Part of the whole conceit of that rhetorical structure is that voting works. If I don’t agree with it personally that’s fine, but I didn’t comment in opposition to the premise that voting works, but instead in opposition to the premise that a person who does believe voting works is compelled by any structure, physical or otherwise, to choose between the two worst candidates.

You brought up voting working in reply to me. I’m interested in hearing what you want to build off that. Why not just lay it out?

[–] zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I brought up "voting works" because without it, the claim people are complicit because they voted is just bizarre. How can I explain why one should vote when we don't even agree on what it means to be complicit?

[–] gayhitler420@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You can always explain your own reasoning about why a person should vote for people who might be reading.

[–] zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I can also choose to share my reasoning in a space that is more visible than here, buried deep in the replies. This thread is best for having a conversation about your reasoning.

[–] gayhitler420@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

alright_keep_your_secrets.jpg