Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich says victory in Gaza will mean the enclave being "entirely destroyed," Palestinians leaving for other countries.
Maybe people wouldn’t call him “Genocide Joe” if he hadn’t backed a genocide. I always find it amazing that people blame the voters, instead of blaming the people with the power, the platform, and the money, who chose genocide over winning the election.
I always find it amazing that people blame the voters
I think people are blaming the people who didn’t vote. They thought they were sending the message “I don’t like genocide”, but that was ignorant of them.
The message they sent was “Eh, either is fine. I’m fine with Trump or Harris. Whatever”. And then they took the moral high ground for doing so.
Which I also find understandable. I disagree with non-voters, but if both choices are terrible, and fight against what you want, I understand why people wouldn’t want to vote.
The proper way to communicate an opinion that “both choices are terrible” is to make your way to the polling station and either vote for something other than those two bad choices, or to decline or spoil your ballot.
Not voting says “I can’t be bothered to make the effort; anything is fine”.
People think it means “Give me something other than these two”, but it takes more effort to communicate that message.
Political activism requires effort, and it requires effort the right way. Not voting is political inaction.
I mostly agree with you, which is why I voted 3rd party, and I still recommend that others vote. But voting can take a lot of time and effort, which most people are short on. I think a lot of people would vote, if they thought their vote counted, but with the two major parties we have, it clearly doesn’t.
I see it as less of “I can’t be bothered to make the effort; anything is fine”, and more of “Both of you fight against what I want, why would I bother”
Because voting is one of the least effortful political action that can be taken, and it can send one of the biggest messages.
Democratically-elected politicians get their jobs by people’s votes. Their campaigns are based around getting votes. And they can look at numbers of how people are voting to adjust their platforms to capture those votes.
There’s little benefit for them to try to capture the votes of people who don’t vote because people who don’t vote aren’t likely to vote.
77,302,580 people voted for Trump.
89,278,948 people were eligible to vote but didn’t.
That’s enough to win an election. I know they wouldn’t all vote the same way, but that’s a HUGE population – enough to potentially make a third political party relevant, for instance.
I know that you vote, and I know both major parties in the US suck. I think we’re generally in agreement here, so I know I’m probably preaching to a member of the choir. I’m just less sympathetic about it because I know that if everyone in the US who was eligible to vote but didn’t all voted with their intentions, upcoming elections would look very different. And I think it’s a combination of learned helplessness/defeatism and laziness/apathy that’s causing this.
As such, I will always advocate for the power of voting. And I will always admonish people who don’t vote and complain about the result.
Yup, we are mostly in agreement. I will push back on this though:
Because voting is one of the least effortful political action that can be taken
For a lot of people, taking a day off work, to spend hours in line at a polling booth, while voter intimidation is kind of allowed, is a lot of effort. Especially when you factor in that they need to spend time researching the candidates and issues they’ll be voting on. I’ve lived in places where even getting registered was a huge pain, and took a lot of time. Where I currently live, voting is super easy, and I appreciate that, and I think it’s less of an excuse. But for a lot of people, it does take a lot of effort, and I find not voting in those circumstances more understandable.
But for a lot of people, it does take a lot of effort, and I find not voting in those circumstances more understandable.
There is a long way to go in some places to make voting more accessible, approachable, and available, yes.
I think that other political actions tend to take more effort and more work, or they tend to be less widely impactful.
Complaining online and sharing memes, for example, is easy, but does next to nothing.
Calling your local official or writing an email/letter to them can change local politics, but just like voting can be harder or easier depending on where you live, getting your message to go somewhere other than their garbage bin can take a lot of time and effort… probably more than voting. And even there, that’s only one politician you’ve influenced.
Larger political actions that are stronger than voting definitely exist, but I think the majority of them come with greater risk, more effort, or a larger time investment (like protests, running for local office, etc).
Voting sends a message to politicians nationwide, if not just statewide. And like I mentioned elsewhere, there’s little incentive for politicians to take the opinions of non-voters seriously.
Maybe people wouldn’t call him “Genocide Joe” if he hadn’t backed a genocide. I always find it amazing that people blame the voters, instead of blaming the people with the power, the platform, and the money, who chose genocide over winning the election.
I think people are blaming the people who didn’t vote. They thought they were sending the message “I don’t like genocide”, but that was ignorant of them.
The message they sent was “Eh, either is fine. I’m fine with Trump or Harris. Whatever”. And then they took the moral high ground for doing so.
Which I also find understandable. I disagree with non-voters, but if both choices are terrible, and fight against what you want, I understand why people wouldn’t want to vote.
The proper way to communicate an opinion that “both choices are terrible” is to make your way to the polling station and either vote for something other than those two bad choices, or to decline or spoil your ballot.
Not voting says “I can’t be bothered to make the effort; anything is fine”.
People think it means “Give me something other than these two”, but it takes more effort to communicate that message.
Political activism requires effort, and it requires effort the right way. Not voting is political inaction.
I mostly agree with you, which is why I voted 3rd party, and I still recommend that others vote. But voting can take a lot of time and effort, which most people are short on. I think a lot of people would vote, if they thought their vote counted, but with the two major parties we have, it clearly doesn’t.
I see it as less of “I can’t be bothered to make the effort; anything is fine”, and more of “Both of you fight against what I want, why would I bother”
Because voting is one of the least effortful political action that can be taken, and it can send one of the biggest messages.
Democratically-elected politicians get their jobs by people’s votes. Their campaigns are based around getting votes. And they can look at numbers of how people are voting to adjust their platforms to capture those votes.
There’s little benefit for them to try to capture the votes of people who don’t vote because people who don’t vote aren’t likely to vote.
That’s enough to win an election. I know they wouldn’t all vote the same way, but that’s a HUGE population – enough to potentially make a third political party relevant, for instance.
I know that you vote, and I know both major parties in the US suck. I think we’re generally in agreement here, so I know I’m probably preaching to a member of the choir. I’m just less sympathetic about it because I know that if everyone in the US who was eligible to vote but didn’t all voted with their intentions, upcoming elections would look very different. And I think it’s a combination of learned helplessness/defeatism and laziness/apathy that’s causing this.
As such, I will always advocate for the power of voting. And I will always admonish people who don’t vote and complain about the result.
Yup, we are mostly in agreement. I will push back on this though:
For a lot of people, taking a day off work, to spend hours in line at a polling booth, while voter intimidation is kind of allowed, is a lot of effort. Especially when you factor in that they need to spend time researching the candidates and issues they’ll be voting on. I’ve lived in places where even getting registered was a huge pain, and took a lot of time. Where I currently live, voting is super easy, and I appreciate that, and I think it’s less of an excuse. But for a lot of people, it does take a lot of effort, and I find not voting in those circumstances more understandable.
There is a long way to go in some places to make voting more accessible, approachable, and available, yes.
I think that other political actions tend to take more effort and more work, or they tend to be less widely impactful.
Complaining online and sharing memes, for example, is easy, but does next to nothing.
Calling your local official or writing an email/letter to them can change local politics, but just like voting can be harder or easier depending on where you live, getting your message to go somewhere other than their garbage bin can take a lot of time and effort… probably more than voting. And even there, that’s only one politician you’ve influenced.
Larger political actions that are stronger than voting definitely exist, but I think the majority of them come with greater risk, more effort, or a larger time investment (like protests, running for local office, etc).
Voting sends a message to politicians nationwide, if not just statewide. And like I mentioned elsewhere, there’s little incentive for politicians to take the opinions of non-voters seriously.
I understand why some people kill their families and then kill themselves.
I’ll still put forth that it’s bad, destructive, and wrong.
Bad analogies are bad