If I’m supporting Platner, by advocating voting against Collins, by your own logic, you are supporting Collins. I know you aren’t supporting her in your heart, but I’m not supporting Platner in mine. I want her out, I wanna change the situation.
By refusing to even entertain the idea of a vote for Platner, then the material effect of not voting for Platner, of opposing a vote for him, is to allow the incumbent Susan Collins to remain in her seat.
Social conditions are deeply contradictory. If you tell people not to vote and people listen, Collins wins. If you tell people not to vote for Platner and people listen, Collins wins. There is no room for objective morality in Materialism. We have to accept imperfect action and imperfect consequences.
Its the same as democrats who condemn people who refused to vote for Kamala as Trump supporters. We either come to an understanding that there is more going on than this or that objectively moral outcome, or I am supporting a Nazi and you are supporting a far right status quo republican incumbent.
I can accept that you probably would say “don’t vote” on a moral basis, I can see how this election is divisive, perhaps by design, but I’m not arguing with you, you are arguing with me. I can say “hey maybe people should vote for Platner and get Collins out,” but your response is that I’m advocating for people to vote for a Nazi. Meanwhile, you haven’t even tried to convince me that he actually is one, or lay out a scenario where a vote for him is actually worse than a vote for Collins.
You aren’t trying to be objective, and I think about politics objectively, up to a certain degree. So if my appeal to vote against Collins means I’m supporting voting for Platner, which is what you are asserting, then your non vote, or vote against Platner means you are supporting voting for Collins. I believe there are different ways to look at this, but everything that you say supports exactly this campist framing.
When there are two opposing sides, support for one is against the other. So maybe instead of saying “vote for Platner” I should say “vote against Collins”.
deleted by creator
A lot of irony in this comment
Its ironic how hard you’re defending Susan Collins’s senate seat
I don’t recall defending Susan Collins a single time. Can you point out where I did that?
If I’m supporting Platner, by advocating voting against Collins, by your own logic, you are supporting Collins. I know you aren’t supporting her in your heart, but I’m not supporting Platner in mine. I want her out, I wanna change the situation.
By refusing to even entertain the idea of a vote for Platner, then the material effect of not voting for Platner, of opposing a vote for him, is to allow the incumbent Susan Collins to remain in her seat.
Social conditions are deeply contradictory. If you tell people not to vote and people listen, Collins wins. If you tell people not to vote for Platner and people listen, Collins wins. There is no room for objective morality in Materialism. We have to accept imperfect action and imperfect consequences.
Its the same as democrats who condemn people who refused to vote for Kamala as Trump supporters. We either come to an understanding that there is more going on than this or that objectively moral outcome, or I am supporting a Nazi and you are supporting a far right status quo republican incumbent.
I can accept that you probably would say “don’t vote” on a moral basis, I can see how this election is divisive, perhaps by design, but I’m not arguing with you, you are arguing with me. I can say “hey maybe people should vote for Platner and get Collins out,” but your response is that I’m advocating for people to vote for a Nazi. Meanwhile, you haven’t even tried to convince me that he actually is one, or lay out a scenario where a vote for him is actually worse than a vote for Collins.
You aren’t trying to be objective, and I think about politics objectively, up to a certain degree. So if my appeal to vote against Collins means I’m supporting voting for Platner, which is what you are asserting, then your non vote, or vote against Platner means you are supporting voting for Collins. I believe there are different ways to look at this, but everything that you say supports exactly this campist framing.
When there are two opposing sides, support for one is against the other. So maybe instead of saying “vote for Platner” I should say “vote against Collins”.
Where did I say “vote for Collins”?
You’re right, you didn’t say exactly those words, and my argument “by your logic” is cheap and pedantic.
Thanks for the lively discussion, I learned something useful