A group holds a vote to either cross a bridge to side A or stay on side B. Staying on side A means you won’t have much food. Going to side B means you still won’t have much food, but also most of the food is poisonous.
Part of the group says “I don’t want to starve, I refuse to vote in a way that accepts malnourishment as a solution!” Group C also opposes eating poisonous food. This partial group votes to try and find a better source of food (option C).
48% of people vote A. 49% of people vote B. 3% of people vote C.
Surprise, surprise, Group C had 0 impact on the starving situation AND helped facilitate the eating of poisonous food.
Fuck Biden, and FUCK Trump. But if you think voting for a leftist party or abstaining from voting will change anything in a system entirely designed around having only two candidates, you are just as okay with Trump as you are with Biden. At the very least, you are saying that they are equally as bad, showing that you clearly don’t understand the dynamic.
Then there are those of us in Group D, who said 30 years ago that this exact thing would happen if we didn’t do the hard work of developing an agricultural system. Now Group A blames us instead of Group B, and it’s really too late anyway, the food will run out on either side of the bridge.
I wasn’t able to speak 30 years ago. 10 years ago, I was warning people about how AI was going to pose a problem unless we restructured society so automation benefited everyone. Almost 20 years ago I realized private insurance was a scam. Guess what? None of that shit matters. Playing the blame game won’t help anyone fix it, but voting can buy us time.
Thank you, I wanted to say this earlier but I was busy. It’s a shitty parable to fit a shitty and broken system. If it were any nicer of a parable, I would have less to complain about concerning the electoral system.
A group holds a vote to either cross a bridge to side A or stay on side B. Staying on side A means you won’t have much food. Going to side B means you still won’t have much food, but also most of the food is poisonous.
Part of the group says “I don’t want to starve, I refuse to vote in a way that accepts malnourishment as a solution!” Group C also opposes eating poisonous food. This partial group votes to try and find a better source of food (option C).
48% of people vote A. 49% of people vote B. 3% of people vote C.
Surprise, surprise, Group C had 0 impact on the starving situation AND helped facilitate the eating of poisonous food.
Fuck Biden, and FUCK Trump. But if you think voting for a leftist party or abstaining from voting will change anything in a system entirely designed around having only two candidates, you are just as okay with Trump as you are with Biden. At the very least, you are saying that they are equally as bad, showing that you clearly don’t understand the dynamic.
Then there are those of us in Group D, who said 30 years ago that this exact thing would happen if we didn’t do the hard work of developing an agricultural system. Now Group A blames us instead of Group B, and it’s really too late anyway, the food will run out on either side of the bridge.
I wasn’t able to speak 30 years ago. 10 years ago, I was warning people about how AI was going to pose a problem unless we restructured society so automation benefited everyone. Almost 20 years ago I realized private insurance was a scam. Guess what? None of that shit matters. Playing the blame game won’t help anyone fix it, but voting can buy us time.
What a shit parable.
Well you are in a shitty situation.
Thank you, I wanted to say this earlier but I was busy. It’s a shitty parable to fit a shitty and broken system. If it were any nicer of a parable, I would have less to complain about concerning the electoral system.