OK I'm depressed and anxious so let's talk about some game theory: under no circumstances should *ANYONE* in 2026 admit that they would vote for Gavin Newsom for president.
-
@dave @xgranade @aud The best response to that I can think of is this brief speech, given in the wake of Roe getting overturned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFjiq4Incm8
-
@glyph @dave @aud Much better put than how I said it, yeah. If I sincerely believed that causing harm to others could prevent even greater harm elsewhere, some real-world trolley problem shit, then I'd be talking more about consent, and who am I to make that decision, how much of that harm I'm willing to be accountable for, and so forth.
But we're not there at all, it's not clear that that causing that harm will convince anyone, as you say.
-
@glyph @dave @aud Much better put than how I said it, yeah. If I sincerely believed that causing harm to others could prevent even greater harm elsewhere, some real-world trolley problem shit, then I'd be talking more about consent, and who am I to make that decision, how much of that harm I'm willing to be accountable for, and so forth.
But we're not there at all, it's not clear that that causing that harm will convince anyone, as you say.
@xgranade @dave @aud we also already did that experiment too, and we may benefit from history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ère_des_attentats
-
@glyph The unique twist is that the players get to talk freely for thirty seconds before committing to Split or Steal. In the recording, one of the players starts off by loudly declaring that he will pick Steal no matter what, and that he'll mail the other player a check for half the prize afterwards. He's absolutely immobile on that, despite the other player pleading.
At the end, both players choose Split.
@xgranade @glyph there's a Radiolab segment on that episode. They mention that the actual argument between the contestants went on beyond 30 seconds, for 45 minutes, which is amazing, I wish the whole thing were available somewhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsgjBg0HqWQ -
Type A people, even if they *will eventually* vote for Newsom in that very unfortunate circumstance in 2028, should *say* they won't vote for Newsom in 2028, because the more people that stand up and say this, the *less likely* it is that he will be on the ballot in the general. If this strategy works it won't even have been a lie! No way to prove a negative!
To wit:
sport of sacred spherical cows (@beadsland@beige.party)
The problem isn't Schumer or any other kayfabe panto player in elected office. The problem is a population that cede their power to election cycles, only to then cede their power in the voting booth. Folk like Schumer get re-elected because folk who vote for him and his ilk are not prepared to do much other than line up to re-elect him. Not on the day of the election, and certainly not any of the so many hundreds of days between elections. All in deference to the secular religion that is the first estate. #lumpentheory
beige.party (beige.party)
relatedly:
sport of sacred spherical cows (@beadsland@beige.party)
Ever the outlier, myself am what one might call Type B*: https://mastodon.social/@glyph/116138976469689167 Which is to say, am one of "those who absoloutely [sic] hate Newsom for his quisling collaboration with fascists in the press and just cannot vote for him on the basis of his openly" demonstrated harm to homeless people. As someone who has been homeless, repeatedly in my life, who remains of disaccommodation classposture, who thus fully expects to be homeless again in my lifetime, Newsom could be trans themself and myself still would never cede him my vote. None of this ought detract from Glyph's point: https://mastodon.social/@glyph/116139021260248707 To wit: https://beige.party/@beadsland/116117434991758267 #lumpentheory
beige.party (beige.party)
-
Type A people, even if they *will eventually* vote for Newsom in that very unfortunate circumstance in 2028, should *say* they won't vote for Newsom in 2028, because the more people that stand up and say this, the *less likely* it is that he will be on the ballot in the general. If this strategy works it won't even have been a lie! No way to prove a negative!
-
@glyph The unique twist is that the players get to talk freely for thirty seconds before committing to Split or Steal. In the recording, one of the players starts off by loudly declaring that he will pick Steal no matter what, and that he'll mail the other player a check for half the prize afterwards. He's absolutely immobile on that, despite the other player pleading.
At the end, both players choose Split.
@xgranade @glyph I feel like this works the first time only (and hey, Split/Split saves you the cost of the postage), but after that the metagame has changed.
The first time, the calculus is different. It includes “do I trust this obviously clever person who has really put thought into it to follow through on their super clever metagame-breaking play, or not?”
-
Type A people, even if they *will eventually* vote for Newsom in that very unfortunate circumstance in 2028, should *say* they won't vote for Newsom in 2028, because the more people that stand up and say this, the *less likely* it is that he will be on the ballot in the general. If this strategy works it won't even have been a lie! No way to prove a negative!
@glyph How many non-Republicans outside of CA have awareness of Gavin at all?
-
@glyph How many non-Republicans outside of CA have awareness of Gavin at all?
@going_to_maine at least 48% of democrats apparently https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/2028_Presidential_Preferences_poll_results.pdf
-
@going_to_maine at least 48% of democrats apparently https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/2028_Presidential_Preferences_poll_results.pdf
@glyph Dang, those are some numbers. I'm more excited by the 37% for AOC, and most concerned about that 19% and 33%. Especially that 33%.
-
R relay@relay.an.exchange shared this topic
