It's pathological as you said. The attempt to shame someone else for refusing to do what they themselves are doing.

Anyway, also from the article and worth quoting:

"That brings me to my fourth transformation: as a result of depression, an economy’s whole structure tends to change. As groups, classes, segments. Think of America not so long ago. It’s structure resembled a bell curve. A broad middle class, a small number of rich, and a larger — but still small — number of poor. And then around 2010, for the first time, America’s middle class became a minority. The gentle bell curve was on its way to becoming something more like a U-shape: a caste society of very rich, and everyone else: the imploded middle and the old working class who became the left-behinds, all of whom became the new poor, that 80% living paycheck to paycheck.
Coronavirus will accelerate that change, too. America’s already dying middle and working class will finally crumble and coalesce into one vast permanent underclass. America will have effectively a massive pool of something very much like easily, algorithmically exploited technofeudal neoserfs — people who’ve reverted to servitude to make a living, only their overseer is an app. Those “low income service jobs” are economists’ jargon for “people becoming servants again.” To whom? To a kakistocracy, if you like — a class that’s the opposite of aristocrats, who were supposed, at least, to the best and brightest. America’s ruling class is now visibly made of predators, the kinds of men who put men in cages, or addict a whole society to painkillers, just to make more money they’ll never spend."

This whole thing is a great big trolley problem.

Pull the lever (Biden). Don't pull the lever (Trump). How many people are on the tracks in front of either? It certainly seems like there are more on the Trump side.

Do we have time to build another track?

not voting... is indeed a vote.
— Xtrix

Lol. — StreetlightX

Simple arithmetic isn't so simple. My fault.

You have two people. A votes, B abstains. If B had voted, it would cancel out vote A. By not voting, A vote counts and that candidate wins.

The act of pressing a button is irrelevant.

What terrifies me is that America consistently seeks to export it's model of governance and 'growth' - by force, if necessary. Or with treaties like NAFTA and the TPP - both of which Biden supported and continues to support. People wonder why others take interest in American affairs. The question is better put the other way around: why America is consistently fucking around in the affairs of others.

The act of pressing a button is irrelevant. — Xtrix

Only true thing you've said so far.

It's pathological as you said. The attempt to shame someone else for refusing to do what they themselves are doing. — Baden

It's not about "shame," it's about logic. You claim to care about rape, yet you believe not voting absolves you of any responsibility in what happens. It doesn't. By abstaining, you're helping Trump -- unless you're a conservative. Is he not a rapist?

You've also avoided, multiple times now, the real issues -- e.g., climate policy. Which is crucial. As I've said many times, it's not about Biden as a person. We can keep it about history and character if we want to decide that way -- fine. That's superficial and easy. If it were only about that, I probably wouldn't vote either.

The real issue, if we truly care about what we profess to care about, is about which administration (not the persona) is most damaging. Is that Trump's administration or Biden's?This is the only question that's relevant. If you don't think there's a difference, we're back to where we started. I'd argue there is a definite difference.

There's an OECD report out (I'll have to try to dig it up) that predicts on current trends (under Dem and Republican leadership) America is going to look like the Philippines or Brazil within 50 years and, to your point, even the most social democratic states in Europe will have deteriorated to the level America is in now.



First of all, there are potential third party options, so abstaining is not necessarily the only way to not vote for a rapist. As for your "logic", if you can't work out how stupid what you're saying is you should not be on this forum. It is literal nonsense.

It's also worth pointing out that we don't know for a certainty what happened, with Trump or Biden. I happen to believe the accusers of both -- but it's not on the basis of the "character" of the person running for office that we should be voting. Did Reagan have a clue what was going on in his own administration? Was it worthwhile voting for Bush because we'd rather have a beer with him?

The accusation against Biden does not make sense to me. It seems to me to violate what a famous lawyer called "the rule of probability." That is, in the particulars it seems too unlikely and improbable. So the best we have is that in some people's questionable judgment he might be - or is - a rapist. And that does not even make of him in any legal sense a suspected rapist. And some Americans, based on their questionable judgment, are quite sure they could not possibly vote for him. I myself have no respect for such people. They're not called to act as jurors, but they are called to vote. Two. Different. Activities. A refusal to vote, then, is an exercise in and of ignorance and a denial of duty. In America the ignorant this passes for principle and is a point of pride, but among thoughtful thinking people, it can only be contemptible. Were the issues of the election not so fraught, not voting might at worst be a bad idea or an ill-informed or stupid idea. But not showing up when you're called for and needed is something worse.

The accusation against Biden does not make sense to me. It seems to me to violate what a famous lawyer called "the rule of probability." That is, in the particulars it seems too unlikely and improbable. — tim wood

No it doesn't. It's not only very probable, it happens all the time. E.g. Trump, Clinton. What planet do you live on?

First of all, there are potential third party options, so abstaining is not the only way to not vote for a rapist. As for your logic, if you can't work out how stupid what you're saying is you should not be on this forum. It is literal nonsense. — Baden

Funny coming from the person who once stated:

Ok, at least you've articulated a position that isn't just a bunch of ad homs. I'll get back to you more on it later, especially seeing as the point about character is complicated. — Baden

Voting third party, as I've stated before, is also a vote for Trump (again, unless you would have voted Republican). If your goal is to vote out the most destructive administration, by abstaining or voting third party you're having the opposite effect. That is, indeed, idiotic logic -- I agree.

I'm also not alone in this argument. I've cited Chomsky a number of times, for example. If I'm in the same "idiotic" league as Chomsky, I take it as a compliment.

It's interesting you get so emotional about all of this. By all means don't let me disillusion you. But I'd recommend not engaging on public forums.

@Xtrix

It's not an ad hom, you are literally saying extremely stupid things. For example, by your logic, abstaining from voting means voting for Trump and Biden simultaneously (why would it only mean voting for Trump?) and voting for a third party must mean voting for Trump, Biden, and that third party simultaneously. I'm not engaging with you anymore until you stop that. I think you're doing it on purpose.

No it doesn't. It's not only very probable, it happens all the time. E.g. Trump, Clinton. What planet do you live on? — Baden

Earth. You? The particulars don't. Focus on what the issue actually is: did he do the thing he is accused of? Not, did he do some other thing he is not accused of, those other things being things that other people did. Apparently you've made a decision on that question. If so, I'm wondering how you came to make that decision.

Pull the lever (Biden). Don't pull the lever (Trump). How many people are on the tracks in front of either? It certainly seems like there are more on the Trump side. — ProbablyTrue

This is right, actually. But it's not about Trump or Biden as people -- one's a sociopath, the other is borderline senile. Both are fairly empty. But once you look at the policies being carried out, and I've mentioned the most important (in my view) -- climate change -- then it's fairly obvious how many people will be harmed by Trump compared to Biden's administration. Body counts and human suffering matters.

So we have to at least get rid of the cancer and prevent the worst from happening. Then we deal with Biden -- even impeach him, who cares? Maybe he'll be replaced before November -- that'd be fine too. I doubt it, but it's possible. Doesn't change the fact that Trump is the worst.

It's not improbable because politicians abuse their power all the time. And in this particular case, Reade reported the exact same story at the time to her neighbor and others. I think it's more likely true than not based on those facts alone. So, why do you think it's improbable?

I've cited Chomsky a number of times, for example. If I'm in the same "idiotic" league as Chomsky, I take it as a compliment. — Xtrix

So you've cited Chomsky. And? Far as I know, Chomsky made a pragmatic argument which I've not criticized (though I may disagree with it). It's the attempts at vote-shaming I've been objecting to. And it's those that destroy your credibility, not your pragmatic arguments, which I can see some reason in.

It's not an ad hom, you are literally saying extremely stupid things. — Baden

So "idiotic" and "stupid" aren't ad homs? Have it your way. I'm not offended, but I found it interesting given what you've said in the past.

For example, by your logic, abstaining from voting means voting for Trump and Biden simultaneously (why would it only mean voting for Trump?) — Baden

When did I say this? I've said several times now that if you believe in progressive policies (as I believe you do, though perhaps I'm wrong), and if your goal is to prevent the most damaging administration from wielding power, then it follows that you vote against the least progressive and the more damaging. That is, indeed, logic.

and voting for a third party must mean voting for Trump, Biden, and that third party simultaneously. — Baden

Again, I'm not sure where you get "simultaneously." Rather, it's a vote for Trump. Why? Because you know very well a third party candidate has no chance of winning (I assume), and that's not the reason you're voting for them in the first place -- you're voting for them, as you've made quite clear, because you can't vote for a rapist.

That's fine, but what you fail to see is that by essentially throwing away your vote, which would otherwise have gone to the candidate which is less harmful, you're assisting the more harmful candidate (in this case Trump) to win. This happened last time as well with Clinton -- were the protest votes worth four years of Trump? I didn't like her either, but I can say definitely that the answer is "No."

I'm not engaging with you anymore until you stop that. — Baden

Does this not count? Well regardless: by all means stop engaging.

What the incredibly dumb 'arithmetic' leaves out of the equation is of course that a vote for either legitimates the entire operation of blackmail which forced one in that position to begin with. Stupid inputs in, stupid outputs out.

And Chomsky is an idiot on this. Much like his linguistics.

So you've cited Chomsky. And? Far as I know, Chomsky made a pragmatic argument which I've not criticized (though I may disagree with it). It's the attempts at vote-shaming I've been objecting to. — Baden

Yes, I know -- which is why I gave a detailed response to you before on the issues, which you said you'd respond to and never did. Was that vote-shaming? I haven't once said, for example, that you're an idiot for voting third party. So who's attempting to "shame" whom?

In any case, I'll be clear: I'm not trying to shame anyone. If I came off that way, it's unintended.

What the incredibly dumb 'arithmetic' leaves out of the equation is of course that a vote for either legitimates the entire operation of blackmail which forced one in that position to begin with. Stupid inputs, stupid outputs. — StreetlightX

Yawn.

And Chomsky is an idiot on this. Much like his linguistics. — StreetlightX

Lol. And you know, too, because you've read some Daniel Everett. Good for you,

Double yawn.

and ,

Maybe it's best if you two just talk to yourselves. This way you won't have to learn anything, resting assured everyone else is an idiot.

What's sad is that you both apparently aren't adolescents. That at least would make the behavior understandable. Makes you wonder about how they pick "moderators" on this platform. :roll:

I'd advise you to go back and read what you said about @neonspectraltoast and the arguments you used to support that. Maybe I should have just described them as "gibberish" instead of "stupid". Other stuff you said previously did give me some insight, but accusing someone of supporting a rapist when that's exactly what you're doing (by your own contention that Biden is guilty) and what they're refusing to do, I found annoying. The pragmatic stuff I just disagree with.

I'd advise you to go back and read what you said about neonspectraltoast and the arguments you used to support that. Maybe I should have just described them as "gibberish" instead of "stupid" and "idiotic". — Baden

This is what I said:

I can't vote for a rapist. I'll be sitting this one out.
— neonspectraltoast

Thus guaranteeing a rapist remains in office, but with the added benefit of destroying the planet.

Makes sense I guess. — Xtrix

Was this "shaming"? Was it throwing around insults?

It's pointing out what in my view is the obvious case: the more progressive people don't vote (as he is indicating here), the greater chances for the worst candidate, thus guaranteeing a rapist is in office (since Trump is also a rapist, allegedly) with the added benefit of destroying the planet.

Where is the upside? Explain that to me. Is it simply feeling better about not pushing a button for either candidate? If that's the case, it's understandable -- but in my view still a very big mistake. If it is something about teaching the DNC a lesson, also understandable -- but I don't see that this turned out so well the first time.

Other stuff you said previously did give me some insight, but accusing someone of supporting a rapist when that's exactly what you're doing and what they're refusing to do, I found annoying. The pragmatic stuff I just disagree with. — Baden

But who cares about annoyance? You're quite annoying to me too. I'm still able to pose an argument. If I'm missing something, show me I'm wrong. I don't even care if it comes with insults and sarcasm -- I can deal with it. But I haven't seen that done here. It's just adolescent posturing and nothing more. I'm happy to stand corrected.

Perhaps a better question: what do those voting for a third party candidate hope to accomplish by doing so? I ask this seriously. Is there some other goal besides disgust with the two candidates?

This is what I responded to. Why didn't you quote that?

And voting in a rapist.

But feeling morally superior for sitting and doing nothing. Kudos. — Xtrix

Was this "shaming"? — Xtrix

Yes.

@Xtrix Our whole argument is based on rejecting the diseased framework on which your arguments are premised. So, we're not going to see eye to eye.

Perhaps a better question: what do those voting for a third party candidate hope to accomplish by doing so? I ask this seriously. Is there some other goal besides disgust with the two candidates?

Not every vote is strategic or instrumental. Many votes are “expressive”, perhaps a matter of ethics or moral obligation.

That's another angle on it, yes. Some people actually believe in the principle of voting for those who most represent them, both in terms of policy and character, regardless of strategic considerations. And if everyone voted that way, the two party system would eventually cease to exist because it relies on a despairing cynicism for the most part. In fact, that is the only way out of it.

Our whole argument is based on rejecting the diseased framework on which your arguments are premised. So, we're not going to see eye to eye. — Baden

OK -- and what framework is that exactly? We don't see eye-to-eye on Trump's administration, for example, accelerating the climate crisis with its policies? Or that both parties are essentially two factions of big business? Perhaps -- always seemed like we agreed on those things though. I think it's a matter that you're just projecting onto me things that aren't there. My argument is indeed a pragmatic one but a logical one also given my premises are correct about our goals. I've stated clearly what mine are -- I've yet to hear yours, besides emotional reasons (which I sympathize with).