#trying to develop effortposting habits—perhaps longposting is closer to accurate though

[torschlusspanikattack]

This superficially resembles a silly point, but is not quite identical to caring, not caring = same—

All the ‘anti-voting’ arguments being discoursed across my dash mostly seem like caring a lot about voting; all the effort spent arguing against voting could easily…

(actually, not easily, bc political change is hard—

even knowing what you need to know how to do (i.e. knowing what alternative would actually accomplish anything if executed properly) is recursively challenging (e.g. an effective protest movement is defined by employing means that actually work, which requires knowing both the right target and the right execution, each defined in terms of the other: the right target is one that can be successfully achieved via execution and the right execution is one that can successfully achieve the target)

—, but not doing something is even easier)

…be spent on arguing for the alternatives without even bringing up voting (since they basically don’t conflict) and would function exactly the same 90% (100% made-up number) of the time, assuming you actually didn’t believe in the impact of voting instead of being crypto-electoralists that at least act as though they believe not voting is meaningful (which is just electoralism).

All the actual anti-electoralists I know, either for normie-adj reasons or rejecting bourgeois democracy reasons don’t talk about voting or not voting, they just talk about what they’re doing instead (non-politics and non-electoral organising, etc, respectively).

Even on the marquee issue, US elections and Palestine, if you actually believe elections / bourgeois democracy are pointless, then the votes for Joey B’s ancien régime are irrelevant in any direction, so there’s no benefit of even bringing up the election at all—if you’re trying to persuade at all (which has to be assumed if you’re spending time discoursing about voting), should just be organising as you think is viable for Palestine—acting like people demanding votes for American Democrats is counterproductive****** or harmful is implicitly conceding that the votes matter at all (electoralism!).

Now, to be fair and charitable, the main reason behind the anti-voting posts is not to persuade or affect anything; it’s that American election posts are annoying and it feels good to counter-post and present a backlash to very common annoying opinions online. But this just means that at best. such discourse and posts are the most literal example of saying words recreationally, posting just because it feels good to react against annoyances, and at ‘worst’ (it’s posting, the ceiling is low for benefit, but so too is the ceiling for harm) it means that getting mad online has escaped brain containment and negatively polarised you/them (feel attacked or smug as you wish) into sincere/unironic nega-electoralism.

*****if your position is that people voting matters (negatively) because it counterproductively or harmfully distracts real efforts, so does arguing about it (as much as posts are anything, as previously discussed)—>

if you’re committed, just ignore elections and start organising: if you get results, people will see the effectiveness of dual power (dual power isn’t the exact concept I am thinking of, but I can’t remember the English word for it, close enough imo) and it will be easy to direct the efforts of—

[anyone who was focused on elections because that represented best avenue for making a difference (vs those pro-elections because it represents a cap on the effort they’re willing to commit)]

—to a process that actually results in change; —>

if you don’t get results from it, then people being distracted from ‘the real movement’ doesn’t matter anyway, that’s tough, move to Finland/Switzerland/France/Poland/Switzerland and wait for the next crisis of capital I guess.