Enough people withhold their votes and the Democrats won’t have the power to do anything about a ceasefire, but Donald “finish the job” Trump will have the power to make the genocide even worse.
They don’t. But even assuming they did, withholding a vote is going to increase the chances of a party who want to make things worse getting into power.
Your choices are between a terrible status quo and making the situation even worse. Why are you so intent on defending the choice that makes things worse?
There is no difference between this and a strike. Just like with striking if enough people are willing to take the risk the goal will be achieved. If not it results in a loss.
By actively opposing the activism you are ensuring the goal will not be reached. Which in the end will not even be to your benefit if you want ceasefire voters to vote for Harris.
In your analogy, Republican voters are the massive number of scabs coming in to replace the striking workers and thus making the strike ineffective or even counterproductive.
But also… You do understand that this isn’t a strike, right?
People who keep voting for poor policy are the scabs. Republicans are an entirely different company who have bad policies. We want to not become that company.
Ahh, I see… You’re confusing the shitty, corrupt union (Democrats) with the company (the USA).
We need to fix the US electoral system so that we have better choices. But until we can do so, we need to do harm reduction. Accelerationism, including in the form of not voting or voting third party, is not harm reduction.
Enough people withhold their votes and the Democrats won’t have the power to do anything about a ceasefire, but Donald “finish the job” Trump will have the power to make the genocide even worse.
Good thing Democrats have the power to force a ceasefire right now and need exactly 0 votes to do so.
They don’t. But even assuming they did, withholding a vote is going to increase the chances of a party who want to make things worse getting into power.
Your choices are between a terrible status quo and making the situation even worse. Why are you so intent on defending the choice that makes things worse?
Do you know how a strike works?
You do understand that this isn’t a strike, right?
What happens if one person goes on strike?
They get fired.
What happens if enough people go on a strike?
The company has to cave.
There is no difference between this and a strike. Just like with striking if enough people are willing to take the risk the goal will be achieved. If not it results in a loss.
By actively opposing the activism you are ensuring the goal will not be reached. Which in the end will not even be to your benefit if you want ceasefire voters to vote for Harris.
In your analogy, Republican voters are the massive number of scabs coming in to replace the striking workers and thus making the strike ineffective or even counterproductive.
But also… You do understand that this isn’t a strike, right?
People who keep voting for poor policy are the scabs. Republicans are an entirely different company who have bad policies. We want to not become that company.
Ahh, I see… You’re confusing the shitty, corrupt union (Democrats) with the company (the USA).
We need to fix the US electoral system so that we have better choices. But until we can do so, we need to do harm reduction. Accelerationism, including in the form of not voting or voting third party, is not harm reduction.