Just passing through, no strong opinions on the matter nor is it something I wish to do deep dive research on.

Just wanted to point out that your original comment was indeed just a threat that did nothing to address OPs argument.

Nothing about your comment addressed why it should be treated differently if it’s ai-generated but visually indistinguishable.

Damnit McKenzie that’s not what I meant when I asked for gator clips!

I’m starting to suspect that the arguments seem as nauseam because I’m trying to reason people out of a decision they didn’t reason themselves into - i.e. they’re voting emotionally, and not logically. Inconvenient questions get ignored, and we’re left with very surface level arguments.

I particularly saw some users comments reflected in this excerpt in the retrospective voting article you shared:

In his classic book “The Responsible Electorate,” the late Harvard University political scientist V.O. Key Jr. suggests that judging a president’s or his party’s performance in office presents a perfect opportunity for the voter to play “rational God of vengeance or reward.”

Perhaps they’re voting this way to try and recapture efficacy in a world where they feel they have very little.

Thanks!

Do you think retrospective voters use the past to try and inform reasoning about the future?

IMO there has to be some level of this happening, otherwise retrospective voters would only have an opinion on those that already have served, and would be essentially picking from those who have not served at random.

I appreciate you defining that, but I don’t see anything that suggests most voters fall under that category - any chance you’d be able to dig that up?

It’s definitely not working, but all evidence I’ve seen suggests it’s right.

Do you agree with me that “Biden is bad, but trump will be worse” is a correct statement?

I think the tiredness you’re referring to is a result of people voting emotionally and not logically, or just being exhausted with this whole shitstorm.

People who are choosing not to vote for Biden are doing so because of a genocide that is happening NOW. You want to question them on contingent hypothetical real world results of a Trump presidency that may, or may not, happen in the FUTURE.

Oh so they can reason about a hypothetical future if they vote third party, but they can’t do so if it’s about a trump presidency? That’s hilarious. Or are you saying they unable reason about a hypothetical future at all?

Holy shit my man I’m asking folks to tell me what THEY think is going to happen as a consequence of their actions. If their reasoning is so shit that that question shakes them to their core, get good.

Trump and the other Republicans will say a lot, but they aren’t going to act any different than what Biden and Blinken are already doing with Palestine

Muslim travel ban, Golan heights, and Jerusalem recognition + US embassy adoption there suggests that there are real world acts that the administration would do differently to me, what do you think?

What are they going to do, send more arms and money faster?

Precisely, afaik he doesn’t give a shit about the people of Palestine, he’s more worried about Israels bad PR and wants them to end it fast.

EDIT: just to check, did you read the JNS article? It’s pretty bad, and he spells out exactly what he wants to do… A small excerpt is below.

“On day one, we’ll restore our travel ban. We had a travel ban because we didn’t want people coming into our country who really loved the idea of blowing our country up,” he said. He called the ban an “amazing success.”

“We didn’t have one incident in four years, because we kept bad people out of our country,” he claimed.

“I’ll also be implementing strong ideological screenings for all immigrants coming in,” he said. “If you hate America, if you want to abolish Israel, if you sympathize with jihadists, then we don’t want you in our country and you’re not going to be getting into our country.”

Trump also said he would cancel student visas of Hamas sympathizers.

“The college campuses are being taken over, and all of the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests this month, nobody’s seen anything like it,” he said. “Come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you.”

…

As president, Trump would “put every single university and college president on notice,” he said. “The American taxpayer will not subsidize the creation of terrorist sympathizers on American soil.”

That last bit is actual government thought policing.

I’m fine with people voting with their conscience, but I just want folks to acknowledge whether or not their vote makes a trump presidency (therefore more genocide) more likely. Most people just seem to think “I’m not voting for genocide so my hands are clean and I’m good!” and stick their head in the sand.

I’m not upset if they do, nor do I expect them to vote my way. I just want to encourage them to discuss the real world effects of their choice. I just want to make sure they’re internally consistent in their reasoning. For example, another commentor said they’ve voted for third party since 2008, and my response was for them to simply carry on doing so.

You can label discourse as “thought policing”, but then that casts an extremely wide net that cheapens the term as used by Orwell.

Ah, see that’s the assumption where you differ from most other folks in this thread.

The base assumption made by others, backed by trump encouraging a fast victory for Israel , as well as other GOP politicians with similar calls are signs that trump would press on the accelerator hard.

His commitment to Israel is in stark contrast to how he’s treated other longtime American allies.

Lastly, let’s not forget his infamous Muslim travel ban.

If a genocide is going to occur regardless of the vote, then the vote doesn’t matter.

Do you think that more people in Palestine will suffer if trump is elected?

I’m not getting how you got to that conclusion, can you flesh it out a little more?

And that is fair.

I should’ve been more explicit - what I posted is focused on folks who are single issue voting here.

EDIT: If Palestine is the only thing someone cares about, voting third party is likely actually hurting their cause. However you are choosing who to vote for based on many additional issues, which is why this doesn’t really apply to you.

Ah, it sounds like you’d typically vote third party to begin with.

If that’s the case, then your vote was never going to go to Biden to begin with, so all of the above doesn’t really apply.

You’re implying that asking people what they think the real world results of their choices are is being the thought police? That seems a little… diluted.

What’d he have to do to earn it? It’s hard to think about Lemmy users as a whole, what about you in particular?

I’ve asked folks who aren’t voting for Biden what they think the odds of their vote reducing genocide in the real world is, and all I’ve gotten is crickets.

Given that there doesn’t seem to be much confidence there, the real world results are likely trump or biden.

Trump has folks in his party alluding to nukes when saying Palestine has to be ended quickly, even trump himself has stated that Israel has to end the war quickly. Therefore I suggest that Trump will result in far more lives lost than Biden.

Folks on Lemmy are typically left-leaning.

This means that a Lemmy user voting third party could’ve been a vote for Biden, which in a binary choice results in less lives lost. Yes, I know, Biden centrist, etc etc, but he’s to the left of the absolute insanity that is the republican party.

However instead some folks value a clean conscience over real world results, and vote third party/abstain. If these votes would’ve otherwise gone to Biden, then they have made a trump presidency more likely, which has the real world effect of resulting in more lives lost.

I’m fine with people voting with their conscience, but I just want folks to acknowledge whether or not their vote makes a trump presidency (therefore more genocide) more likely. Most people just seem to think “I’m not voting for genocide so my hands are clean and I’m good!” and stick their head in the sand.

Or republican politicans calling to end Palestine “as if” we nuked it.

virtue-signalling : the act or practice of conspicuously displaying one’s awareness of and attentiveness to political issues, matters of social and racial justice, etc., especially instead of taking effective action