Originally Posted by lawyerdad
I never said "voters like you" are to blame. It's a democracy, more or less. We all vote how we choose, based on whatever values we have and results we're seeking. We're all responsible for whatever incremental effect our vote has in the real world.
As for butthurt, that's pretty much what I meant. The post you responded to didn't "blame" you and didn't accuse you of "wasting" your vote. (Admittedly, a later post did.) And a system that excludes you intentionally such that you have no "culpability" here? Sorry, my friend, that's total fucking butthurt (no pun intended). I think "culpability" is an unhelpful word, but each of us has responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of how we act in the world. I don't think that's a particularly controversial notion. It's not about culpability, it's about causation. Arguments (for example) about whether it's Nader's "fault" that GWB beat Gore or if it's Gore's "fault" are stupid. Gore lost because (ignoring the Florida vote-counting controversy) Bush got the number of votes he needed and Gore didn't. If a certain number of people voted for Gore rather than Nader, Gore would have won. If more people who leaned Gore had turned out and voted, Gore would have won. if Gore had persuaded more voters than he was a better choice than Bush, he would have won. All of those statements are true, despite the fact that to this day there are shitheads all over the internet arguing about which one of those is "the" explanation for Bush's victory.
I didn't say "blame" or "wasting" in the post you're referencing, so I'm not sure why you went in that direction.
Holding me, or people like me, responsible for someone like Trump winning is only legitimate if we all previously agreed that voting against
is a necessary part of responsible participation in our electoral system. I don't recall making that concession, and I don't remember it being a major part of popular discourse on politics until someone realized this year's Republicans really are That Stupid.
There's more to the question of voting than defeating an enemy. If your position is that voting against people like Trump trumps (SWIDT) all other considerations, that's fine, but that's not an objective starting point. That being the case, using it to critique my position as if you're arguing from some pre-agreed-upon truth leaves out a critical step in the process.
It's easy to demonize "the major parties". You realize those are not actual, sentient entities, right? The place where we are in history is the product of all of our collective choices, actions, and lazy inaction. I get the temptation to say "everyone else sucks and they're not as morally pure or smart as me", but that's ultimately lame. Maybe the major parties are dominant because of how those asshole framers set shit up. Or maybe they're dominant because in nobody has ever gotten their shit together enough to form a viable third party that didn't crater because it let itself become defined by its most destructive, batshit crazy members. Or some combination thereof.
The "sentient beings" statement is pretty weak. Referring to organizations in the manner I did isn't something I just invented; we do it all the time. They're not sentient beings, but they're entities with goals, means, inclinations to self-preservation, and so forth. Referring to them the way I do/did isn't inappropriate, and it's not a departure from the way we typically address these things.
I've never presented myself as morally pure or smart. This isn't about purity or intelligence; it's about how far we're willing to depart from the core of our principles. I'm not under the delusion that there's some perfect candidate out there for me, but that isn't the same as saying both of the major party's candidates are too far off the mark for me to hold my nose and vote for one of them.
Can you really not see that a post that ends in "Maybe next time they'll listen" is pretty much the textbook definition of petulant butthurt?
What you really seem to be saying at points is that (for example) you're cool with having a Trump Presidency because you think that whatever the immediate costs are will be offset by some long-term benefit. Fine, that's totally legit (even if I think it's wrong). But just own that, rather than saying "I'm going to vote in a way that is likely to contribute to Result X but if Result X happens don't blame me". The former, unlike the latter, is a completely rational position. But "I'll show you all for not listening to me" is not; it's butthurt.
No, I don't see it, at least not in that context, given it was a statement intended to complete my analogy and illustrate a point. I'm not looking to punish partisans with my vote, but you'll have to forgive me if I'm not terribly sympathetic to their complaining about how bad things could get.
And, no, I'm not "cool with a Trump presidency," but the cost-benefit equation you present is exactly what I'm saying. I actually haven't decided for whom I'll vote in November (another benefit of not being a party automaton), but, yeah, the short-term pain/long-term goal is precisely what I was driving at. It's certainly something I could see as an ethical approach to deciding for whom I'll cast my vote.