I was nerd sniped by this post for like an hour, and “false dichotomy” was the closest I could find, lol. You could say that the argument has an unstated co-premise (“the harm is necessary”), to which you are raising an “inference objection”.

The Talos Principle (+ DLC) and its just-released sequel really fit this niche for me. I’m fighting severe burnout and was specifically looking for a game without time pressure, reflex-based gameplay, or (because I keep bouncing off of turn-based strategy games even though I believe that I love them) complicated stats-based systems.

TTP is about first-person puzzles in the vein of Portal. While some of the puzzles can be difficult, you can work through them at your own pace. The level structure makes it easy to drop in and out of the game whenever, and the gorgeous environments and soundtrack make the world just a generally soothing and immersive place to walk around in.

Are you thinking of Samus from the Serious Sam games?

Mmm, pseudorandom number generators!

it not me

If you see me reading a book in public you are absolutely invited to strike up a conversation and nerd out with me about it. I wish we had better mechanisms than body language to signal this!

deleted by creator

Then the question still applies: in what way would a spoiler increase the count of either establishment candidate? My understanding of basic math is that it cannot.

Correct, and to claim otherwise would be absurd. Have I done that? The absolute count of votes is immaterial. Elections are decided by the proportion of votes cast for each candidate. That’s what admits the spoiler effect. Thanks, FPTP.

That’s certainly one opinion on the matter… coincidentally one perfectly aligned with a partisan propaganda viewpoint and, thus far, is nothing but alarmist hyperbole.

It’s no coincidence. This is the means by which the establishment perpetuates itself. Doesn’t mean both parties are the same.

I’m tapping out after this, but I appreciated the discussion. Have a great weekend.

Does voting third party or abstaining somehow increase the count of votes for Republicans?

No, I’m only describing the spoiler effect here.

Would this be more or less irrational than actively perpetuating the problems with a party and its candidates by guaranteeing them your vote for no reason other than they’re not as bad as a different party?

It would be more irrational, because if the “shoot me in the leg, I guess” party loses, everyone dies, and nobody gets to have opinions about anything ever again.

I think we can both agree that voting to avoid bad outcomes rather than to select good ones is fucked.

Of course, one has the freedom to cast their vote, or not, as they like. But I can’t fathom why someone would “choose” an impossible outcome that ultimately makes the fatal scenario more likely instead of moving the needle toward the survivable one. It strikes me as irrational, which I could ignore if it were mere self-sabotage, but this affects others too.

You have misunderstood the metaphor. (edit: Rather, the people you’re describing have.)

You cannot opt out. Someone will take the office.