We are heading towards an Idiocracy!

[Solid Snake]

I have no idea why I'm even attempting a response at this moment; your text absolutely merits continued dialogue, I'm not trying to be obtuse or derisive with that statement, I'm just literally overlooking one of the most beautiful mountains I've seen in my life on an overlook on vacation and I'm burning through my phone's Internet plan reading this instead of doing the proper thing and enjoying time away from NPF's screaming gallery for a day or two. This is not a smart decision on my part, and that's even before we get to whatever the Mods have to say about it.

But, I'm just confused about something:

You're upset with me in large part because I made an assumption that was incorrect given your personal history, which I may or may not have read before but which certainly was not on my mind when I went off about a perceived bias I was reading from you which is based on at least a half-dozen times in recent history when you've really negatively overreacted to stuff I typed. Okay, fine. It's wrong of me to try to speculate as to your underlying motivations or to make generalizations of your past behavior based on my own feelings when your life has its own story that I'm largely unaware of and you may be dealing with all kinds of baggage I can't possibly begin to fathom.

But you are not only comfortable making assumptions regarding my own presumed lack of empathy and my own motivations in typing *a single goddamn sentence* about **MAYBE** possibly voting for Jill Stein and not Hillary Clinton, and in fact, your intense overreaction to that sentence and prior criticisms of Clinton (which were comparatively tepid; I'm actually lukewarm towards Hillary, others here have vehemently opposed ever voting for her! Your bias against me is fairly evident just based on how extreme your reaction was to my sentence when others here have been FAR more critical of Clinton, but you're not accusing them of lacking basic human empathy with nearly the same level of righteous indignation.)

Like look, I will concede I made assumptions about you, because I've been repeatedly frustrated with what I perceive to be an ongoing long-term quest from you to troll me and/or insult me and generally just needle me every couple months or so. And maybe those assumptions were wrong! Maybe I'm just being paranoid (though I wish I did have my computer at the moment so I could actually link to all the prior examples) or maybe it just so happens that I have the worst timing and catch you on your worst days or maybe I remind you of someone awful in your everyday life or something.

But given that the source of your current vitriol towards me relates to said assumptions it is hysterical that this whole mess began and became a thing in the first place because you're very, VERY comfortable making assumptions about who I am, what my values are, what my life story is and why I may or may not support a particular candidate in an election. And had you not felt the need to insinuate that I was a terrible, grotesquely privileged human being lacking any empathy because I dared to maybe kinda sorta articulate concerns about jumping on the Hillary bandwagon the day my preferred candidate was vanquished from the running, it never would've reached this kind of tit-for-tat escalation.

Anyway, I'm genuinely sorry to have triggered some horrifically tragic memories through my actions; it is possible for me to both feel genuine remorse upon learning (or being reminded of) your past as a victim of unconscionable abuse and to still be frustrated with everything else.

Just my two cents.

[rpgdemon]

You're right that for some reason I take your posts and latch onto them. And, I don't know why. The best that I have is what I said above - I know you're a "safe" person to argue with. You won't start throwing slurs, for example. Engaging you feels safe, because I know you are a person who shares most of my views, and I don't feel like I'm going to drown in an argument with a bigot. I'm sorry, because you're probably right to feel personally attacked by me. Not because of anything you've done, either. I argue because you're a fine person who makes mistakes, and that's much easier to take on than someone who talks about "those guys dressing up to break into the womens room".

It's clearly not fair to you, and I'm going to try to cut it out, or cut myself out of the forums.

I'm not going to respond to any of the rest of it right now, because I don't want to pull you away from your vacation. Enjoy it, man.

---------- Post added at 08:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------

Maybe I'm just tsundre. Baka.

---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:49 PM ----------

Ultimately, my profile tells you how I legitimately think of you.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

others here have vehemently opposed ever voting for her! [. . .] others here have been FAR more critical of Clinton, but you're not accusing them of lacking basic human empathy with nearly the same level of righteous indignation.

Oh hai.

To be fair to RPG, I haven't posted for awhile because, I mean, I've said my peace. I'm not going to rehash all the same points again, and I don't want to have to defend myself again.

Annnd he wasn't all that nice to me, either, on this issue.

So I guess, I don't know that he was targeting you specifically on this issue so much as you're the one posting about it, again.


Although, I will say in Snake's defense as well:

Voting for a third party has never actually cost anyone an election. There's a few times that people think it did, but. . .

Lincoln won a few states that he may otherwise not have won, but had a plurality and enough electoral votes to win, anyway, if we go way back.

Ross Perot, slightly more recently, split the vote by 38% on each side and has arguably had large consequences for this country to this day, (moving both parties to the middle--although it's arguable that was happening anyway as Clinton was campaigning as a new democrat, in exactly the same way Bush campaigned as a compassionate conservative), which. . . well that's off topic. But, as it was an even split and Clinton actually polled higher when Perot had dropped out for awhile. . . he didn't change the outcome.

And, most Recently, Nader. Nader's the one people like to point to, but the fact of the matter is that Gore completely ignored Bush making in roads in West Virginia and lost his home state of Tennessee (only three presidents have ever lost their home states and still won the election). If he had not fucked up either of those states--both of which should have been incredibly easy wins--Florida would not have mattered.

But, lets talk about Florida, too: Firstly, the majority of lost votes (191,000) were from self-identified Liberals who, never the less, voted for Bush. Now, today, this seems preposterous, but this is where we take a moment to go back to how both major parties moved to the middle. Bush was running as a compassionate conservative who was going to continue many of the economic policies that Clinton had started--as Clinton, himself, was far more right than he was left--and claimed he wasn't going to mess around too much with social programs, while Gore was. . . well doing what Bernie is doing now, plus Climate Change. Buuuut he was doing so at a time when our economy was actually doing really well and no one was really interested in rocking the boat. Gore also snubbed Clinton in his campaign, and basically alienated a lot of Democrats that voted for Clinton the last two elections--despite being the man's Vice President.

And, in Florida, like Ross Perot did nationally, Nader actually took an equal amount of votes from registered Democrats and Republicans, according to CNN exit polls: 1%. He also took 4% of the independent vote. Those same exit polls show that if Nader had not run, Gore would have actually lost by more.

Given all of this: No. Nader didn't lose the Election for Gore. He didn't even lose Florida for Gore.

Never in our history has a third party candidate actually split the vote in such a way as to cost a candidate the election.

Ultimately, if Hillary loses it won't be the fault of people who voted third party or not at all--Even the ones in Swing states. It will be the fault of an, incredibly, poorly run campaign.

---------- Post added at 11:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 PM ----------

Also worth noting that #NeverTrump is just as much a thing as #BernieOrBust, so it's not like she's even going to be alone in losing votes to third parties.

We'll almost definitely have our first woman president in November.

[rpgdemon]

Originally Posted by Krylo

To be fair to RPG, I haven't posted for awhile because, I mean, I've said my peace. I'm not going to rehash all the same points again, and I don't want to have to defend myself again.

I can't imagine why not, what with me being so pleasant to discuss this with and all.

Here's the thing: I legitimately want third (and even fourth) parties to split the vote, to the point where we have a serious possibility of moving away from the two party system that we currently have. I've voted third party for that exact reason. I can understand why you would vote third party.

I just think the danger of a Trump presidency outweighs all of that. You have to pick your battles, and there's just too much riding on this - Even a 0.1% increased chance for Trump to become president is reckless.

I see it like this: Say you're allowed to press a button that has a 0.1% chance of wiping out the entire population of ten cities you don't live in, a 0.1% chance of instantiating lasting socio-economic change, and a 99.8% chance that nothing happens. That's not a lottery that you can play.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by rpgdemon

Say you're allowed to press a button that has a 0.1% chance of wiping out the entire population of ten cities you don't live in, a 0.1% chance of instantiating lasting socio-economic change, and a 99.8% chance that nothing happens. That's not a lottery that you can play.

Depends, really.

I mean, the part where you're only risking other people's lives sure, but as someone who was recently, literally, making under minimum wage and relies on EBT to feed himself, I don't think I fall under 'risking other people's lives'. I don't talk about being poor much because, I mean, it's mostly my own fault and I don't want pity or whatever. Plus it is kind of embarrassing. And one of the many sourc--yeah I'm just gonna stop there.

That said, how many people's lives will lasting socioeconomic change improve, and save, in the long run as opposed to how many might die now?

How many of those people that risk dying now are going to end up living on the streets when they're 60 because of defunding of social security and a shrinking middle class, and growing lower class, robbing them of whatever chances they may have had to save for retirement?

What if it was a 0.1% chance of doing both of those things at the same time, but you knew, for certain, that 1 million lives would be lost, but billions would be saved over the next few centuries--a few centuries we'd only get to live through as a species at all because corporatist Climate Change denial and push back would be limited if not removed by the regulation of corporate funds in politics?

What if not gambling meant that the entire population of ten cities would DEFINITELY be lost over seas to pointless wars in exchange for saving those people at home? Which is more important? (Remember: Hillary is a War Hawk who has a lot of responsibility for the death of Gaddafi and Isis's current hold on Libya).

What if those people at home are already being slowly murdered and the gamble is really 'they might die faster, or we might save them'?


I mean, I appreciate and would not argue with the idea that Trump is too dangerous--or any Republican Candidate particularly when you're looking at the potential of 3-4 supreme court seats being filled by his nominations.

However, I take umbrage with the idea that people who hem and haw and don't want to vote for Hillary or cast 3rd party ballots are merely unempathetic or apathetic toward those with much to lose.

Some of them are, certainly. Just as some of the people who voted for Hillary in the primaries accused women who didn't of being gender-traitors. There's plenty of awful people go around.

However, some of them ARE empathetic and are not apathetic, but are more afraid of the projected future with 8 more years of corporatism and war hawkishness and the message that the New Democrats are still a thing that we want and accept, and what consequences all of that is likely to have for the poor and disenfranchised, both at home and abroad, than they are afraid of the immediate future.

Both views are pretty valid in my mind. I have no urge to change anyone's mind.

I would like to see less of people calling each other awful over it, though.

---------- Post added at 11:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 PM ----------

I'd much rather we all agree that voting left on down ballot options and DOING IT AGAIN IN TWO YEARS, is more important than arguing over who can hold their nose and who can't.

[Solid Snake]

RPG: There's more I want to say when I get a chance -- 12:30 in the morning after a day-long drive just isn't the best of times for a meaningful attempt at resolution -- but I'll just say for now that I really appreciate what you said (typed?) earlier (largely because when I started driving again this evening I depressingly resigned myself to the expectation that it'd continue to escalate and somehow it didn't. And I think you had a lot more to do with defusing the situation there than I did.) Like, there are positive (or at least constructive) comments I'd like to make in the near future but I'm all out of anything resembling hostility.

The utterly-unlike-Snake-short version would be something like, I think from my perspective a frustration with what I perceived -- whether I was right or wrong -- to be 'automatic antagonism' from you really fueled a lot of my anger even more than the actual substantive arguments you were making. Oftentimes a personal weakness I run into involves my chronic depression manifesting in an overwhelming eagerness to be liked by anyone I remotely respect, and ironically that eagerness can actually be more self-destructive than anything, as the last thing a privileged cisgendered white guy needs in social justice conversations is a constant desire for some sense of personal validation or 'belonging.' The moments I've endangered even my closest friendships here in the past with people like Kim have generally involved such behavior, where my desire to be 'liked at all costs' led me to defending indefensible positions simply because the alternative would be conceding imperfections to people I suspected would judge me harshly for them. It's unfortunate because I'd really have a great analytical mind for a lot of this stuff if I could just separate myself from the arguments, but too often it's the other way around and I'm practically salivating to inject myself where I don't belong.

I don't think on an objective level that voting third-party instead of Hillary is as 'indefensible' a position as others I've advanced in the past (the worst in my memory was on SexayPartay, when several years ago, in my earliest days as a 'reformed progressive' and in some twisted desire to validate my own career choices, I found myself entrenched in a kneejerk defense of the flawed legal definition of rape.) But I do think that history of feeling you breathing down my neck every few months put me in a position where I was willing to go apeshit to defend myself rather than defending the substance of why a third-party vote may be justified, and that led me down a dangerous rabbit hole of ad hominem shit, and I'm sorry I subjected you to it.

(And that's the short version.)

Originally Posted by Krylo

We'll almost definitely have our first woman president in November.

Irony of ironies once all is said and done, but there's now lots of whispering going on about the possibility of Warren as VP, and while from a pragmatic perspective I'd actually prefer she stayed in the senate, having her a heartbeat away from the Presidency (and in prime position to become President herself in eight years) would actually sway me back into the "Voting Clinton (Albeit with Reservations)" camp.

I'd actually prefer Warren over Sanders as VP, at any rate (as much as I love the guy, I don't think VP is ideal as Sanders would be in no position to continue his revolution in eight years.) And having two women on the ticket would be the ultimate Eff-You to the entrenched patriarchy.

[Gregness]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

*snip*

And having two women on the ticket would be the ultimate Eff-You to the entrenched patriarchy.

I can think of a few very reasonable rationales for voting for Clinton this year, but that is a fucking awful one.

[Marc v4.0]

I live in South Carolina and have no illusions about my liberal progressive ass making one half-shit of difference on the Presidential vote so I am washing my hands of Hill's poorly-disguised neocon ass. I'll be focusing more on the local and legislative side of things.

Honestly, I don't want -either- of these jackasses running the country.

[rpgdemon]

To be fair, the Libertarian candidate whose name I don't know and apparently won't be bothered to google to make this post a lot more informative is apparently pulling 10% of the republican vote right now. If the vote gets split enough, you might make a difference, even in redder states.

I also heard those numbers from some source I don't know and apparently won't factcheck them either.

Man this post just kind of sucks. I don't think I'm gonna hit submit.

But wait, who am I writing it for now?

Okay someone send help, I'm writing phantom forum posts.

[Bum Bill Bee]

Originally Posted by rpgdemon

Okay someone send help, I'm writing phantom forum posts.

He's a phantom!

Demon-Phantom was just fourteen, when his parents built a very strange machine

He's gonna spam 'em all cause he's Demon Phantom...