I said “organize!” You said “but primaries!” How is that not a non-sequitur?

Edit: I said “what primaries?” And that liberal democracies are systemically flawed and you claim that I only vote for Presidents. Again: how is that connected in any way?

I don’t have he ability to vote for a president.

Again, a non-sequituron your part.

The issue the meme is decrying: that the political landscape and discourse is shifting to the right.

How often do I need to repeat that I don’t know how to explain it to you?

As I said: it’s a systemic issue. I don’t know how to explain that to you.

I don’t know how to explain to you that the issues we’re facing are systemic and don’t depend on the “right” individual being a leader.

You’re “buying” that elections make organizing easier. Just like Homer is buying that a rock can keep tigers away.

It suggests that people need to vote for progressive change and that congludes their options to enact power on the system.

Nothing I said assumed you were American.

I beg to differ. Your last paragraph especially.

Your philosophy on voting led to Americans not voting and the situation they face right now

[Citation needed]

Furthermore, no one here believes you give half a shit about direct action and organising

Good thing I don’t depend on what strangers on the internet believe of me.

because if you can’t even motivate yourself to get off the couch and write on a piece of paper once every 3-4 years then there’s no way you’re doing anything meaningful the rest of the time besides spreading apathy on online echo chambers.

Nothing I said suggests assumed I didn’t vote.

Also: how does that make sense? I claim that voting is neither necessary nor sufficient for progressive change and you immediately jump to the conclusion that I don’t vote and therefore I can’t be organizing, because voting is somehow important again and I don’t do it, so I can’t be organizing?

That’s like me saying “watching sports won’t make you healthy. Exercise does.” and you claim that I don’t watch sports and since I’m so lazy that I supposedly don’t watch sports, I can’t be exercising.

How does voting for the lesser evil suggest that it’s sufficient for progressive change?

I said advocatingy for voting…

Did you watch the video? The rock that keeps tigers away is like voting that makes organizing easier.

Politicians react to organized mass movements, rather than elections. You got it backwards.

Because it suggests that it’s sufficient for progressive change.

I think I have a rock that keeps tigers away to sell you

Because it doesn’t prevent anything.

Pretty much. Since electoralism is inconsequential for progressive change: vote if you want.

Advocating voting for a lesser evil could be considered harmful, though.

Is there a succinct way of articulating why we can’t do both?

You can, if you want to. Just don’t waste your time on electoral politics.

but communicating an actionable strategy I think is essential to folks in crisis.

Yes. Organizing is an actionable strategy.

Lol, “civic duty”.

I’m not even American, homie. And believe me: even a less underdeveloped democratic system than the US won’t save us from fascism. Direct action and organizing will.

So your solution is defeatism?

A bold strategy, let’s see how it pays off. /s

I’m not arguing against voting. I’m claiming that it’s not a valid strategy. You can partake, if you really want to.

I’m quite clear: electoral politics is merely a distraction for left/progressive forces. Rather, you should organize with your fellow exploited siblings and built opposing power structures from the bottom up.

He demands the opposite than wishful thinking, or “teleporting”.

voting third party isn’t how you change that anything.

FTFY