For a week, it was worth a giggle. A flustered trackside nascar reporter attempting to avoid cursing on the news? That’s hilarious. Like every joke and/or horse, it was rapidly beaten past death. The body still receives unironic thwacks to this day.

Then it was revived as satire and resumed being funny for a fresh week or two. This was over a year ago. The horse is not just dead, it is not even a paste or powder, it has been completely aerosolized in a closed crimson room where people fan it back and forth in remembrance of beating its corpse.

Biden’s the best chance for continued democracy in the US, but I’ve been breathing in Brandon particulate since 2021 and I’m afraid it will give me lung cancer.

  • mister_monster
    216·
    10 months ago

    I get the argument, and it would be disconnected from reality to disagree. “Yeah, the democrats are taking our options away, but what choice do we have?” In the US, it always comes down to 2 people and you pick one even if you don’t like them.

    I’m not going to vote. I vote on principle, I believe that voting is giving legitimacy to a democratic system. And this system does not have legitimacy anymore, and probably hasn’t in quite some time. Democracy is dead in america and it’s just a veneer, a show, and I don’t want to grant legitimacy in my mind and heart to a Potemkin democracy. I will not put one ounce of effort legitimizing the lie that I have any representation in this country.

    • [email protected]@sh.itjust.worksOP
      9·
      10 months ago

      That’s most definitely an option, but it does little good. If you’d like to see yourself represented, I recommend local elections. National elections are only good for stemming the bleeding whereas local can offer a surprisingly vast allotment of improvements. The pacifist’s prayer is worth infinitely less than the chud’s vote.

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      2·
      10 months ago

      When there are two options, and you choose not to decide, you are declaring that you approve of both options equally. If all but one person abstained out of principle it wouldn’t expose the flaws in the system, it would just leave the decision in that one person’s hands. When all the people who don’t want to legitimize the broken system choose not to vote, then it’s decided by the people who do want to legitimize the broken system.

      • mister_monster
        13·
        10 months ago

        This is a prisoners dilemma, yes I understand it. But there’s a factor you’re not considering: when all the people who don’t legitimize it withdraw, it loses it’s power over everyone by a little bit. If we all withdrew our support the system we live under might very well change to get our support back.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          10 months ago

          No it doesn’t though?

          If all but one person abstained out of principle it wouldn’t expose the flaws in the system, it would just leave the decision in that one person’s hands.

          • mister_monster
            11·
            10 months ago

            That’s what you said, yeah. Doesn’t make it true.

            The system we live under doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it doesn’t have power on its own, it’s not a temple we worship in. It’s one we maintain. Without us it doesn’t exist.

            • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
              1·
              10 months ago

              That is the mechanism by which the system works, functionally. Deviating from that system requires some concerted action, passive abstinence is not positive action. Simply not participating does not change the system. Simply not participating yields the result I outlined above.

              “Us” is not you and the people who agree with you, it is the sum total of everyone who actively participates. If you subtract yourself and the people who agree with you from that sum total, the “us” that perpetuates the system becomes those who continue to actively participate. You do not speak for everyone, so choosing to be silent merely erases your voice from “us”. Do you want everyone else to speak for you?

              • mister_monster
                1·
                10 months ago

                Nobody speaks for me but me, not even “my representative.” It’s not just silence, it’s withdrawal. I will not be browbeaten and scaremongered into participating in my own abuse. Enjoy your token voice, I’ll be busy out here living my way.

                • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                  1·
                  10 months ago

                  Withdrawal does not have a function in the process. There is no clause in any Constitution which declares that if a large portion of people “withdraw”, they have a new election with better candidates. Withdrawal is simply forfeiting your share of the decision making process. You will be out there living by the whims of those who chose not to withdraw.

                  • mister_monster
                    1·
                    10 months ago

                    Well there’s reality and then there’s these documents. It doesn’t matter what the paper says, if enough people don’t behave as if it is legitimate it will lose it’s power over people. You’re thinking from inside the system as if it is eternal made of stone. It isn’t. It’s made of us.