Yeah… But also, Carlin was right saying this shit is all a stage. We’ve got groups of bullies picking on us, and I’d rather throw bricks than help them decide who to pick on next.
Well yeah but the one of the people who voted for ice cream downvoted a post about gaza one time so CLEARLY the entire bus sacrificing themselves just in case it might save gaza is the better option. Also there’s an atomic bomb factory in a heavily populated area at the bottom of the cliff so basically the same amount of people as the entire population of gaza are going to die if this happens but protecting Gaza is more important than protecting loved ones apparently.
If “harm” and “less harm” are the only two options, then the only question is how quickly you die. There’s the argument that we have to do “harm reduction” in order to buy time to organize for something better, but we’ve been procrastinating for decades apparently. Since all of history informs us that humans act only when inaction is no longer tenable (and sometimes not even then), really the only material difference between “harm reduction” and accelerationism is, again, the timeline.
Everyone’s upset about the vegan ice cream voters not voting for regular ice cream.
No one is upset at the regular ice cream people for being unwilling to vote for a vegan ice cream place because their choice is default in their mind.
Both sides are holding each other hostage. One has a moral reason and the other just doesn’t want to compromise.
And yet.
Meanwhile, the people who want ice cream:
Is voting for controlled opposition harm reduction?
Like I agree that Kamala was the correct choice, but her inevitably milquetoast liberal policies would keep us stagnant until people voted in the next Republican out of boredom
The people who want to get ice cream are also helping a psychopath murder innocent civilians so it’s a bit of a toss up
You’re on a bus with 9 people. 1 guy takes up 2/3rds of the bus by himself. 3 people take up 90% of what remains, and the last 5 are stacked on top of each other on the last remaining seat.
The one guy with 2/3 of the bus says he wants to throw two of the other passengers off a cliff at random so he can have their seats. 2 of the 3 in the next segment think this is a terrible idea and say we should keep things as they are, with one voting for it because he thinks somehow everyone will benefit from the top guy having more space. The bottom segment votes 3-2 in favor of the idea, because they hate the people in the second group for taking up space they could use, and like the idea of possibly throwing them off a cliff.
Posts like this are literally driving a wedge into the people who don’t want the bus to fall off the cliff, and dividing them.
This has to be a psyop launched by cliff voters, right? They are probably laughing looking at y’all tearing into each other…
Chuck Schumer: we beat them at their own game and got them to agree to only drive the buss halfway off the cliff as long as we all stand at the front.
clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap
What everyone forgets is that the actual voting already happened. The bus company, Cliff driving Committee, voted before the bus embarked. They voted for the bus driver to drive off the cliff to cut spending to maintenance and health insurance to the driver and bus. There only so much the riders can say at that point
Remember, no matter how beautiful, morally righteous, or gratifying your strategy is, you should really look at the results
How are we at a point in time where adults need this explained to them…
This is kind of a good analogy for ranked choice voting, to be honest.
More like two options: one runs the bus off the cliff while the other sets it on fire. Sure, we’ll live longer in the fire scenario. Maybe we can even put it out!
But I’m still looking for the fucking exit.
