4 ms·
> If one is consistently awful Just a thought exercise, but it seems like this is, by definition, not independent. Someone that is truly independent would not
by jader201 2y ago
> If one is consistently awful
Just a thought exercise, but it seems like this is, by definition, not independent.
Someone that is truly independent would not feel either option is “consistently awful”, but find that some aspects of either occasionally aligns with your values, or neither do.
It seems like if you sometimes align with one, and never align with the other, that’s still not truly independent.
- bangaroo 2y agoseems like an arbitrary thought exercise designed to justify this position? independent should fundamentally mean that you disregard each party's description of reality, arrive at your own understanding of the world and then make decisions based on each candidate's promises and previous actions. you decide based on that value system, not simply based on "who your party picked." if i decide i like kittens and value kittens, and i analyze both options presented to me and one consistently promises to euthanize all kittens, i don't think i'm a "party line voter" because i say "well, gosh, i really just can't stomach voting for that." it just ultimately is important enough to me that it not happen that i cannot accept it in exchange for their other more nuanced policies.