HexNash

HexNash wrote

I would love to play something with a similar lighthearted feel as Earthbound, with a plot that involves going around and helping people in different situations and using teamwork between your party and the communities you encounter to take down powerful hierarchical structures that actively oppress others. Also, being able to customize your characters’ appearance and specify whatever genders and pronouns each identify with.

2

HexNash wrote

I don't think ziq is saying all isolated force is ok, but that it's a completely different thing than having power or authority over another. If I'm with someone and they are about to walk into traffic or something, then physically stopping them (note that it doesn't even matter whether they are an adult or child) isn't a display of power or authority over them in the way that a capitalist business owner would command an employee. Of course, there are all kinds of grey areas that can be argued, but I feel most situations where someone is inadvertently going to get hurt at a moment's notice or is already hurt and needs help immediately are pretty clear cut.

4

HexNash wrote (edited )

"If the party you voted for get in power, you are responsible to have put them there."

That position is no more reasonable than saying one is responsible for perpetuating capitalism for buying groceries. Someone is going to take the office no matter what and it makes no sense to throw away an opportunity to try to get a less evil person. You're taking a ridiculously unfair, unrepresentative, and undemocratic system that rewards strategic voting over going with one's true preferences, and acting like filling in a bubble to nudge towards a less shitty outcome for a lot of people amounts to an endorsement of anything and everything the candidate does. While working to dismantle oppressive systems it doesn't hurt to also take advantage of loopholes within them to make life a little less crappy in the meantime.

2

HexNash wrote (edited )

Short answer: I wouldn't say non-voters are "accountable", but it’s a bad strategy in competitive races because someone is almost certainly going to take over those offices anyways.

Long answer: Maintaining that voters are responsible for anything other than deciding which of usually two people get into office (and that's only if there is even a competitive race) is intellectually bankrupt and just serves to push the most vulnerable of us under the bus. Voting isn't some sacred ritual that means you are endorsing whoever you vote for; it's something you can do within a shitty system to hopefully get the lesser of evils in an office that is going to be occupied anyways. I live in Ohio where we're about to become the most restrictive state when it comes to abortion access, and that is something that simply wouldn't happen if we had a Democrat-controlled legislative or executive branch. I see no merit in actively dissuading people against voting, especially when we have a first-past-the-post, single-winner district, gerrymandered-to-hell system that has nothing to do with accurate representation whatsoever. There is nothing contradictory about making small tactical decisions within an oppressive system while working to destroy it from the outside -- that's literally just using all strategies available, and we do worse every fucking day just to not starve to death under capitalism.

3

Reply to by !deleted1759

HexNash wrote

Ohio is about to pass an anti-abortion "heartbeat" bill that will almost certainly be signed by the new governor. It is going to affect a ton of my friends' lives, and transitively, mine.

1