First thing I thought of was the “Elementary School Musical” episode of South Park.

Yeah, except for the cnidarians, which are weird in more than just name. Oral vs. anal? No difference for them!

Where this analogy falls apart is in the implicit assumption that this is just a one-off situation. (I mean, most people only have two parents.)

What happens when it’s an iterative phenomenon? (Politics is an ongoing thing.) Then, the situation in the analogy turns into the classic “negotiating with terrorists” scenario. The received wisdom is that one should never negotiate with terrorists, because once they learn that terrorism works they’ll do it again.

Maybe make it cousins. Do you choose the option whereby two cousins die, or just one. What if choosing just one now increases the danger of more dying later?

Oh Lord… 😔

Who will they tip over the side next?

Perhaps a better, real-world example is that this moral calculus says that the Democrats should abandon trans people and trans issues. The logic is inescapable: Trans issues turn away a lot of voters, and it’s a really strong talking point for the other party. If they win, the Democrats could protect the LGB community, and women’s rights.

Surely it’s better to protect the LGB community and women’s rights, but not trans people, than to protect none of them, right?

(NB: This is rhetorical. I don’t believe it.)

Abortion rights initiatives won in 7 out of 10 states where they were on the ballot.

Sometimes you do it the hard way to send a message.

At best, “support our troops” was a version of that dumbass magical thinking that, in earlier times, held that the U.S. lost in Vietnam because Americans didn’t clap for Tinkerbell, err, I mean, support the war. Mostly, it was a thought-terminating cliché.

Yeah, as you rightly point out, it was never about the soldiers themselves.

It’s not accelerationism at all! It’s fatalism.

Accelerationism is, “It has to get worse before it can get better.”

My point here is, “The system that only allows for getting worse will never get better.”

A big issue with this approach: The United States is not a law of nature; it doesn’t have to exist. The system may only allow two options, but it does not guarantee that either one of those options will keep the system viable. Reduced harm is still harm, and at some point we needed to stop doing it.

Parents? My friend volunteered as a poll worker on the University campus here. At his location, 25% of the students voted for the orange fascist.

Right, and this isn’t rhetorical combat. You are correct, and I was continuing the train of thought.

I don’t think that MAGA is an existential threat to democracy, or to Americans’ lives. If it were, Pres. Biden would do something about it, right? Like, maybe, lock them up. Or at least say so. He certainly wouldn’t be planning to just hand over the reins and walk away.

(P.S. If you can’t tell if the above is serious, then why couldn’t millions of voters actually think this way?)

He’s 78 and displaying moderate dementia symptoms. I wouldn’t worry about a third term.

Heck, people are still producing new games for the Commodore 64.

And Emmett Till could still be very much alive, had he not been lynched.

Still not great from a messaging perspective. Better ways to reach people who aren’t politics nerds or policy wonks:

Medical care will be affordable, so you can go see your doctor any time you or your family need to. If your kid gets sick, you can be there for them and help them get better without worrying about how to pay for care. You’ll get paid better, no more of the “boss gets a dollar, I get a dime” crap. No more stress about setting aside a college fund for your kids. They’ll be able to go to school, guaranteed. Strong American morals mean we’re not going to send our tax money to fund war and atrocities on the other side of the planet. If you lose your job, the government will have your back with enough money to survive on until you get back on your feet, no questions asked.

Goddamn, why can’t Democrats say this stuff, instead of word salad like, “Launch a National Health Equity Initiative to address health challenges that disproportionately impact Black men.” WTF does any of that even mean?

How’s that tactic of browbeating and blaming voters working out for ya?

Why would they want to be the target of a bukkake circlejerk?

It’s wise not to share the details, but the broad strokes are important: Information is the game. Getting it, distributing it, analyzing it. Successful authoritarian regimes always strive to keep people uninformed, terrified and unable to act.

Defend the information networks at all costs. Only with good information can we effectively do those things that it’s not wise to detail in public.