FAQ
Q: why not organize and stop treating the bus as a legitimate entity? why aren’t you working to stop the bus?
A: do both. cut the fuel line. break windows. put oatmeal in the gas tank. but maybe your efforts don’t succeed this election cycle. and if so don’t fucking throw away your vote if it can help your neighbors fucking survive. “harm reduction” is not a political strategy for action. it is a last minute, end of the line decision to save lives, after all other resources have been exhausted.
Millions of people on the bus. Some vote to drive to place A. Some want to drive to place B. Neither is the cliff. But both A voters and B voters are using the bus-cliff false analogy to manipulate people to vote for their option.
In reality the chance that your vote would even affect the result is nearly zero.
Hundreds of millions of people on the bus. The difference between violent christofascism and at least a bare minimum respect for human rights is only made by a few million votes per election cycle, while a majority of voters still don’t vote at all.
And then you come in spreading fear uncertainty and doubt, encouraging more people not to vote.
Self examine whatever the heck it is you think you are doing because your position is untenable.
Guy B said “I’m gonna drive off the cliff, just the once.” Out loud, in public, on television.
Fuck you.
Place A is “fuck everyone who isn’t the same as us, they should die!”
Place B is “people different from us shouldn’t die just for existing.”
You: “both are the same.”
Yeah, misrepresentation of other group points of view is strongly represented in both groups
Which group was supporting the razor wire on the Texas border that was actively killing people?
A great example of misrepresentation.
It’s as actively killing anyone as ground actively kills people who jump out of airplane.
Should it be there? No. Is it safe? No.
But painting it as an “actively killing people” is misrepresentation of other group point of view. Thank you for a great example.
A great example of someone avoiding the topic.
On one side you have people saying “The existence of this is causing people to die, we should get rid of it.”
On the other side you have people responding “technically this thing isn’t killing anyone. It the blood loss and drowning that kills them.” and refusing to engage with the actual concern here. Also, they keep insisting “bOtH sIdEs ArE tHe SaMe!”
Thank you for showing that you are completely disingenuous. Someone who actually wants to have a discussion and show a different point of view does not reply with “That is a misrepresentation and I will not elaborate any further.” A person interested in a good faith discussion would say it is a misrepresentation and then state what the alternative point of view actually is.
When people refuse to do so it’s usually because the actual point of view is indefensible, so the best they can do is refuse to define it and claim everything is a misrepresentation.