agamemnonymous

A fair assessment, nonetheless it is still more effective than communicating displeasure to the wrong audience. Not much more effective, but definitively so.

You have a direct line of communication with the president and vice president of the United States? That's impressive, but I don't.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Hence the need to express my critiques to peers in stead.

That doesn't make any sense. "I didn't have a wrench so I used a hammer instead". Those aren't interchangeable, they don't do the same thing. You can't accomplish the task you're attempting with the tool you're using.

Yes, but I have at no point argued that the lesser evil shouldn't win

You can't scream genocide and begrudgingly whisper lesser evil and expect that outcome.

First of all, I still don't have a direct line of communications to the white house. Second of all, I guarantee that, if I had, my complaints and warnings would not be heeded. Like those you pretend to have made were.

Again, yes you do. And if you don't think expressing your grievances directly to them will help, how exactly does telling everyone else your grievances do anything? If those voters aren't directly expressing their grievances en masse, how do the people you're trying to convince hear your message?

That's the extent of your options for expressing dissent ay we both know that won't stop the support for genocide any more than me voicing my displeasure in a public forum. If anything, it's LESS effective, as public dissent is much harder to ignore.

When I contact my representative directly, they are informed of my complaints, and what to do to improve. Voicing your displeasure in a public forum gives them no information, unless the users of that public forum contact their representatives directly. If you don't actually organize your dissent, it is extremely easy to ignore.

Ooh, such transgression! Ever heard of the first amendment to the US constitution? It has a few sentences specifically about this kind of thing.

Again, you have the freedom to be counterproductive. It's not forbidden, it's just stupid.

Be better and demand better from the people supposed to represent you, please.

I do that. Be better at directing your actions to accomplish your goal. Stop banging on bolts with a hammer.

The only thing I miss about the sprawl of reddit is the activity in niche subreddits. Hopefully, the variety implicit to the fediverse enables us to toe the line between VC expansionism and rich communities for obscure interests.

You are allowed to be counterproductive, it's just a stupid thing to do.

Such as insisting on doing a bunch of reprehensible things that your base hates while you're running for public office?

Yes, exactly! That is a counterproductive action. And I levy my criticisms regarding that action to the actors themselves, in my direct communication to them.

Two things can be true: it is in the best interest of the DNC to more effectively court their base, and it is in the best interest of leftists for the lesser evil of the duopoly to win until we can break the duopoly.

That's why my correspondence with my representatives is focused entirely on their failings, and my correspondence with other voters is focused entirely on their virtues.

It's amazing how you keep holding the meaningful actions of the most powerful people in the most powerful country in the world to a much lower standard of responsibility than me, a regular poor person, expressing a reasonable opinion.

I hold them responsible for their actions, and I hold you responsible for yours. It's not that my standard for them is lower, my standard for them is irrelevant to the actions of others.

What's supposed to happen and what happens are two extremely different things. Only fools make plans based on what's supposed to happen. The rest of us plan our actions based on the flawed reality we live in.

You're "allowed" to do whatever you want. I'm just telling you it's counterproductive. You are allowed to be counterproductive, it's just a stupid thing to do.

If it's working you can't be doing too bad

I see an "am" but no "I". This has to be missing words

Yeah, because being at all critical about active complicity in the worst crimes against humanity possible is the same as advocating for fascism!

It's called marketing. There's a time and a place for criticism, a close race between bad and worse is not that time, online leftist spaces are not that place. Every leftist voter who chooses to abstain contributes to the fascists' margin.

And I'm equally sure that nobody stayed home because even the lesser evil refused to listen to the vast majority of the people they're supposed to represent. That's not at ALL something that could suppress voter participation

The difference is that you don't control the DNC's strategy, you do control your actions.

Welp

"How do I know you won't use my techniques to become bad hackerman to hack your competitors? Sorry, I'm a professional"

So? Just because someone chooses not to follow the reason, that doesn't make the reason invalid. If anything you're only proving the failures of a passion-driven ethical model, if the psychopath's passion is inflicting pain there's nothing to keep them from behaving unethically.

It is the logical extension of noticing the similarities between yourself and others, and noticing that you do not enjoy pain. It's certainly not mathematically rigorous, but it follows from simple reasoning nonetheless. If you wanted to be rigorous, you can't even claim that you don't like pain, only that you haven't liked specific instances of pain in the past. Some estimations are necessary for a functioning framework of any kind, including ethics.