this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
665 points (93.2% liked)
Asklemmy
42502 readers
1454 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, that was the gist of their point I think. The thinking being that choosing the lesser evil is still choosing evil. My point was that if evil is going to win no matter what you do, isn't it better to pick which evil you're going to have to deal with?
It's seldom the case that the lesser of two evils has to win save when you aren't allowed to choose a good path because of entrenched interests better served by evil.
Are you familiar with the U.S. Presidential electoral process?
Exactly the situation described. It's possible to fix that process but too many entrenched interests render this impossible