• Charapaso@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Voting for the slightly less shit option makes it easier for the things we do in parallel to have a positive impact: direct action doesn’t get slowed down much by voting once a year or so.

        • Charapaso@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I don’t think it does much, but any tiny contribution to the fight against climate change is a good for the world, as is any slowing of the erosion of civil rights domestically, gutting of what remains of medicare/medicaid, etc.

          I also know a GOP administration will be worse in terms of fighting against leftist movements in the streets, if only slightly. They’re definitely worse re: labor movements overall, again: even if only marginally.

          So I’m not going to claim it’s a panacea, or even someone that will have notable effects, but I do think it matters at the margins, so the effort required is usually worth it, IMHO

    • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Being self righteous about doing nothing is worse.

      Despite your own brand of defeatism in insisting the outcome is the same no matter what, one side actually is better. Even if the metric of “better” pales on the grand scheme of what we deserve or should be doing.

      I’m not trying to project self-righteousness by recognizing that there are only two real choices. I’m asserting that advocating non-action or pointless action is such a tired trope that what you’re doing is circlejerking for dopamine instead of applying what little influence you have as an individual to work toward the avoiding the actual worst outcome.