I just want to point out that even you qualify these benefits.

It MAY ease symptoms. Or it may not. It may EASE symptoms, but it won’t get rid of them entirely. It may ease SYMPTOMS, but it’s not a cure.

They’re like on the first page of results of anyone who has depression when they look up how to break out of it, so there’s an incredibly high likelihood you’re not the first person to discover hydration and exercise. They also don’t work for everyone, so it can be especially disheartening to hear the same advice over and over when it hasn’t worked for you in the past. It starts feeling like no one listens before they give the same ‘hydration and exercise’ mantra.

It’s probably assuming that you’re also getting fries, a drink and an ice cream cone each or something. That simply cannot be enough.

Because there’s no “wrong” answer in an experiment. AKA no accountability.

I still have hope… just not for America. I can make somewhere else better.

Exactly. They’re DEALING WITH the far right. They haven’t just handed they keys to the country over.

There’s still a chance for them.

Yeah, and they act like learning about a new skin cream on the street is going to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as learning about a new study on “gun bans”, even though people have been studying this for decades and the results largely don’t change, only the public perception of them.

It’s like if they showed people a new study for “Earth gravity” vs “Moon gravity” and act surprised when people don’t immediately catch on when their numbers say the moon makes you weigh more. You wouldn’t be expecting that result OR trust a random person on the street to change your view of gravity with a chart of 4 numbers.

Yes, they found bias. Cool.

Alternate title: A single “study” presented from someone on the street is typically not enough to change anyone’s perspective on a subject, especially if that “study” presents “facts” that are contradictory to the listener’s previous knowledge.

Humans aren’t rational. Humans are rationalizing. If someone on the street giving you a basic chart with 4 numbers on it is enough to change your mind, you likely didn’t have much of an opinion to begin with.

Sure, Jan.

Nah, the problem is that it makes complete sense in the imperfect would we actually live in. You want to have a perfectly logical reason to vote, but you’re never going to find it, so good luck. You’re going to have to compromise somewhere. I’m just honest about when/where.

…you need to show that the general reasoning of choosing the lesser evil is a valid line of thought.

I really don’t though. There isn’t an ethics test after the vote. You don’t have to show your work. The fact that you’re so hung up on this makes me think you just want to “win” an ideological debate, but I’m not having one of those.

You can vote or not, but there’s only two possible outcomes at this point. Believe it or don’t. Excuse it or don’t.

[Resolved] Third parties splitting the vote

“Working as intended.”

It seems like you expect me to vehemently defend this ideology “in general” when I told you it’s only for specific circumstances because of the way the system has been rigged since before we were born.

It’s also a smart move to double down bets in specific situations in Vegas, but I’m not going to defend always doing that “in general”. Context matters, and you seem to be ignoring the fascist in the room.

None of these examples are government elections, which is the only place where I’m using this ideology.

Lesser-evilism is not correct, however it’s the system we currently have.

It’s the natural result of a system with a single vote. You might be able to change enough people’s minds to impact a single election, but the system will default back to a two-party system eventually. That is not an ideology you can break people out of, it is simply how the system works.

It sure would be nice to vote FOR someone instead of AGAINST someone else, but that’s not a choice we have the luxury of making right now. We have to change the system first before that has a chance of succeeding. Otherwise it’s just helping elect Super Hitler.

“Objectively” in that in the same situation (i.e. being the deciding vote between Hitler and Super Hitler) you would decide to not vote, allowing Super Hitler to win and I would Vote to have Hitler win.

Super Hitler is objectively worse than Hitler because one is made up and the other is dead, so what are you really arguing with me for?

It isn’t controversial, but voting isn’t the same as supporting.

Nowhere in this scenario between Hitler and Super Hitler would I support Hitler, but I would still vote for Hitler out of the two because it would lead to best results out of the possible outcomes at that time.

Your pearl-clutching is saying you’re equally fine with both Hitler and Super Hitler, which is objectively worse.

"In this example, your options are:

A. Voting for Hitler. (Hitler wins)

B. Voting for Super Hitler. (Super Hitler wins)

C. Voting 3rd party (Super Hitler wins)

D. Not voting (Super Hitler wins)"

Me: Ok, those options suck, but ‘A’ I guess?

“OMG, wow, advocating voting for Hitler? Literal fascist.”

The difference is between cursing and cursing AT someone.

“The garage door broke.” “Ah, fuck.” - Fine “You fuck.” - Not acceptable

If you get a written warning, it’s probably time to start looking for a new job regardless.

Good luck dismantling the system with Hitler+ in power. You’d have an easier time dismantling it while ‘regular’ Hitler is in power.

Hey look, a reason to vote.