We all know how devastating a second Trump term would be. It’s also important to understand the damage that Biden is doing by funding a plausible genocide
If you’re driving in a bus with 40 people voting on where to go, with 14 wanting to drive to a buffet, 16 wanting to drive off a cliff, and 15 saying that they don’t care enough to vote but they don’t really want to go to the buffet because they’re not hungry, yes, I am going to judge the 15 people who are content being driven off a cliff.
And before anyone judges this analogy because one option is objectively good while the other is objectively bad: Everyone is guaranteed to get food poisoning at the buffet. Now both options are objectively bad, but I’m still judging the people content with going over the cliff.
You can criticize the fact that they didn’t vote, I literally just said that I think everyone should vote. But that’s not the same as saying they did vote for the winner. If you’re mad that the bus is driven off a cliff, then be upset with the people that did vote for it.
This is excusing that I personally think your analogy is an oversimplification.
Both instances are willful action that contributes to direct harm to yourself and others.
No, in the context of a voting system, it is not literally a vote for the other option. I don’t think your friends tumbling off the cliff will really care much about the distinction that serves no purpose other than personal moral satisfaction.
If you are eligible to vote, and don’t, that is the same as a vote for the winner - whoever that is.
No, it’s not. For the record, I’m a huge advocate of voting. I think everyone should vote for the candidate they believe in.
If you’re driving in a bus with 40 people voting on where to go, with 14 wanting to drive to a buffet, 16 wanting to drive off a cliff, and 15 saying that they don’t care enough to vote but they don’t really want to go to the buffet because they’re not hungry, yes, I am going to judge the 15 people who are content being driven off a cliff.
And before anyone judges this analogy because one option is objectively good while the other is objectively bad: Everyone is guaranteed to get food poisoning at the buffet. Now both options are objectively bad, but I’m still judging the people content with going over the cliff.
You can criticize the fact that they didn’t vote, I literally just said that I think everyone should vote. But that’s not the same as saying they did vote for the winner. If you’re mad that the bus is driven off a cliff, then be upset with the people that did vote for it.
This is excusing that I personally think your analogy is an oversimplification.
Both instances are willful action that contributes to direct harm to yourself and others.
No, in the context of a voting system, it is not literally a vote for the other option. I don’t think your friends tumbling off the cliff will really care much about the distinction that serves no purpose other than personal moral satisfaction.
I trust my friends to distinguish between the people who voted for the cliff and those who, you know, didn’t vote for that.