TripleInterrobang
No bio...
User ID: 3265
TripleInterrobang
5d ago
I think my main contention with your post is simply that my goal is to argue about the question of voting for the lesser evil. I don't move on to issues like "what would a better system look like" because that is not the topic of the video and my goal was to make it as short as possible. I chose the arguments I chose because they rebuke the most common talking points I hear to the contrary. I am always interested to hear about arguments I missed.
I do try to argue that change is possible while still voting within the system. I cover this in sections 5 and 7.
TripleInterrobang
5d ago
I really think most articles / video essays, including those on SCC/ACX represent an attempt to convince the reader/viewer of something. It is generally more annoying when that thing is something you disagree with, but I do think you may have misunderstood at least some of my arguments.
The point about drawing skinny characters is intended to point out that the actions of the cancel mob are counterproductive by their own standards. That is, they are attempting to support diversity in body type representation, but by bullying an artist to suicide they drive others away from their own cause. I do not assert that getting people to stop drawing skinny characters is right or wrong. Most examples are from the left because most recent cancellations have come from the left.
I do honestly believe that social stigma is necessary for a functioning society and I tried to give examples that both sides would agree with. When I gave the example of freedom as an important value with a visual of the statue of liberty, I did so attempting to make it clear that both political sides have values they would like to preserve with social stigma.
TripleInterrobang
5d ago
I guess I should start with two assurances:
- I am not trying to be sneaky and any errors in the video are my own.
- The positions I attempt to debunk in the video are the ones I see in the wild the most often, which is why I choose to address them and not other hypothetical arguments.
Regarding consequentialism: The trend I see from the last ~20 years of US politics is away from catering to undecided votes and towards riling up your base. While a highly partisan voter might never actually switch sides, motivating them to show up seems to be the primary tactic employed by both parties today. For this reason it seems like the most effective way to sway a party is to be a part of that party, vote for that party, and attempt the change the party from within. This is the point I am making in the sections of the video about low turnout rates.
Regarding section 3: While it is true that this argument could be leveraged to argue that people who don't see a lesser evil should still vote, that is not how I intended it. It addresses the common position that one candidate is better, yet electing either candidate won't make a difference.
Heya. I'm sorry this video gave you such a negative reaction. Did you have an opinion of me before this video lowered it?
- I am open in the comments that, while the rest of my videos aim to be nonpartisan, I do have partisan motivations for this video. In the end, this was the factor that motivated me to make another video after a long hiatus. I can understand why you feel it is disingenuous but my intent was not to deceive. The actual arguments I believe to be nonpartisan, though the presentation and set-dressing is partisan.
- (And 3 also): The goal of the video was to address the philosophical question of whether it makes sense to vote for the "lesser of two evils". This is why I don't address either alternative voting systems or people that cannot decide on a "lesser evil". The assumption is that someone has identified one as the lesser evil, and must decide whether to and how to engage with the electoral system. Again, I know my presentation is partisan, but the arguments I present work exactly the same if you assume I support Trump.
- (This is actually 4 but I don't know how to get it to format it that way.) This is solely based on my observations of these kinds of debates as I don't have the data to examine true nonvoter motivations. I also agree that not everyone feels this way, though I think the assumption that people do most things because it is comfortable is generally true. The presentation of this point was intended to invite introspection: "am I doing what I am doing for a principled reason, or because it is the thing that makes me feel good". I don't assert that everyone is acting without principles. If you have some good alternate motivations I am interested to hear them, and I have been engaging with people in the comments so I can hear about them.
The only thing I can assert to defend against the label of "propaganda" is that I am making what I feel are sound and nonpartisan arguments (not attempting to mislead), but doing so with a partisan framing. I can openly say I am hoping to affect my audience, but I think all of my videos are like that. Even when I end a video, as I did with my last one, with a plea to consider the merits of both the "conservative" and "liberal" mindsets, I am doing so with the hope that I will have an effect on the viewer (reduce partisanship).
I suppose I agree that if every person always voted for the lesser of two evils then the incentives would be very different, but in our current system, on the margins I still support more people doing so and think it will have a bigger impact on outcomes than abstaining.
More options
Context Copy link