site banner
TripleInterrobang  10mo ago (youtu.be)   1663 thread views

Voting for the lesser of two evils

youtu.be

In the past I have made video essay content about SSC/ACX articles. My most popular remains my summary of the concept of Moloch.

Today I've made something a little different. It is a video summarizing the arguments surrounding voting for the "lesser evil". If this interests you, give it a watch and let me know if I missed anything or if you agree/disagree.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=46gi-ODAjF0

Note that I do not make any money off this or other videos. I also apologize if I have broken a rule I didn't see by posting this.

-13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'll be honest, your video didn't move me away from my decision to not vote this November. You regurgitated the same talking points that I've heard read online and I've heard from my own friends and family about why my decision to abstain is wrong. I get it. I understand that perspective completely. But I think that most people who will abstain from voting are doing so because (1) the politicians in office now, and the candidates running for office are more concerned about making personal or inflammatory or rage-bate-worthy attacks at the opposition as opposed to addressing specific matters of policy; and (2) our election system is no longer appropriate for how globalized, multicultural and nuanced Western society has become in the past century.

You offer no solution to either of these problems. You suggest nothing of platforming politicians who can actively listen, practice mutual respect, have kindness and compassion towards all people, that aren't funded by corporations or special-interest groups. What you are suggesting is just the status quo; you appear to want nothing more than the continued waging of the war between the two major parties and demanding everyone fall in line.

If I'm wrong in any of this, please tell me.

Are you talking about not voting for president or not voting at all? Because as the other person said, regardless of where you live and what ideology you favor, you should still be voting in local elections. The more local the election, the greater your voice-- and the more important the people you're voting for. A president has a lot less impact on your town's crime rate than the policies of your sheriff, mayor, and prosecutor.

Not voting at all

That's dumb. I guarantee your local morons running for city council aren't important enough to be puppeted by whatever evil group you think controls america. Yes, choosing between the soccer mom who thinks harry potter is satanic and should be banned from every school in the district versus the strung-out ex-hippy that wants the police to raise sales taxes by 0.5% to fund their vision of renovating the playground in park fuckhill is less glamorous that voting for GOOD versus EVIL in the national elections. But mediated by the fact that local elections are often one or lost by only hundreds or even dozens of votes, the compounded effect of voting in your local elections dramatically outweight any possible impact you could have in national elections-- and that's even if the national elections were actually composed of the good party and the kicking-puppies party.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats