your benefit if you want ceasefire voters to vote for Harris.
In your analogy, Republican voters are the massive number of scabs coming in to replace the striking workers and thus making the strike ineffective or even counterproductive.
But also… You do understand that this isn’t a strike, right?
People who keep voting for poor policy are the scabs. Republicans are an entirely different company who have bad policies. We want to not become that company.
Ahh, I see… You’re confusing the shitty, corrupt union (Democrats) with the company (the USA).
We need to fix the US electoral system so that we have better choices. But until we can do so, we need to do harm reduction. Accelerationism, including in the form of not voting or voting third party, is not harm reduction.
There is no fixing the electoral system. You’re not going to fix a company from the inside. They will ban ranked choice voting if it ever starts gaining traction.
Two major examples of this are Bernie Sanders being ousted by the establishment when he was about to win in 2016 and UK’s Jeremy Corbyn who got straight coup’d by Zionists because he was about to win.
Democrats will use every dirty trick in the book they never use against Republicans if someone comes up who will challenge the establishment. The moment the elite is endangered they will break every single rule in the book to overthrow their challenger.
You cannot change the system from the inside if the people are the top have already proven they will never allow that.
Voting for third parties is tied for the second most effective way to increase harm. Without changes to the electoral system (changes I personally do believe are possible, despite your defeatist attitude), third party votes will always be spoiler votes. The only way to more effectively increase harm is to vote Republican.
Voting for Democrats isn’t a good long term strategy, but it’s the only strategy that has any hope of actually keeping my trans friends around so they can see the long term, and it’s the least bad of all the options right now. Voting third party, or not voting, is effectively a 1 vote swing away from the Democrats to the Republicans, whose policies are pretty clearly to make the genocide in Gaza worse and to start other genocides and forms of suffering. Voting Republican is a 2 vote swing towards that.
So I’m choosing the least bad option, and the option most likely to open up better options down the line. You’re choosing an ineffective option and then pretending to have the moral high ground even though what you’re choosing is ineffective virtue signaling.
You do understand that this isn’t a strike, right?
What happens if one person goes on strike?
They get fired.
What happens if enough people go on a strike?
The company has to cave.
There is no difference between this and a strike. Just like with striking if enough people are willing to take the risk the goal will be achieved. If not it results in a loss.
By actively opposing the activism you are ensuring the goal will not be reached. Which in the end will not even be to your benefit if you want ceasefire voters to vote for Harris.
In your analogy, Republican voters are the massive number of scabs coming in to replace the striking workers and thus making the strike ineffective or even counterproductive.
But also… You do understand that this isn’t a strike, right?
People who keep voting for poor policy are the scabs. Republicans are an entirely different company who have bad policies. We want to not become that company.
Ahh, I see… You’re confusing the shitty, corrupt union (Democrats) with the company (the USA).
We need to fix the US electoral system so that we have better choices. But until we can do so, we need to do harm reduction. Accelerationism, including in the form of not voting or voting third party, is not harm reduction.
There is no fixing the electoral system. You’re not going to fix a company from the inside. They will ban ranked choice voting if it ever starts gaining traction.
Two major examples of this are Bernie Sanders being ousted by the establishment when he was about to win in 2016 and UK’s Jeremy Corbyn who got straight coup’d by Zionists because he was about to win.
Democrats will use every dirty trick in the book they never use against Republicans if someone comes up who will challenge the establishment. The moment the elite is endangered they will break every single rule in the book to overthrow their challenger.
You cannot change the system from the inside if the people are the top have already proven they will never allow that.
With such a defeatist attitude, why do you even care who people vote for?
What defeatist attitude? There’s plenty of third parties to vote for.
Voting for Democrats while they commit Genocide claiming it’s hopeless. I can’t think of anything more defeatist than that.
Voting for third parties is tied for the second most effective way to increase harm. Without changes to the electoral system (changes I personally do believe are possible, despite your defeatist attitude), third party votes will always be spoiler votes. The only way to more effectively increase harm is to vote Republican.
Voting for Democrats isn’t a good long term strategy, but it’s the only strategy that has any hope of actually keeping my trans friends around so they can see the long term, and it’s the least bad of all the options right now. Voting third party, or not voting, is effectively a 1 vote swing away from the Democrats to the Republicans, whose policies are pretty clearly to make the genocide in Gaza worse and to start other genocides and forms of suffering. Voting Republican is a 2 vote swing towards that.
So I’m choosing the least bad option, and the option most likely to open up better options down the line. You’re choosing an ineffective option and then pretending to have the moral high ground even though what you’re choosing is ineffective virtue signaling.