Any argument that the voters themselves are wrong is an indictment of democracy itself.
That’s a lot of words you seem to be putting in my mouth there friend. These aren’t mutually exclusive ideas. I can blame voters for not showing up to the polls and still see the value in a democratic government.
If Palestine is getting bombed no matter what happens, the only voters who are coming out are the ones who want Palestine bombed.
And I thought I had the hot take, holy shit. This is simultaneously an argument to disenfranchise ourselves from the democratic process AND the assumption that those who did participate in the electoral process, regardless of their actual beliefs, are automatically pro-genocide. I’m actually astounded that this is your argument. This is a greater rejection of democracy than anything I said. It’s insane.
Just because we didn’t vote for your shade of fascism doesn’t mean we didn’t show up. The whole get in line and comply is a thing of the past, candidates can either earn our vote or can fuck off.
If a genocide isn’t your red line anything you say after that isnt irrelevant or significant
That’s a lot of words you seem to be putting in my mouth there friend
Nah, I don’t think it is your intention to say these things. I think that you didn’t consider what you were actually saying when you tried to lay the blame on the voters instead of the candidate.
My point is that just because action was taken by the voters does not mean fault for that action rests with the voters. Here, the candidate’s advocacy for genocidal actions is the cause for her failure to win election.
This is simultaneously an argument to disenfranchise ourselves from the democratic process
That’s a common error: Abstention is not disenfranchisement. The voter is not capable of disenfranchising themselves. Disenfranchisement is a concept that can only be imposed on the voter against their will.
Demanding the voters select from two genocidal candidates is disenfranchisement: the only democratic choice remaining is abstention.
That’s a lot of words you seem to be putting in my mouth there friend. These aren’t mutually exclusive ideas. I can blame voters for not showing up to the polls and still see the value in a democratic government.
And I thought I had the hot take, holy shit. This is simultaneously an argument to disenfranchise ourselves from the democratic process AND the assumption that those who did participate in the electoral process, regardless of their actual beliefs, are automatically pro-genocide. I’m actually astounded that this is your argument. This is a greater rejection of democracy than anything I said. It’s insane.
Just because we didn’t vote for your shade of fascism doesn’t mean we didn’t show up. The whole get in line and comply is a thing of the past, candidates can either earn our vote or can fuck off.
If a genocide isn’t your red line anything you say after that isnt irrelevant or significant
Nah, I don’t think it is your intention to say these things. I think that you didn’t consider what you were actually saying when you tried to lay the blame on the voters instead of the candidate.
My point is that just because action was taken by the voters does not mean fault for that action rests with the voters. Here, the candidate’s advocacy for genocidal actions is the cause for her failure to win election.
That’s a common error: Abstention is not disenfranchisement. The voter is not capable of disenfranchising themselves. Disenfranchisement is a concept that can only be imposed on the voter against their will.
Demanding the voters select from two genocidal candidates is disenfranchisement: the only democratic choice remaining is abstention.