3 ms·

Here's a direct counterexample for your abstracted question: Consider getting forked in chess. The choice between losing a rook and losing a queen is illusory,

Here's a direct counterexample for your abstracted question: Consider getting forked in chess. The choice between losing a rook and losing a queen is illusory, even though the outcome is not the same. The choice is illusory because the fork is actually a forcing move aiming to take the rook. The choice was prepared so that your opponent knows what you will pick, with the intent that you pick it and they gain an advantage. Our two-party system functions as such a fork, multiplied by 100 million. Whether you think the Republicans or Democrats represent the queen or the rook is where Pick-Your-Own-Propaganda becomes a more effective tool than the easy-to-spot state-sponsored propaganda used in single-party socialist regimes such as the USSR or PRC.

jancsika 8y ago
That's a fitting analogy for U.S. national politics in every election except the last one. Because what happened was a large enough portion of the electorate voting to sacrifice the queen because fuck chess. (And I don't mean Clinton is the queen here-- I mean a large number of voters made a series of choices in an attempt to make a travesty of the game.) In one sense of the analogy, you are correct: people who aren't filthy rich are deluded if they think their choice of presidential candidate will substantially improve their economic predicament. In a more important sense, you are wrong: Trump isn't a symbolic link pointing to the same establishment that was behind Clinton. Put another way-- this was not the year to code up a random boolean generator to pick your candidate for you. Sometimes making the correct choice between two bad options is extremely important, even if the less bad option was set as a trap for you. Now we're living through the most expensive civics lesson as to why.

3 ms·

Here's a direct counterexample for your abstracted question: Consider getting forked in chess. The choice between losing a rook and losing a queen is illusory,

by philipov 8y ago

jancsika 8y ago
That's a fitting analogy for U.S. national politics in every election except the last one. Because what happened was a large enough portion of the electorate voting to sacrifice the queen because fuck chess. (And I don't mean Clinton is the queen here-- I mean a large number of voters made a series of choices in an attempt to make a travesty of the game.) In one sense of the analogy, you are correct: people who aren't filthy rich are deluded if they think their choice of presidential candidate will substantially improve their economic predicament. In a more important sense, you are wrong: Trump isn't a symbolic link pointing to the same establishment that was behind Clinton. Put another way-- this was not the year to code up a random boolean generator to pick your candidate for you. Sometimes making the correct choice between two bad options is extremely important, even if the less bad option was set as a trap for you. Now we're living through the most expensive civics lesson as to why.