That’s what Chomsky said too, I don’t buy it. In my country there are 10+ parties, 6 of which in government, and people are still playing the lesser evil game in the deluded hope they can shift the window.
Yes and every time you vote in our little country it’s still for the least bad party. It’s the nature of politics. You may like a party, but it still has politicians in it, who are human. Humans seem to be inherently flawed.
The nature of parliamentary politics sure, but that’s just oligarchy with a thin veneer of democracy. No politician is ever responsible, stronger still, the more they push austerity, the more they are rewarded with top-level positions in international institutions. That is what drives politicians, not the betterment of their people. So I can’t undo myself of the impression that participating in this sham is reinforcing it, legitimizing it.
That’s the most important question of our time. We have only a few decades to not only come up with that answer, but also with its rigorous implementation.
There seem to be many theories and strategies, either working within and outside the current system, but few seem ideal. Further worsened by the fact that the more ideal a solution seems, the more change it requires of regular folks, thus the more resistance it will face.
But then again, I’m sure once more people see the necessity of it, more discussions will happen, hopefully resulting in better contemporary strategies.
An Inconvenient Truth came out almost 20 years ago. The “lesser evils” have had what, 3 terms, in that period? So projecting into the future, the next 3 DNC administrations will have a lot of work to do to solve this completely.
So yea, go ahead and keep that hope alive, but then also permit me to remain skeptical.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
It does, actually. Ice cream can put you at grave risk of brain freeze.
If you want to be philosophical about it, consider this: If there weren’t pros and cons, you wouldn’t be making a choice at all. (You would be acting arbitrarily.)
And even breathing has downsides. For instance, it means I must continue sharing the planet with you. This is terrible news. (Also my nose is cold.)
It does, actually. Ice cream can put you at grave risk of brain freeze.
Good point! Then again, I don’t think some flavors result in less brain freeze than others.
Even breathing has downsides.
True as well, every breath destroys lung cells.
If you want to be philosophical about it, consider this: If there weren’t pros and cons, you wouldn’t be making a choice at all.
This, however, I’m having a hard time to agree with. Come to think of it, I’m not even sure choice is something natural, but that will require some deeper investigation to ascertain. In a fictional natural state, when looking for a place to sleep, would a “family” really (have to) make a conscious choice between this cave and that one?
Good point! Then again, I don’t think some flavors result in less brain freeze than others.
That doesn’t mean it’s not a “lesser evil” decision. If you have to choose between chocolate ice cream (with brain freeze) or black licorice (with brain freeze), that would still be a case of lesser evil (because black licorice is disgusting and gives brain freeze).
Thanks! To your last point, I see any meaningful choice as fundamentally deliberative. If competing actions have no discriminating features (over which to deliberate), e.g., by being equally bad or good, then your decision would be arbitrary. Acting at random isn’t a deliberative procedure (evaluative, judgment-oriented, rule-bounded, normative, moral, or praiseworthy) and therefore not a meaningful choice.
Hate it all you want, but until you can establish a viable third party (who isn’t also awful), “lesser of two evils” is the only choice you have.
Isn’t that literally life?
It’s every single choice these people have ever made and they still don’t get it.
That’s what Chomsky said too, I don’t buy it. In my country there are 10+ parties, 6 of which in government, and people are still playing the lesser evil game in the deluded hope they can shift the window.
Yes and every time you vote in our little country it’s still for the least bad party. It’s the nature of politics. You may like a party, but it still has politicians in it, who are human. Humans seem to be inherently flawed.
The nature of parliamentary politics sure, but that’s just oligarchy with a thin veneer of democracy. No politician is ever responsible, stronger still, the more they push austerity, the more they are rewarded with top-level positions in international institutions. That is what drives politicians, not the betterment of their people. So I can’t undo myself of the impression that participating in this sham is reinforcing it, legitimizing it.
What is the alternative though?
That’s the most important question of our time. We have only a few decades to not only come up with that answer, but also with its rigorous implementation.
There seem to be many theories and strategies, either working within and outside the current system, but few seem ideal. Further worsened by the fact that the more ideal a solution seems, the more change it requires of regular folks, thus the more resistance it will face.
But then again, I’m sure once more people see the necessity of it, more discussions will happen, hopefully resulting in better contemporary strategies.
nononono.
We either have it NOW or we vote for the lesser evil. There is no waiting, it only causes fascism to rise
An Inconvenient Truth came out almost 20 years ago. The “lesser evils” have had what, 3 terms, in that period? So projecting into the future, the next 3 DNC administrations will have a lot of work to do to solve this completely.
So yea, go ahead and keep that hope alive, but then also permit me to remain skeptical.
That’s… life. You’ve never not made a lesser-of-two-evils choice. It’s metaphysically impossible.
Very interesting viewpoint but it doesn’t quite seem to apply when choosing flavors at an ice cream parlor.
It does, actually. Ice cream can put you at grave risk of brain freeze.
If you want to be philosophical about it, consider this: If there weren’t pros and cons, you wouldn’t be making a choice at all. (You would be acting arbitrarily.)
And even breathing has downsides. For instance, it means I must continue sharing the planet with you. This is terrible news. (Also my nose is cold.)
Good point! Then again, I don’t think some flavors result in less brain freeze than others.
True as well, every breath destroys lung cells.
This, however, I’m having a hard time to agree with. Come to think of it, I’m not even sure choice is something natural, but that will require some deeper investigation to ascertain. In a fictional natural state, when looking for a place to sleep, would a “family” really (have to) make a conscious choice between this cave and that one?
That doesn’t mean it’s not a “lesser evil” decision. If you have to choose between chocolate ice cream (with brain freeze) or black licorice (with brain freeze), that would still be a case of lesser evil (because black licorice is disgusting and gives brain freeze).
You seem vaguely intelligent. Why you act so stupid?
Thanks! To your last point, I see any meaningful choice as fundamentally deliberative. If competing actions have no discriminating features (over which to deliberate), e.g., by being equally bad or good, then your decision would be arbitrary. Acting at random isn’t a deliberative procedure (evaluative, judgment-oriented, rule-bounded, normative, moral, or praiseworthy) and therefore not a meaningful choice.