null

"I hope I get to watch you suffer the consequences of your actions since you doomed me too"

"That's a death threat!"

Sure buddy.

You're the one who brought up the question of whether democrats are concerned about me voting Republican.

Right, in response to your ridiculous assertion that voting 3rd party puts any meaningful pressure on them.

The point is that they are concerned about the possibility of gaining or losing voters, which honestly isn't a point I should even have to argue for, because it's obvious.

I agree, it's extremely obvious. I'm not arguing against it. I'm arguing against your claim that voting 3rd party puts any meaningful pressure on Democrats.

I disagree, you haven't established this.

Because it's obvious. The outlandish claim is that throwing away your vote is better than using it to avoid the worse outcome.

Harris supporters on Lemmy have called for me to be put in a concentration camp.

Lol no they haven't.

Just because they're not concerned about leftists becoming republicans, that in no way shows that they're not concerned about leftists voting third party.

Exactly -- I agree that the two are unrelated, so I'm not sure why you used it to support your claim. It makes perfect sense for them to try to steal voters directly from their only other actual opponent. That means they gain a vote and the other side loses a vote.

I see no reason why they would feel any more pressure to capture 3rd party voters than they would to capture apathetic voters or any other non-Republican-voting group.

There's a difference between there being two possible outcomes and there being two possible choices. Just because Trump and Harris are the only ones likely to be elected doesn't mean I have to vote for either of them. We've been over this, I feel like.

Of course there are more than two possible choices. You could choose to saw your arm off and put it in the ballot box. Choosing to use your vote to prevent the worse of the only two possible outcomes from happening is a better choice than throwing it away.

They are trying to appeal to right-leaning democrats and centrists who might consider voting republican.

Correct. What they are not concerned about is far-Leftists somehow becoming Republicans. Which is why your game of pressuring them by voting 3rd party in a federal election is ridiculous.

Whether it is directly applicable or not isn't important

It doesn't matter if your analogy is analogous? Gee, that explains a lot.

The purpose of the analogy is to demonstrate that one thing can be marginally less bad than another, but both options still fundamentally unacceptable

No shit. But it completely ignores the part where you are stuck with one of those "unacceptable" options no matter what.

Every single one of your analogies conveniently ignores that vital factor.

Imagine being able to walk and chew gum at the same time!

Yes? That's why they're all about Dick Cheney.

"The Democrats are all about this hardcore Republican as a means of capturing the Leftist vote"

...huh?

Then you agree that escape is what matters and choosing the more comfortable flames to die in is not what's important.

Yes I agree, your burning house analogy isn't actually applicable to the scenario at hand (like the vegan analogy you keep doubling down on). That's my bad for trying to take it in good faith.

The trolley problem isn't "settled debate" for the same reasons that Kamala vs Trump isn't "settled debate".

The point of the trolley problem and why it's analogous is that it's coming up fast and you must choose to either pull that lever or not. Whichever choice you make, that's the moral character you've chosen to exhibit.

Parties are always looking at how to attract or retain voters.

And under FPTP there can only and will only be 2 parties with any real opportunity to enact policy. Do you think the Democrats are worried that you're going to vote Republican? That the GOP is going to start appealing to Leftists?

Why would I? Are you suggesting that trying to influence the Republicans to become an acceptable party is a viable strategy?

Of course not. But the implication is that the Democrats could be influenced. Which is exactly why I can't agree with advocating for swing state voters to do anything but vote against Trump.

...what? I thought your whole reason for caring about the "more comfortable fire to die in" is because escape was ruled out entirely.

Nah, I think escape is possible, but we need to move away from the bigger flames. You're the one who thinks standing still and letting the fire choose is the way to go -- for some reason...

Unacceptable means unacceptable.

It sure does. It's still moot in this context though.

Yeah -- they're proud of their hatred and open about wanting Trump to dismantle the system.

Lemmy Lefties just posture and virtue signal. It's disgusting.

^ This right here. Exactly my point. They are going to keep telling you Kamala and Trump are the same so you spoil your chance to prevent Trump from taking office again.

They are not subtle, and they do not care about the fallout of a Trump reelection. They are privileged enough that it won't affect them or their loved ones. It's despicable.

You have not addressed why this is not a viable strategy at all.

Because you haven't demonstrated it to be a viable strategy...

Can you give examples of this tactic playing out favorably in the past? How does your 3rd party vote materialize into meaningful, actionable pressure on the Democrats? Why am I not surprised you didn't say "We'll endorse the Democrats / Republicans if and only if they do X."?

It's possible to change things without winning.

Not under FPTP.

If anything, it'd be better to wail on the walls in the room with more fire, to die quicker. But the point is that that doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is escape.

If the only thing that matters is escape, then the only thing that makes sense is choosing the scenario that's most likely to allow for it. Which is to move to the area with less fire. This should be absurdly obvious.

You can't have both. If you choose the room with more fire then you're admitting that your whole position is a facade and you're actually just a deluded accelerationist. Which we both know you aren't.

And as I already stated, "better" does not mean "acceptable." In the same way if you push a vegan into saying beef is better than pork, that doesn't mean they consider beef an acceptable food.

If you think both of the only 2 possible outcomes are unacceptable, then acceptability is a moot point. Better and worse still exist, and you already agreed on which is which.