Yeah, OP would enthusiastically vote for Mussolini if the other option was Hitler. They fundamentally do not have a conscience and lack any moral center. There is no red line that would cause them to say, “that’s it. Enough if enough. I won’t vote for you no matter what the alternative is.”
They’re a sociopathic utilitarian (or at least they larp as one.) Individual human beings have no inherent worth; all that matters is the cold hard greatest good for the greatest number. In the past, they quite possibly would have actually been convinced to vote for Hitler, as long as Hitler could convince them that the evil the Nazis intended was for the greater good. The Nazis justified all their most evil shit on utilitarian grounds. The road to Hell is paved with utilitarianism.
Yeah, OP would enthusiastically vote for Mussolini if the other option was Hitler
Uhh… Are you saying you’d vote for Hitler if the other option was Mussolini?
What are you trying to say here? That it’s better to “take the higher ground” and just NOT vote? Giving the hardcore right-winger voters an even larger margin by which they elect the horrible option?
Not voting at all is literally he worst of all available options in the vast majority of democratic election systems.
Note: if I’m wrong, and not voting actually sends a message in the US, please educate me. The systems I know count the votes as the percentage of valid votes given, which means that not voting always gives advantage to the right side.
What are you trying to say here? That it’s better to “take the higher ground” and just NOT vote? Giving the hardcore right-winger voters an even larger margin by which they elect the horrible option?
You’re brainwashed. Election boycotts are a tried and true method of political participation.
If a large portion of the electorate boycotts an election, it doesn’t legitimize either side. Even though one candidate ends up winning by a silly margin, that margin yields no political capital.
You’re brainwashed. Election boycotts are a tried and true method
Depending on the voting mechanism and scale.
Have you read the article you linked, Mr. Super Not Brainwashed?
That only works in two scenarios:
The voting system doesn’t punish non-voters (calculation based on the number of eligible voters, not valid votes).
The protest is performed on such a massive scale, that the entire election is voided (usually below 50% turnout).
There was NOWHERE NEAR enough interest from US voters for anybody sane to have any hope of the latter happening, and the US system doesn’t give a fuck about people abstaining.
Election boycott is the offside trap of the election system - if it works, it works, if it doesn’t you just gave the opponent a massive advantage.
What are you trying to say here? That it’s better to “take the higher ground” and just NOT vote?
In a race between Hitler and mussolini, yes. If you participated in a system that gave you a choice between those two you’re part of the problem. Get outta here with your HURR DURR TRAINS RAN ON TIME
Hitler and mussolini were both genocidal fascists trying to establish ethnostate empires utilizing violence, oppression, and industrialized murder. That’s not tribalism. That’s “they’re the same picture”. If the choice is between the two of them, then the only ethical option is not to choose.
I suggest you learn more about these men’s history before you go cheerleading for one over the other for the sake of your dumb metaphor.
So in a choice between Holocaust and Fascism, you choose Holocaust.
This you?
Mussolini was an active participant in the holocaust. You’re voting in favor of the holocaust. You’re advocating for others to vote in favor of the holocaust, and implying that if they don’t then they are guilty of voting in favor of the holocaust.
The only way your argument makes sense is if you’re a mussolini fanboy.
Seriously. I chose Mussolini v. Hitler precisely because it was meant to be a reductio ad absurdum. A case where it’s so obvious one should boycott an election. Kamala vs. Trump was not Hitler vs. Mussolini. I only brought it up as an example so absurd that even the densest minds should have to admit that there are times not voting is the logical answer. But some folks are apparently so brainwashed into electoralism that they’ll keep doing it even if it is objectively meaningless. They’ll participate in a cargo cult of a democracy before they admit that voting for either side is pointless.
Yeah I got what you were going for. It’s hilarious that the other person didn’t, and actually tried to sell Mussolini as the “harm reduction” candidate. I guess you found someone denser than the densest. American schools are in desperate need of more history and civics classes.
The solution if your options are literally Hitler and Mussolini is to get a gun and utilize it. Democracy is already dead if you’re just choosing between two fascists.
Correct! And getting a gun and doing something about it is decidedly not just sitting down in a “silent protest” bullshit “I’m not voting for the lesser evil” stance.
Another solution is to set up a new alternative and promote that - but that’s not a viable option in the US.
Yeah, OP would enthusiastically vote for Mussolini if the other option was Hitler. They fundamentally do not have a conscience and lack any moral center. There is no red line that would cause them to say, “that’s it. Enough if enough. I won’t vote for you no matter what the alternative is.”
They’re a sociopathic utilitarian (or at least they larp as one.) Individual human beings have no inherent worth; all that matters is the cold hard greatest good for the greatest number. In the past, they quite possibly would have actually been convinced to vote for Hitler, as long as Hitler could convince them that the evil the Nazis intended was for the greater good. The Nazis justified all their most evil shit on utilitarian grounds. The road to Hell is paved with utilitarianism.
Uhh… Are you saying you’d vote for Hitler if the other option was Mussolini?
What are you trying to say here? That it’s better to “take the higher ground” and just NOT vote? Giving the hardcore right-winger voters an even larger margin by which they elect the horrible option?
Not voting at all is literally he worst of all available options in the vast majority of democratic election systems.
Note: if I’m wrong, and not voting actually sends a message in the US, please educate me. The systems I know count the votes as the percentage of valid votes given, which means that not voting always gives advantage to the right side.
You’re brainwashed. Election boycotts are a tried and true method of political participation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_boycott
If a large portion of the electorate boycotts an election, it doesn’t legitimize either side. Even though one candidate ends up winning by a silly margin, that margin yields no political capital.
Depending on the voting mechanism and scale.
Have you read the article you linked, Mr. Super Not Brainwashed?
That only works in two scenarios:
There was NOWHERE NEAR enough interest from US voters for anybody sane to have any hope of the latter happening, and the US system doesn’t give a fuck about people abstaining.
Election boycott is the offside trap of the election system - if it works, it works, if it doesn’t you just gave the opponent a massive advantage.
In a race between Hitler and mussolini, yes. If you participated in a system that gave you a choice between those two you’re part of the problem. Get outta here with your HURR DURR TRAINS RAN ON TIME
Right.
So in a choice between Holocaust and Fascism, you choose Holocaust.
Because not voting is boosting the effective numbers of those who vote for the Holocaust.
And you have the gall to think of yourself as the better person, fuck me…
Have I got some bad news for you about your hero Mussolini
https://primolevicenter.org/events/mussolinis-camps-civilian-internment-in-fascist-italy/
Grow up real fast and stop this tribalist nonsense or we’re not going to have a discussion.
Hitler and mussolini were both genocidal fascists trying to establish ethnostate empires utilizing violence, oppression, and industrialized murder. That’s not tribalism. That’s “they’re the same picture”. If the choice is between the two of them, then the only ethical option is not to choose.
I suggest you learn more about these men’s history before you go cheerleading for one over the other for the sake of your dumb metaphor.
Suggesting I like one of them is tribalism, mate.
See? You’re doing it again. I guess you’re incapable of not being childish like that, so it’s EOT from me.
This you?
Mussolini was an active participant in the holocaust. You’re voting in favor of the holocaust. You’re advocating for others to vote in favor of the holocaust, and implying that if they don’t then they are guilty of voting in favor of the holocaust.
The only way your argument makes sense is if you’re a mussolini fanboy.
Seriously. I chose Mussolini v. Hitler precisely because it was meant to be a reductio ad absurdum. A case where it’s so obvious one should boycott an election. Kamala vs. Trump was not Hitler vs. Mussolini. I only brought it up as an example so absurd that even the densest minds should have to admit that there are times not voting is the logical answer. But some folks are apparently so brainwashed into electoralism that they’ll keep doing it even if it is objectively meaningless. They’ll participate in a cargo cult of a democracy before they admit that voting for either side is pointless.
Yeah I got what you were going for. It’s hilarious that the other person didn’t, and actually tried to sell Mussolini as the “harm reduction” candidate. I guess you found someone denser than the densest. American schools are in desperate need of more history and civics classes.
The solution if your options are literally Hitler and Mussolini is to get a gun and utilize it. Democracy is already dead if you’re just choosing between two fascists.
Correct! And getting a gun and doing something about it is decidedly not just sitting down in a “silent protest” bullshit “I’m not voting for the lesser evil” stance.
Another solution is to set up a new alternative and promote that - but that’s not a viable option in the US.