this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
-11 points (41.8% liked)

News

23311 readers
3404 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Perrin42@kbin.social 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

If you are eligible to vote, and don't, that is the same as a vote for the winner - whoever that is.

[–] tal 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Nah, only half as strong.

Candidate A and Candidate B.

Vote for A: Candidate A has 1 vote

Vote for B: Candidate B has 1 vote

Vote for neither: 0 vote for either. Midway between the two outcomes.

That being said, voting for neither doesn't make much sense for anyone in terms of outcome. If you prefer one outcome, it doesn't make much sense to only use half of the strength of your vote to support that outcome.

Not voting makes more sense if you're making the argument that the time spent voting isn't worth the return you get.

[–] iAmTheTot@kbin.social -3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No, it's not. For the record, I'm a huge advocate of voting. I think everyone should vote for the candidate they believe in.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 5 points 8 months ago (3 children)

If you're driving in a bus with 40 people voting on where to go, with 14 wanting to drive to a buffet, 16 wanting to drive off a cliff, and 15 saying that they don't care enough to vote but they don't really want to go to the buffet because they're not hungry, yes, I am going to judge the 15 people who are content being driven off a cliff.

[–] Perfide@reddthat.com 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

And before anyone judges this analogy because one option is objectively good while the other is objectively bad: Everyone is guaranteed to get food poisoning at the buffet. Now both options are objectively bad, but I'm still judging the people content with going over the cliff.

[–] iAmTheTot@kbin.social 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

You can criticize the fact that they didn't vote, I literally just said that I think everyone should vote. But that's not the same as saying they did vote for the winner. If you're mad that the bus is driven off a cliff, then be upset with the people that did vote for it.

This is excusing that I personally think your analogy is an oversimplification.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Both instances are willful action that contributes to direct harm to yourself and others.

No, in the context of a voting system, it is not literally a vote for the other option. I don't think your friends tumbling off the cliff will really care much about the distinction that serves no purpose other than personal moral satisfaction.

[–] iAmTheTot@kbin.social -1 points 8 months ago

I trust my friends to distinguish between the people who voted for the cliff and those who, you know, didn't vote for that.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social -2 points 8 months ago

I am going to judge the 15 people who are content being driven off a cliff.

But you'll happily sit on the bus, never questioning why you're helping to maintain a system that results in such terrible options, and then blame others when that system you help to maintain comes back to bite you in the face.