• TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      That’s not logical. So, if my choices are pizza or nuggies, and I choose neither. Then I chose nuggies? Make it make sense.

      I may be intermittent fasting to lose weight, or rejecting imperialist capitalism.

      • TheOakTree@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        A tribe holds a vote to either cross a bridge to side A or stay on side B. Staying on side A means you won’t have much food. Going to side B means you still won’t have much food, but also most of the food is poisonous.

        Part of the tribe (Group C) says “I don’t want to starve, I refuse to vote in a way that accepts malnourishment as a solution!” Group C also opposes eating poisonous food. This partial group votes to try and find a better source of food (option C).

        48% of people vote A. 49% of people vote B. 3% of people vote C.

        Surprise, surprise, Group C had 0 impact on the starving situation AND helped facilitate the eating of poisonous food.

        • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Seems like more from the other Groups should have voted with C, or C shouldn’t have been given the option to find a better source for food.

          • TheOakTree@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            I agree with you. If we could get the entirety of the democratic party to vote green/left, that would be super helpful. We both know that’s not happening in America because of the broken electoral and political system. If we could suppress option C, we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all, but there would surely be other complaints to be had regarding that matter.

            In the end, the Group C votes are equivalent to not voting, which translates to having 0 impact on the outcome of vote. This exemplifies complicity with either option A or B.

              • TheOakTree@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Sorry, you’re right. My story doesn’t quite match the election dynamic. In the hypothetical, Group C should be extremely aware that they cannot win the popular vote, since most tribe members are either unaware of or have no faith in option C.

                In which case, yes, continuing to vote for option C is complicity with outcome A or B.

                • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  Definition of complicit denotes otherwise. If making the right choice is unpopular, that doesn’t make you complicit with another choice. You’re conflating the two choices. Why is it Group C’s fault the other groups can’t get their shit together. Stop bullying people to vote the way you want. It makes you look weak.