Aatube

Based on your argument, one cannot justify the person in the swing state voting for Harris? And again, how were they defending Harris's genocide policies?

edit:fixed think-o lol, safe→swing

Opinion discarded.

While I agree that the sentence is imperialist apologia, I disagree with this approach. There's something to be learned from everything, especially when there's much mroe than what you're focusing on.

Then how may I explain that voting for the lesser evil is the best course of action in my state's scenario? And again, how were they justifying Harris's genocide policies?

That sounds a bit too extreme if it's a one-strike

How were they justifying Harris's genocide policies? Isn't defending voting for Harris defending the shitty choice?

Isn't "we lack agency" the exact argument you removed? Casting others in either black or white is unnecessarily flaming and often used by power-grabbers to divide the electorate and drum up perfervid support. Nobody's wholly supporting Harris or supporting her stance on the war here. I saw the thread before it was removed.

I'm confused. Do you now think choosing the shitty option is justifiable or not?

In my country's present institution, you have to either support evil or be filthy rich to live. Revolutions don't happen spontaneously; they build in the back corner while evil is prospering before a great ambush. As a non-white anarchist, Trump will quite possibly kill our movement if he wins. Thus, I unfortunately indulge in activities that will help us in the long run. In the dark, we help build strength. In the light, you'll help arrest the momentum.

Sir/Madam, you started a conversation quite−closely-linked to the election in an anarchist community in the first place. Saying "it's much better to vote for this candidate instead" is not the same as supporting the election; I don't see why lesser-evilism is bannable at all. I'm a beginner anarchist myself and there's nothing I found about working on other things/lesser evils when certain things aren't feasible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect#Statistical_and_better-than-average_effect

Look at the chart in the article. Let's say actual ability is x and perceived ability is y. The graph effectively asks us to compare the difference between perceived ability and actual ability, which we can write as y-x. Thus, the chart effectively graphs y-x over x, which can be written as -x+y over x. There is always a strong correlation unless y approximates x.

IMO, the conclusion of that analysis should be "Dunning−Kruger is a truism", not "Dunning−Kruger doesn't exist".

What's the point?