• Communist
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    You are failing to take an opportunity to increase Kamala’s chances and decrease Trump’s

    that is literally the exact same thing. By not increasing kamalas chances, you have increased trumps chances.

    I do not understand how you are confused by this. At this point I have to just accept that there is just something wrong with your brain.

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Can I drain a pool of water by standing next to it with a hose that’s turned off? By not turning the water on, I am not increasing the amount of water in the pool, and according to you, not increasing is the same as decreasing, and it stands to reason that if I decrease the amount of water long enough, eventually there will be none left. That’s the logic you’re using and obviously it’s nonsense.

      In the same way that standing next to a pool with the hose turned off does not increase or decrease the amount of water in the pool, not voting for Kamala or Trump does not increase or decrease their chances of winning.

      This is extremely simple. You are being purposely obtuse in pretending otherwise.

      • Communist
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        24 hours ago

        You are being purposely obtuse in pretending otherwise.

        Your inaction will benefit trump. End of story.

        If you don’t vote for kamala, and you support kamala more, you are helping trump.

        There are three options:

        1. +1 kamala
        2. 0 kamala
        3. +1 trump, which we will consider -1 for the purposes of this demonstration

        Rank them by which benefits trump the most, and you discover that +1 for kamala is better for kamala and worse for trump.

        The fact that you cannot understand this is insane. Your inaction is still a choice that benefits the party you least support, because if you had voted for the party you don’t least support, you’d be benefitting the party you support.

        Even by your own example, not turning the water on will cause the pool to evaporate, which is not as bad as directly draining it, but still causing it to drain more than if you had done something to benefit it. Your inaction has consequences.

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          23 hours ago

          Rank them by which benefits trump the most, and you discover that +1 for kamala is better for kamala and worse for trump.

          The fact that you cannot understand this is insane.

          I understand this perfectly and I have never disputed it. In fact I’ve said it myself.

          Your inaction is still a choice that benefits the party you least support, because if you had voted for the party you don’t least support, you’d be benefitting the party you support.

          Compared to voting for Kamala, yes, voting third party benefits Trump. But it is not correct to say that it benefits Trump without that qualification.

          Even by your own example, not turning the water on will cause the pool to evaporate, which is not as bad as directly draining it, but still causing it to drain more than if you had done something to benefit it.

          Lmao. I am not “causing” the water to evaporate. If I gather a bunch of people together to stand next to a pool of water, will each of us “cause” it to disappear faster? Am I causing every puddle in the world to evaporate right now as we speak? This is so ridiculous I can’t even be frustrated or annoyed by your nonsense anymore, you’re just doubling down on absurdity into full clown shit.

          • Communist
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            23 hours ago

            But it is not correct to say that it benefits Trump without that qualification.

            The problem is that in the real world that qualification exists. There is no escaping it.

            You’re letting the water evaporate… which is no different.

            You’re letting trump have better odds.

            • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              22 hours ago

              Letting the water evaporate is not the same as causing the water to evaporate. Letting Trump win (if he will) is not the same as causing Trump to win or helping him win. The baseline is doing nothing. If I did not exist, then the odds would be the same. Therefore I cannot be said to be helping Trump. That’s just not how language works. Otherwise you could just as easily say that I’m helping Kamala by not voting for Trump, at which is a clear contradiction.

              “You’re helping Trump compared to if you had voted Kamala?” Fine. “You’re helping Trump?” False. That is how it is and no amount of saying otherwise or trying to play games with language is going to change it.

              • Communist
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                22 hours ago

                You’re helping trump by not helping kamala.

                If someone is running from someone with a knife, and you see which way they went, and the guy with the knife asks you which way they went, you should mislead that person. Anything else, and you’re also at fault.

                Not helping them win and not fighting against them ultimately mean you’re benefitting them.

                If nazis were up for election, and you didn’t fight against them, you would be at fault for not fighting against them. You can twist words all you want, but it’s not going to change the fact that not fighting against them is your choice and that benefits them.

                You could’ve fought them, you agree that they’re worse, but you didn’t, so, you’ve benefitted them. They want you to do exactly what you’re doing.

                • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  22 hours ago

                  It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat it, you’ll still be as wrong as saying that I’m draining a pool by standing next to it with an empty hose. It’s simply not how language works and you can twist words around and tell me otherwise a thousand times, and it just means you’ll be dead wrong a thousand times.

                  “At fault for not fighting something” you can argue that, sure. “Benefiting,” or “helping” you cannot. There is no argument, it’s just definitionally false.

                  • Communist
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    21 hours ago

                    Why does it matter, actually?

                    Not fighting trump is also bad. You’re letting fascists take over by not fighting trump.