Yes all cops. Do Piracy. Trans rights.

I might just adopt that phrase now whenever someone vaguely implies an actual third choice for who could be President.

I'll just go and vote for the Lu Bu Party, that'll totally work. Awesome.

the solution in the iterated prisoner's dilemma is to keep rewarding people for defecting against you

it's different this time! this time is the one time we have to reward them for betraying us because so much is at stake. now I know every election in your entire life has been too important for us to address how we keep betraying you, and when you vote for us we don't do anything to ward off the disaster we say we have to prevent, and when we lose it's not actually that different from when we win, but listen: this election is just too important to talk about how we betray you, lie to you, and are very very very very bad at the jobs we demand you elect us to!

You're right! I'll just go and vote for the Lu Bu party, that'll totally work. Awesome.

Yes, the correct option in the iterated prisoner's dilemma is to reward people for defecting against you!

You know what has a worse chance of working? Rewarding the people who keep betraying you and have shown in the past they're completely uninterested in doing anything that "works." Who don't have to do anything that works, because they know marks like you will reward them for betraying you.

centrally-unplanned

Does this like describe any actual US party though? They change all the time to appeal to their different constituent factions. The Republican party abandoned free trade, the democratic party (tried with mixed success) to cancel student debt and prioritized green energy. And so on through the decades. On average if a movement of real influence & numbers shows up in a party they tend to get a place at the table. There are movements that didn't but I think that analysis is best pointed at factors like "they never had real numbers" or "what they wanted was directly unpopular with a wider constituency" or "elites across parties just super hate the idea". I don't think "constantly defecting in a prisoner's dilemma" is a big force in US party politics.

aeillien

The reason this is is quit simple: politics *anywhere* isn't the prisoner's dilemma, and to thinking so is an understandable category error, but it is nonetheless an error.

To even speak of the idea that the Democratic party is "betraying" you is to misapprehend what is going on. You and the Democratic party are not in the same situation being faced with a choice to either rat on each other and benefit individually or hold out and get free. First, the Democratic party is not one group of people, it's not even one group of elites, some of the elites disagree with each other.

In a Democracy, popular will is mediated through elites preferences (this is preferable to every other system of government, which just has elite preferences fighting it out, period). Elites need to at least convince large sections of the populace that their position is tenable and preferable. So, if they didn't do something you wanted them to do or did something you didn't like, odds are 100% they did that or didn't do that because some other group of people genuinely just don't agree with you.

The correct solution to this isn't "don't trust the Democratic party because it will betray you" it's "work to elect people who you agree with, build coalitions with people and convince other people you are right." You know, coalition building. Politics. Imagine that.

I am responding to "vote blue no matter who" people, who specifically appeal to others by acknowledging the democratic party has not done what they want and has not repaid their loyalty but must be voted for anyway.

If you don't think the party betrayed you, you are probably not participating in a "vote blue no matter who" conversation.

Also the thing about the Democratic Party is that the elite preferences do a loooooot of filtering. Like, if you don't see how people would regard quashing the Sanders campaign and nominating Hillary in the 2016 election as a betrayal of the constituents by the party elite, I don't know what you'd call it. I don't even like Sanders, I don't think he knows what he's talking about, but the party leadership sabotaged a guy with broad support who spoke to what a lot of Democrats wanted in order to anoint another elite who had so little to offer that the two primary arguments to vote for her were "You're obligated to vote for her no matter what" and "She waited for her turn long enough, now it is her turn to be President."

Cool. That's never been what I said.

We can have an actual conversation about Biden and the Democratic Party when you touch grass and deal with a single real-world inplication of what you're talking about, or any of what Biden's actually done outside of "hey, you're pissed at Democrats right?"

Or hell. Even state explicitly what YOU think Biden is doing wrong. Because if the entirety of any conversation is "well, I don't think YOU should vote for Biden" then it's clearly not actually about the election and it's just about "Why won't people do what I want them to"

If this is not what you were saying then how was what you were saying a response to the people you responded to?

you are allegedly talking to people who don't want to vote Democrat because they don't think the Democrats are doing what they want and upholding their values. The thing that you said, to them, was that regardless of what they thought about the Democrats, they had to vote for the Democratic candidate because they are the only option. You've gone off about how this is about people who want something the Democrats aren't offering, for whom the Democrats are bad candidates, who see the Democrats are merely "the lesser of two evils," and how they have to vote Democrat anyway since the other guy is worse. Those were the people you spoke to and what they thought.

I said why it would matter to not vote for one of the two options and why "only these two options can win" is not a convincing argument. We can look up at the OP and see how it is specifically about mocking people for not accepting that argument.

Now, all of a sudden, it's about how people are wrong to think that the Democrats are merely the lesser of two evils and actually they're great.

If that was your argument the whole time, why wasn't that your argument the whole time?

#this is from 2024 but it will always be relevant #also notice the ratfucker up there admitted this all comes down to Bernie. they're STILL mad‚ 10 yrs later‚ that Bernie didn't get the nom.#(you know. because fewer people voted for him in the primary.)

Hey, remember when I said this?

Your entire conversation, like almost every one of these, is purposefully obtuse and refuses to engage with either what has actually happened over the past 4 years or the fact that it is, literally, and either/or choice. We can have an actual conversation about Biden and the Democratic Party when you touch grass and deal with a single real-world inplication [sic] of what you're talking about, or any of what Biden's actually done outside of "hey, you're pissed at Democrats right?"

or:

Even state explicitly what YOU think Biden is doing wrong. Because if the entirety of any conversation is "well, I don't think YOU should vote for Biden" then it's clearly not actually about the election and it's just about "Why won't people do what I want them to" you are allegedly talking to people who don't want to vote Democrat because they don't think the Democrats are doing what they want and upholding their values.

Notice how you didn't actually do any of that?

How when asked:

What the real-world implication of your proposed behavior would be

What problems you have with Biden, so it isn't just about you not liking how other people behave

To center anything other than "But Democrats suck" in the conversation

None of them are irrelevant. All of them are directly connected to the topic at hand.

"I have issues with Biden but it's still the better of the two outcomes that he is President. If I voted for someone else, what would be the real-world implications of that choice? Are we talking about anything else other than how you think I should act? "

You did none of it.

Anyway, I'll move past that, mainly because while you clearly don't have any ability to ground what you're saying in reality. It's still an opportunity to say the below again.

If that was your argument the whole time, why wasn't that your argument the whole time?

Wait, so do you know the context of my conversations, and hence know the broader context? Or are you only speculating as to my conversations? Because the original quote was explicitly about "Someone who isn't even on enough ballots winning the Electoral College is about as likely as Lu Bu laying waste to the French and Italian armies to let Lichtenstein conquer both of them."

Are we bringing my other posts into this? Because if so, then maybe you should actually pay attention to my other posts. And the times posted.

15 concrete ways that the Biden administration is specifically, explicitly supporting Objectively Good things, contrasted with Trump explicitly being worse on those specific things posted yesterday. As an example.

The Biden administration keeping a campaign promise to reign in junk fees, which yes, he did campaign on. Posted in January.

If there is actually a real option for President, other than Biden or Trump, I would gladly vote for it. Do you have one? Honestly, I've said this a lot of the time, and you found the original post when it was 5 minutes old, untagged, and without a single reblog, so you clearly follow me to some extent, for some reason. Anyway. Example 1. 2.

Biden's administration is making real, tangible progress, but his campaign is fucking horrible at getting the word out. Including student debt forgiveness, racial wealth inequality, environmental protection, and economic protectionism. Which he did campaign on. (there's a lot like this). This example was posted on the 20th. There's also April, January, earlier in January, and October. And October again. September. For all of Biden's failings, which are numerous, he's still arguably the most pro-union and pro-worker president since I've been alive. I could go farther back, but suffice to say I've been talking about his campaign promises, and failings, since 2021.

The Biden campaign is absolutely horrible at promoting what they've done, and hence it gets ignored, so you may not know what's been done (January)

And, Yes. Biden is objectively just better than Trump in a lot of specific, concrete, worthwhile ways. Which is both a shitty thing to have to consider and also an incredibly relevant thing to consider. Because, again, if you have a 3rd option I'd love to hear it.

I am sitting here actively asking if there's a realistic option for President other than Biden or Trump. I've asked that of literally everyone I've spoken to on this. Hence, frustration getting to "Fuck it, nobody can answer this and all I get are vague responses."

And your response repeatedly saying a version of "but Democrats suck and you shouldn't vote for BIden."

pmamtraveller

The Pearl With The Girl Earring by Olaf Falafel

#yeah I'll reblog that

buffalo-tracks

A loophole in the US constitution allows forced labour in US prisons, with the government and private companies profiting. This system dispr

Summary: From fighting wildfires to toiling in the kitchens of some of the country’s most popular food franchises, incarcerated workers perf

theslowfactory on instagram

The AP reached out for comment to the companies it identified as having connections to prison labor, but most did not respond.

Check out this page via the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre

iswearbyalltheflowers

Dr. Rafael Medoff says editor at Dark Horse Comics demanded book on Nazi genocide include anti-Israel genocide charges

Necessary and sufficient

Adding a second lock was not necessary.

Understanding the difference between necessary and sufficient is necessary, but not sufficient to earn a math degree.

Part 2