jwiggler

Thanks :)

I'm more of a TV show fan than Fallout fan, so I didn't like it too much. But if you like Fallout, I bet you'll like it. It's good Fallout, meh TV imo

Ay I'm a terrible lead guitarist. Finally learning to open up the fretboard and play over backing tracks in whatever key

Plus, learning some crowd pleasers rather than obscure folk punk songs so maybe I can play a gig one day

Even still it is a bad critique of veganism

Why do you say this ? Or maybe someone else critical of Gelderloos' critique could chime in, because I thought it was pretty good.

I was curious, so I went to Wikipedia, as one does.

A notable example of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that observation of quantum phenomena by a detector or an instrument can change the measured results of this experiment. Despite the "observer effect" in the double-slit experiment being caused by the presence of an electronic detector, the experiment's results have been interpreted by some to suggest that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] However, the need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process

Edit: erhm. this isnt an ad for Wikipedia. the words just shook out that way. lol

I think prob a regional thing. Lotta irish catholics up in new england

I also won’t stand in the way if other victims of the oppressive system we live under rise up in violent revolt

Hmm, doesn't this make you non-pacifist? I think if you condone violence by others you might not be a pacifist, even if you refuse to take part in violence, yourself. I guess it depends on the definition...

Only reason I say this is because I feel the same way personally about violence -- I never use it as a tactic, and would like the right to refuse to use it personally -- but believe that members of a movement shouldn't restrict the range of tactics its members use against a violent system. So I feel like I feel the same as you, but came to the opposite conclusion (I'm not a pacifist)

I tend to agree with Peter Gelderloos opinion that non violence protects the state

I gotta get back to you tomorrow more in depth but on the whole I agree that a single protest non vote is practically useless

But I also think that an invalid/inconsequential legitimizing vote may be more harmful than good...

Course the same could be said for protest votes, see: previous US election

I gotta think about it more

Well, I don't think you'd be able to parse through the intentions of non-voters in such a way. A non-voter may be a protest non-voter, a non-voter who thinks their vote is worth nothing, a non-voter who was actually unable to vote, or a non-voter who thinks the two candidates are functionally the same for them, or any and all other reasons for non-voting. Just because a non-voter may not view their non-vote as a protest non-vote, doesn't mean they don't give a fuck and are okay with whatever outcome, is my overall point.

With that said, I don't think a protest non-vote is the opposite of a complacent non-vote. Functionally they're the same. I guess if you wanted to judge a person by their non-voting intentions, you could do something like that. But I'm not sure its worth the time.

I guess its worth noting that even though I agree with the sentiment of the meme and the goat story, it doesn't map 1:1 in the real world. I don't think someone is necessarily foolish to vote, for example. I did. But generally I agree with Henry David Thoreau when it comes down to it:

All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or back gammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obli­gation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority.”

I'm not sure why you'd need to do that in the first place

Don't you think the goats made a mistake granting legitimacy to a process that would see their own demise? They had a say, after all. For them to organize defense would be to violate the law, which, after all, they participated in creating.