JeSuisUnHombre

The offices where we actually have a chance of electing someone in the next 2 years are all local positions. So that answer is going to be dependent on what state you live in.

There is no doubt one of the candidates - Trump - is way more dangerous than the other.

Both recognizes those are the only 2 real options, and directly states which is the worse of those 2 options.

you cannot only settle for the least worst option

Implying you do need to settle for the least worst option but going on to say that that's not enough to actually make change.

That's now how that works. Please show me some examples of successful revolutions that had 0 ties to those in power.

Living in a place where winter used to mean lots of snow and regularly hitting below 0°F but now is mostly rain. Hearing the phrase "at least it isn't snow" on a 95°F day makes me want to punch them. Same for complaining about winter weather when it's so much more mild than it used to be. Fuck global warming and fuck everyone who's happy about its warmer weather.

My impression of what she's saying here is, vote for Harris now, but don't wait 4 years to be politically active again so we can try to actually get someone better. Which I completely agree with. Getting Trump elected doesn't help anything and might make some goals less achievable, and right now Harris is the only one who can beat him. But the more important part is to not stop critiquing her ideology. Don't let her forget about Palestinian children, don't let people be complacent with capitalist hegemony, do the ground work necessary to move our government to the left. That doesn't mean waiting four years to try and stop her reelection, it means continuing to talk in real life with people about what we should expect from government. It means trying to build momentum behind some candidates to get them elected in 2 years, and don't wait for election season to do so. This work doesn't stop.

And a brief aside for those that just want a revolution to be done with it. 1, most of the same still applies, especially the building momentum part. And 2, there haven't been any successful revolutions without some connections to those in power, so we'll need to elect some sympathetic candidates before that possibility has any chance.

I have no way of knowing if any of that is true

Yes, protecting people is always the first priority, otherwise there just wouldn't be a justice system. That doesn't mean punishing people for wrongdoings.

Yes, I think hierarchy is bad in general, it defines people as not equal. You can't have a hierarchy of equal members. It has lead to those higher up thinking the laws for us don't fully apply to them, either because we're less than human or because they're more than human. Even the hierarchy of parents has turned children into property instead of, again, people who need help. It might even be why people are more tolerant of shitty behavior, because they don't feel high up enough in the hierarchy to be able to do anything about it.

Part of the critique of that phrase is its seeming dismissal of context and nuance. Authoritarianism isn't really a system of thought, but even without mentioning that, you're going to have a tough time drawing hard lines around behavior without infringing on valid personal freedoms. Though, in general, seeing how your beliefs map onto different ideas is a good way to interrogate yourself and try to determine if you should keep that belief as is. If an idea of yours seems to tie in with a system of thought you're opposed to, maybe ask yourself why that is and what aspects you identify with versus the aspects you can do without.

You commented twice and apparently I attached my response to the one you deleted so I wanted repost that response with the context that the other comment included the phrase "an evil man"

Of course protecting the public is the first priority, otherwise there just wouldn't be a justice system. But your willingness to label a person as evil keeps you open to calling whole groups of people evil (like say immigrants). That actually invites evil to yourself and society because 'prison is for evil people, I'm not in prison so I must not be evil' when in reality everyone is capable of evil and should always be guarding against those thoughts, not dismissing them as impossibilities.>

You definitely have some good ideas about an alternative system, but you also have some nonsense in that first paragraph.

The idea of someone deserving punishment is inherently dehumanizing. It's not possible to punish someone unless they are beneath you. Thinking another human is lesser than you defines them as less than human.

Hard lines of behavior? That's just what laws are, like we currently have. Yes, look at where we are now with the centuries long mentality of people deserving punishment. The rich and powerful are not subjected to the law in the same way because, to use your words, "authoritarian systems especially are prone to being taken over by groups with special interests, whoch not only guts their effectiveness but completely revrses their intended goals if they were noble ones." Seriously though, "hard lines of behavior" is an extremely authoritarian phrase.

There are no "evil people" there are only evil actions. Every single person has the capacity for evil. We're going to be stuck where we're at until we collectively recognize that truth.

Yeah, making election day a national holiday doesn't help those of us who don't get most holidays off.

Of course protecting the public is the first priority, otherwise there just wouldn't be a justice system. But your willingness to label a person as evil keeps you open to calling whole groups of people evil (like say immigrants). That actually invites evil to yourself and society because 'prison is for evil people, I'm not in prison so I must not be evil' when in reality everyone is capable of evil and should always be guarding against those thoughts, not dismissing them as impossibilities.