I pulled this out since it's off-topic to our off-topic digression from
the original off-topic post.
On 2024-10-25, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024, Chris Buckley wrote:

On 2024-10-25, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

Pacifists and libertarians can, due to their ethics and political beliefs, >>> not vote in democratic elections and remain consistent with their moral
positions.

D, I would not have thought that you were that much a proponent of
today's cancel culture. The modern notion that if you object strongly
to one belief of a person or group/party you must completely disassociate
yourself from that person or group, is tearing apart our society. We're
unable to discuss or even recognize the good qualities of that person/group.

I think cancel culture is to deny people who do not want to vote, the possibility to not vote. By forcing them to vote, actually _you_ are
engaging in cancel culture and not accepting people as they are and respecting their beliefs.

I think this is a strong indicator of the polarization in the US and it is ripping people and society apart.

There's no reason for pacifists and libertarians not to participate in
a democracy despite their disagreement about what some of what a
government should do. That's cancel culture. Would you really not
vote for someone like Chase Oliver (Libertarian Party candidate)
because of that, D? Just about the only group who philosophically
should not vote are the anarchists.

I describe the reason. If they vote, per definition, they are no longer pacifists or libertarians, since they are initiating force. It's cancel culture not to accept them as they are, but to try and force or goade them into voting. That's highly troubling and I would never have thought that
you would engage in it.

I hear you, but you are just wrong - according to my definitions. I
accept that your definitions are different but as yet I am unconvinced
of the usefulness of your definitions.

I'll use pacifists since I think the definition is more clear-cut but the argument applies to libertarians as well. I might define a pacifist as
someone aspiring to solve problems by non-violent means. It's a fuzzy definition, allowing people to define for themselves where they draw the
lines between violence and non-violence. But it need to be fuzzy to be
useful. You obviously have a much stricter definition. That's fine as long as 1. You make clear what your definition is
2. You realize that the vast majority of people out there do not
agree with your definition.
There are very few people out there who would agree with you that
Mahatma Gandhi was not a pacifist.

Likewise, your definitions of libertarians and democracy. I've never
run into a libertarian who doesn't vote. I know they exist, but it's
not a useful definition if most professed libertarians disagree. I
believe in democracy. But do I believe in a democracy without rules constraining it? Of course not. I don't think anybody does.

I would guess that well over 99% of people out there do not fall into
any of your strict categories of pacifists or libertarians or believers in democracy. Your definitions are too strict to be useful when attempting
to attach labels to people or ideas.

Chris

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)