An Embedded Software Engineer who does game dev as a hobby.
I work in a DEI company, there is no quota. They just want to higher cheap immigrant labor where they can get away with it and make their minority and women workers more productive by making them feel like they are cared for.
Why would a company voluntarily do something that would make it unpopular and lose money?
DEI is all about making money by using resources that being racist and dumb leaves on the table. The moment it becomes too expensive DEI won’t fix it.
Id rather have DEI than not have it, but DEI is for company profit, any other benefits are secondary.
Yes! This is a form of organization. Which I think is a requirement for getting a more progressive government.
I agree with that. I never disagreed with the meme.
It has never been my position that voting for the lesser evil will solve all of our problems or bring about a progressive government.
I have only ever argued that voting for the lesser evil will give the people who are trying to organize (us) a better environment for doing so. Voting for the lesser evil helps with the organization. It’s weird to me that people are against voting for the lesser evil. I don’t get it, I hope someone can explain it to me.
Can you please stop assuming what positions I have?
Which specific issue is systemic?
I’m confused because you keep on jumping around to different points, you argue against positions that I don’t have, and you don’t directly answer any of my follow-up questions.
If I wasn’t sure that you honestly believe what you are saying, I would accuse you of intentionally muddying the water. This looks a lot like psyop stuff.
How did we get here? I never said we needed to have a “right” specific individual being a leader.
All I’m saying is that I believe that if I have a choice to organize a progressive movement under either 100% Hitler or 90% Hitler. I would choose 90% Hitler. I feel like I’m not alone in that.
Yeah, that makes some sense. But you could just tell people that voting for the lesser evil alone is not enough, you also need to organize. I feel like that is pretty clear. That way you can have your cake and eat it too.
How would having a more evil leader, one who hypothetically locks down freedom of speech and starts arresting people, make organizing easier?
Seems like that would make it harder to do.
I did watch the video. I agree that mass movements are what is required for change. I don’t understand, what am I buying?
Ok how does advocating for voting for the lesser evil suggest that voting for the lesser evil is sufficient for progressive change? Is that better?
I am confused by your reply. What is the “rock” I am buying?
I don’t think it does.
Don’t get me wrong. I know people who want to believe voting is all that is necessary for progressive change, but they are wrong.
Edit: How does voting for the lesser evil suggest that it’s sufficient for progressive change?
Advocating voting for a lesser evil could be considered harmful, though.
Why?
At the end, yes, both outcomes are the same unless organization is successful. Why make organizing any harder than it needs to be?
Ok, this could just be me getting lost in the comment chain. To be clear you don’t think voting for the lesser evil is harmful, but you also don’t think it is a valid strategy. If that is true, I see no inconstancies in your arguments.
Yes! The problem is, non-evil is not currently on the menu. So I think one should limit the rate of evil increase by voting for the lesser evil.
Yes! Why not vote for the lesser evil to prevent harsher crackdowns than you would otherwise get?
Ok, so why not vote for the lesser evil then? It would increase the amount of time we have to organize without fascists cracking down on us.
Sounds like you aren’t clear on what that video is suggesting either. Why should I spend time to watch a video that no one seems to have understood?
IED?