it's good to look in the mirror and understand the material outcomes of voter behavior
I have problems with people who abstained. The hard thing is, how do you change voter behavior?
You're viewing a single thread.
I will never regret choosing to vote third party no matter what happens. I will not regret my vote even if Trump marches me personally into a gas chamber. The sooner you get that through your heads, the better. You will never be able to "scare me straight" by pointing to the Republicans, no matter what they do.
The reason things have gotten as bad as they are, to where we have to choose between genocide and genocide-lite, is because of a complete unwillingness to have a spine and draw a red line, out of fear of letting the other side win. We have sacrificed every single standard and principle in the name of that fear. This "common sense" strategy of unconditional support of the lesser evil is actually completely insane, and easily falls apart under scrutiny.
However, if you cannot be persuaded that we are correct, then it is better that you see us as stubborn and irrational. Because a stubborn and irrational person will only be persuaded by giving them what they want, and not by words or anything else. If you want to make sure the Democrats actually win next time, the best strategy is to pressure them into conceding to our demands. Which, if you think about that for 5 seconds, it makes our approach seem a lot less stupid and irrational, but what do I know, I'm stupid and irrational.
The vote wasn’t between genocide and genocide lite. It was between genocide lite and genocide, plus additional genocides, some domestic, plus economic sabotage, plus the emergence of a new evangelical southern Baptist military regime.
I don’t think that narrowing the scope of the voting gap to just you is helpful, so I don’t want to use this as a moment to level scorn. I just want to be very clear that the premise you presented is wrong. Very wrong
It must be easy to stand from on high in judgement of others when you aren’t the one that stood to lose anything, because It’s the ones that have nothing to lose that always go all-in at the table.
Your lack of regret clearly illustrates that your decision was influenced by a colossal amount of entitlement.
You are stupid...for not realizing game theory is real. Your reasoning is flawed and you literally hurt yourself as a result.
Keep shooting yourself in the foot while Gaza is razed when you could have saved it by voting Harris.
You're like the pokemon that hurt itself in its confusion.
You are stupid for thinking that you understand game theory without actually studying it. I fully understand your reasoning, but you haven't grasped mine at all, because it's a higher level, and because you don't understand it you call it stupid.
You wanna talk game theory, let's talk game theory. Two people are given $100 to split. One person makes an offer, the other choses to accept or deny - if they deny, nobody gets anything. What is the "game theory rational" outcome? The offer made is a $99-$1 split, which is accepted, because $1 is better than nothing.
What actually happens when this has been done irl? The result is offers less than about $30 get rejected, and so the offers tend to be more equitable. Chosing to take nothing may be less "rational" on the surface level, but by establishing it as a credible threat of denial, this "irrational" approach achieves a better outcome. Normally, if I played that game with someone, I'd probably just offer a 50-50 split, but if it was one of you, I'd only offer you a dollar, because I know you'd take it. Because literally your whole ideology is built around accepting shitty deals, rejecting the deal would invalidate your entire belief system, you're pushovers.
The reason that people are prone to the "irrational" strategy in that game is that the "rational" strategy is only rational within the confines of the game. In real life, the game doesn't end there, and if you signal you'll accept a $99-$1 split, that's all you'll ever get in the future.
Your reasoning is flawed and you hurt yourself as a result. Keep shooting yourself in the foot and hurting yourself in your own confusion.
And no, Kamala would not have "saved" Gaza, that would be laughable if it wasn't such a harmful belief.
Edit: Basically this, but replace economics with game theory lol
Reposting the explanation without the language they used towards me.
You wanna talk game theory, let's talk game theory. Two people are given $100 to split. One person makes an offer, the other choses to accept or deny - if they deny, nobody gets anything. What is the "game theory rational" outcome? The offer made is a $99-$1 split, which is accepted, because $1 is better than nothing. What actually happens when this has been done irl? The result is offers less than about $30 get rejected, and so the offers tend to be more equitable. Chosing to take nothing may be less "rational" on the surface level, but by establishing it as a credible threat of denial, this "irrational" approach achieves a better outcome.
Normally, if I played that game with someone, I'd probably just offer a 50-50 split, but if it was one of you, I'd only offer you a dollar, because I know you'd take it. Because literally your whole ideology is built around accepting shitty deals, rejecting the deal would invalidate your entire belief system.
The reason that people are prone to the "irrational" strategy in that game is that the "rational" strategy is only rational within the confines of the game. In real life, the game doesn't end there, and if you signal you'll accept a $99-$1 split, that's all you'll ever get in the future.
Alternatively: we play the game but you don't know we are playing. I offer you $1 which you take, thinking "wow this stranger gave me a dollar!", while not realizing I was pocketing $99.
One side was played unknowingly, the other got rich and laughed.
It may also be that the libs simply don't care about the same concerns and so from their perspective Kamala's offering them a reasonable deal and not just $1. Like, I've seen plenty of posts talking about how Kamala would've be "great" and not just a lesser evil, they just pretend they care to try to convince people to fall in line.