2026-10-18 20:51 UTC
The time to make that change is before the general election.
Anytime you’re presented with two choices, take the less bad option. But if that’s the only time you bother to act, or even worse, if you don’t even act THEN to pick the lesser bad option, then you are one less vote against the worse, and therefore by your actions support it. But you already supported it if you weren’t fighting for better options.
“Well, I didn’t pick which restaurant to visit very well, and this restaurant only has moldy fruit or sandwiches made literally from shit. I don’t like either option, so I’m just gonna eat whatever they bring me”. Sure, it’s not a great analogy in the sense that picking a different restaurant is not so easy in the context of politics, but I think it makes the point - always choose the lesser bad option. I’d rather eat the moldy fruit (we’re assuming that we must eat something in this metaphor) than the literal shit. And then work harder to try and prevent us from going to this restaurant next time. But if you are presented with the two bad options and one is worse, not picking an option is fucking stupid.
Replies (1)
-
@Pratai@piefed.ca 2026-10-19 01:33
It blows my mind that these people just won’t even try to understand such a simple concept. Their entitlement, alongside their little purity test cost us not only our democracy, but is RAPIDLY forwarding the environmental damage they pretend to stand against. It’s mind-numbing dumbassery. Your point was well said, but it will sadly fall on deaf ears. They don’t want to be told the right way to do things, they want to be told the conveinient way to do things. The way that makes them look good. The way that doesn’t require an effort- ….the way that doesn’t involve sacrifice.