I reject the premise that voting necessarily works, but even for a person who is operating under the assumption it does, no one is forcing you to choose between the two bad candidates.
There are third parties, a person can leave a position blank, and even if a person believes that voting works, they could still simply choose not to engage with that system and do something else instead.
You literally don’t have to be complicit.
I promise you, I am not missing any other point you have made. my intent with selectively quoting was to go ahead and knock the legs out from under all the other stuff that rests upon those two statements in order to save us the back and forth of big walls of text.
My skepticism absolutely does not imply that nothing is trustworthy when it has to be verified. It explicitly applies to a website (Wikipedia) which maintains an extensive record of ways in which it has been shown to be systematically untrustworthy.
Within the scope of this discussion, it’s not important what sources of information I would consider trustworthy, we’re only talking about Wikipedia, a source that has a long history of being untrustworthy. We are talking about Wikipedia because it is the subject of the ops post which compares it to the library of Alexandria.
you: information on wikipedia shouldn't be taken at face value... it's good to not blindly put your trust in whatever you read from it...
also you: I would default to saying trustworthy...
🤔
Woah.
So, like, if you knew of a website which shouldn’t be taken at face value and whose claims had to be verified, what word would you use to describe it? would that word be reliable? Trustworthy?
Not pictured: a giant hand holding the lever flipper in place, forcing their participation and complicity in one major candidates genocidal intentions over another.
There’s always time to walk away from omelas.
That’s wild.
If you knew a person who shouldn’t be taken at face value and whose claims had to be verified, what word would you use to describe them? Would that word be reliable? Trustworthy?
Wikipedia's reliability in it's own words - check out the holocaust misinformation from last year!
US congressional staff editing controversies as documented by and presented in wikipedia
A ten year long hoax running until two years ago
Wikipedia's own list of its controversies - pay special attention here to the 2023 exposure of an administrator pretending to be a spanish folk singer as a sockpuppet of another administrator who was banned in 2015 for making "promotional edits".
I want to be clear: i do not feel that wikipedia isn't reliable. I can clearly observe that wikipedia is unreliable.
No worries. You’re always welcome on the “democrats fuck off” side. There’s definitely somewhere here with your politics and idea of appropriate direct action.
No thanks.
They’re doing an awful job of harm reduction and I’m not waiting for fundamental systemic changes to the country’s election process to withhold support from the party that’s rug pulled me for 24 years.
The best time to stop supporting the democrats and put my energy elsewhere was 2000, the second best time is now.
I will also never vote for Joe Biden for any position again.
Idk if it’s even possible to vote uncommitted in the general, but I’m voting psl.
I personally do not accept your premise that voting works.
but for a person who does, a third party, blank selection or just not engaging with that system are all ways to not be complicit in the actions of candidates.
If you want to talk about the repercussions of someone believing that voting works, I’ll gladly listen to you, but that’s not me and I’m gonna have to deal with it hypothetically.