5 ms·

I reject this idea, someone voting for the "least worst candidate" does not wholly endorse everything they stand for As someone said in this thread, in the US

by shw1n 2y ago

I reject this idea, someone voting for the "least worst candidate" does not wholly endorse everything they stand for As someone said in this thread, in the US two-party system, coalitions are formed before the vote vs after in other countries The whole purpose of this piece is to precisely encourage pointed discussion about values directly and skip the proxying

rfgmendoza 2y ago
"someone voting for the "least worst candidate" does not wholly endorse everything they stand for" yes but somebody voting for the "most worst candidate" is not somebody who's values should be trusted
- darth_avocado 2y ago
  The very idea of “least worst” is very subjective. In their eyes, if they disagree with you, it is who’s values should not be trusted.
- shw1n 2y ago
  and if someone opposite the aisle from you believes the same thing about you, there's zero chance to flip them with direct discussion about values, it's possible basically all comes down to "are you open to the chance you're wrong" you could view that chance as low as 0.001%, but it shouldn't be 0
  - sn9 2y ago
    People frequently have a gap between their values and their politics, and talking about both can reveal the cognitive dissonance. If they engage with politics as tribalism, and you talk to them about a policy their tribe implemented that conflicts with their values, this is useful.
rebeccaskinner 2y ago
> I reject this idea, someone voting for the "least worst candidate" does not wholly endorse everything they stand for The thing about values is that they don't just capture the notion of what we thing is right or wrong, but also which things we value over other things. In an extreme case, two people can agree on 10 out of 10 different ideals or ethical stances and still have different values and support different parties because of how they rank those things. In that case who you think is the "least worst" is also a reflection of values, as is declaring both sides to be the same, or opting out altogether. They all represent both what things you value and how much you value them.
- shw1n 2y ago
  > In that case who you think is the "least worst" is also a reflection of values perceived values -- if someone has the same values and rankings as you, but was exposed to different information, then with this logic you'll never be able to find out or flip them as I said to the other commenter, basically all comes down to "are you open to the chance you're wrong" you could view that chance as low as 0.001%, but it shouldn't be 0

by shw1n 2y ago

rfgmendoza 2y ago

"someone voting for the "least worst candidate" does not wholly endorse everything they stand for" yes but somebody voting for the "most worst candidate" is not somebody who's values should be trusted

darth_avocado 2y ago
The very idea of “least worst” is very subjective. In their eyes, if they disagree with you, it is who’s values should not be trusted.
shw1n 2y ago
and if someone opposite the aisle from you believes the same thing about you, there's zero chance to flip them with direct discussion about values, it's possible basically all comes down to "are you open to the chance you're wrong" you could view that chance as low as 0.001%, but it shouldn't be 0
- sn9 2y ago
  People frequently have a gap between their values and their politics, and talking about both can reveal the cognitive dissonance. If they engage with politics as tribalism, and you talk to them about a policy their tribe implemented that conflicts with their values, this is useful.

rebeccaskinner 2y ago

> I reject this idea, someone voting for the "least worst candidate" does not wholly endorse everything they stand for The thing about values is that they don't just capture the notion of what we thing is right or wrong, but also which things we value over other things. In an extreme case, two people can agree on 10 out of 10 different ideals or ethical stances and still have different values and support different parties because of how they rank those things. In that case who you think is the "least worst" is also a reflection of values, as is declaring both sides to be the same, or opting out altogether. They all represent both what things you value and how much you value them.

shw1n 2y ago
> In that case who you think is the "least worst" is also a reflection of values perceived values -- if someone has the same values and rankings as you, but was exposed to different information, then with this logic you'll never be able to find out or flip them as I said to the other commenter, basically all comes down to "are you open to the chance you're wrong" you could view that chance as low as 0.001%, but it shouldn't be 0