Ok, this could just be me getting lost in the comment chain. To be clear you don't think voting for the lesser evil is harmful, but you also don't think it is a valid strategy. If that is true, I see no inconstancies in your arguments.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Pretty much. Since electoralism is inconsequential for progressive change: vote if you want.

Advocating voting for a lesser evil could be considered harmful, though.

[–] deaf_fish@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Advocating voting for a lesser evil could be considered harmful, though.

Why?

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Because it suggests that it's sufficient for progressive change.

[–] deaf_fish@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I don't think it does.

Don't get me wrong. I know people who want to believe voting is all that is necessary for progressive change, but they are wrong.

Edit: How does voting for the lesser evil suggest that it's sufficient for progressive change?

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

How does voting for the lesser evil suggest that it's sufficient for progressive change?

I said advocatingy for voting...

[–] deaf_fish@lemm.ee 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ok how does advocating for voting for the lesser evil suggest that voting for the lesser evil is sufficient for progressive change? Is that better?

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It suggests that people need to vote for progressive change and that congludes their options to enact power on the system.

[–] deaf_fish@lemm.ee 1 points 3 days ago

Yeah, that makes some sense. But you could just tell people that voting for the lesser evil alone is not enough, you also need to organize. I feel like that is pretty clear. That way you can have your cake and eat it too.