This is a really good shop honestly

That’s exactly my point bud. Instead of trying to consider my point, it disagrees with you so you put it in the BlueMAGA box so you don’t have to think about it.

And no, every BlueMAGA doesn’t say that. They say to vote for their current neoliberal darling. They’re not encouraging you to vote for socialists in the primary.

It’s something rational leftists say to try to convince stalwart ideologues to act in a way that will actually help in some way.

I notice you didn’t even try to address my actual point. How would you feel about vegans trying to sabotage a non-vegan, Pro-Palestine candidate? Are you willing to sacrifice Palestine for a stand on something the other guy wasn’t going to do either? What’s the point? Cui bono?

If you can’t answer that question honestly then you need to rexamine your approach.

Because you’re not paying attention to what I said, and substituting understanding with a ridiculous strawman where everyone who doesn’t agree with you is BlueMAGA.

Primaries are the appropriate time to vote your conscience. The general election is the time to try to secure the best outcome possible between the choices.

In regards to Palestine, there was not a choice to withdraw support for Israel. Vote Republican? Palestine is royally fucked. Vote Democrat? Palestine is also fucked, though potentially to a slightly lesser degree. Vote third party or not at all? A Democrat or Republican wins, Palestine is still fucked. There’s very little difference in the outcomes, so it’s not a useful criteria for making the choice. Sure, you might feel self-righteous for abstaining, but that in no way unfucks Palestine even a little bit.

Since there’s no difference in outcomes for Palestine, the decision should be made based on other criteria: immigration, civil rights, etc. Spending your time online telling voters not to vote for the lesser evil because they’re still evil does not prevent evil from filling the office

Imagine it this way: what if there were a major candidate who was resolute about aiding Palestine, withdrawing support for Israel, and even taking action against them? And what if vegans flooded online spaces to try to convince voters not to vote for them because they aren’t committed to ending meat consumption? Assume that neither candidate is committed to ending meat consumption.

How would you feel about those people taking actions that jeopardize Palestine because the pro-Palestine candidate isn’t vegan? Even if you’re vegan yourself and agree that meat consumption should end, not voting for the pro-Palestine candidate isn’t going to accomplish that. No option is going to accomplish that. They’re just sacrificing Palestine to make a stand on an issue that will turn out the same either way.

Bernie obviously. Why is that relevant?

A choice I wouldn’t have to make were it not for those who have chosen to spend their time online telling people not to vote against politicians who not only prefer to represent Israeli citizens over American citizens, but also prefer to hunt minorities for sport and erode basic rights.

Everyone makes choices. Sometimes grown-ups are forced to make difficult choices because idealistic children made terrible ones.

Get me in a room with the politicians and I’m more than happy to hold them accountable. But I’m not in a room with politicians, I’m in a room with voters.

Maybe, depends on the butt

PUTMUBPP?

Again, beyond the scope of my expertise. Most of my experience is all trunk, no frunk. Still, a good deep puppy pose should do the trick for all but the largest frunks.

That is a separate consideration beyond my expertise.

Hackers could do something hilarious

Eh, from the perspective of Nature that’s kinda just how it goes. Honestly it’s pretty noble that we bother thinking about it at all. Mosquitoes don’t feel conflicted about spreading malaria, and they’ve probably killed more animals than us. Fungus doesn’t feel conflicted about killing plants. More than trillions of animals and plants have suffered and died entirely because of the actions of the rest of Nature.

Species come and go, but the overall ecosystem recovers. We aren’t the first species to wipe out other species, we won’t be the last. Trying to be better is good, but let’s not pretend Nature is some gentle shepherd.

At that point it’s a failure in technique on the part of the cheek-haver. With the proper arch it’s a non-issue.

It’s not even sad if you approach it right. We are each an expression of our species. Our species is an expression of life on this planet, which is an expression of the sun, which is an expression of the galaxy, which is an expression of the universe.

We are part of something bigger. Will that something bigger swoop in with a giant hand and save us from our mistakes and tragedies? Probably not. But faith in something bigger can help the background subroutines in the brain run better, and that could actually provide useful guidance.

A good religion is probably the best thing to latch onto like that, since the main focus is living a harmonious and moral life. Better than worshipping the machine god at the end of time. Granted, bad religions can twist that devotion into tribalism, and cast off the moral and harmonious focus. That’s definitely a problem. But I think that problem casts all religion in that light, which the older I get seems unfair and short-sighted.

False equivalence. Palestine was fucked either way, and Harris winning was probably the better outcome of the two. No outcome was going to stop the genocide, so it’s not particularly relevant to the choice. Except that the outcome we got was almost certainly the worse one.

Trans people and immigrants did have outcomes that were radically different based on who won. The choice changed the outcome, so it was relevant