After a day and several replies from people. I’ve come to the conclusion that people here are ok with their party and leaders supporting genocide and they attack the questioners (instead of their party leaders) who criticize those who support genocide. Critical thinking is scarce here.

I’m shameful of humanity.

  • WrenFeathers@lemmy.worldM
    11·
    3 days ago

    Some things are empirical. Like… throwing away your vote on third parties- and how protest votes are batshit stupid.

      • WrenFeathers@lemmy.worldM
        1·
        3 days ago

        No it means absolute truth- as in, it’s an absolute truth that a protest vote is stupid.

        … we’re done here

        • Ephoron@lemmy.kde.social
          12·
          2 days ago

          Well, no, it doesn’t mean that either, but I get the point anyway. You’re not here to defend your position, that’s fine. It’s not obligatory.

          • WrenFeathers@lemmy.worldM
            1·
            2 days ago
            1. :originating in or based on observation or experience**. empirical data.
            2. :relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory.

            Observation and experience.

            By observation, protest votes are stupid.

            By experience, third party votes are stupid.

            And I love the IMAX quality projection you’re displaying here. it’s obvious you have no position to defend. You just put people on the defensive to cover up for it. None a so or one of you have provided any policy offered by third party candidates. Not one of you have explained any logic that can argue against the concept that you’re knowingly tossing away votes while simultaneously allowing a much worse candidate to win.