844

Summary

In an emotional monologue, John Oliver urged undecided and reluctant voters to support Kamala Harris, emphasizing her policies on Medicare, reproductive rights, and poverty reduction.

Addressing frustrations over the Biden administration’s Gaza policy, he acknowledged the struggle for many voters yet cited voices like Georgia State Rep. Ruwa Romman, who supports Harris despite reservations.

Oliver warned of the lasting consequences of a second Trump term, including potential Supreme Court shifts.

Oliver said voting for Harris would mean the world could laugh at this past week’s photo of an orange, gaping-mouthed Trump in a fluorescent vest and allow Americans to carry on with life without worrying about what he might do next.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 226 points 1 day ago

Imperfection should not make the undecided voters give up on democracy, how can we have progressive policy when the people who want it don’t vote?

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 49 points 22 hours ago

In the paraphrased words of an old white dude

Don’t judge her against the Almighty, judge her against the alternative.

[-] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 18 points 20 hours ago

Alternatively: don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

[-] Botzo@lemmy.world 93 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Exactly.

We cannot afford to fall victim to the Nirvana fallacy.

We must work within the system to change the system or we risk being excluded entirely.

[-] pinkystew@reddthat.com 64 points 1 day ago

Nirvana fallacy, also know as "perfect solution fallacy" is suggesting that no solution is better than an imperfect solution. If I can't have nirvana, I don't want anything.

I see it all the time in online arguments. "Oh, you advocate for housing the homeless? Well then why do you have empty rooms in your house? Just fill it with homeless people." this is an example of the fallacy. It suggests that my solution, "house the homeless" should be discarded because it is not a perfect solution, which would be filling my house up with strangers. The goal is to make me say, "oh, I'm not willing to do that, so we should do nothing instead."

[-] candybrie@lemmy.world 30 points 23 hours ago

I don't think that's an example. People housing others in their own homes isn't an example of the perfect solution to homelessness. I don't know if we have a name for that fallacy but it's kind of a "put your money where your mouth is" fallacy. If you aren't willing to give up a lot for the solution, you must not really believe it is a problem/solution.

People being against the ACA because it isn't single payer health care is an example of the perfect solution fallacy. Or people being against a $15 minimum wage because it really should be $25 now.

[-] maniclucky@lemmy.world 20 points 23 hours ago

It's a bad faith argument and a strawman. They don't actually think it's reasonable for anyone to do that or think the other person is suggesting that. They are setting a person up as a hypocrite despite that obviously being an insufficient and inefficient solution to the housing crisis.

[-] HonoraryMancunian@lemmy.world 14 points 21 hours ago

It's also a false equivalence. The government helping to house people is absolutely not the same as private individuals sharing their homes.

[-] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml 7 points 23 hours ago

a “put your money where your mouth is” fallacy

Is this a "fallacy" or is it an "angle"? Probably it is little more than straw-man attack, because you know even homeless people need actual homes not just places to crash, and it is also a form of ad hominem attack that typically targets progressive/social change demands (do you really hear that often the opposite, like "if you hate homeless people that much, why don't you support gassing them?"). I don't know if people call those fallacies these days, I tend to see them as tactical conversational attacks. A fallacy is sth you can easily fool yourself with.

[-] sukhmel@programming.dev 5 points 19 hours ago

see them as tactical conversational attacks

Well, fallacies originally were not meant to fool yourself, but to win argument by any means. So you are describing a fallacy, even if it's not called that

[-] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago

Fallacy means sth in the effect of "cognitive illusion" as in "logical fallacy", not a rhetorical strategy. The difference is the intent of the speaker. A rhetorical strategy can be deceptive, or tactically motivated, a logical fallacy is more like a form of apparent naivete and common paradoxes. When there is intent to deceive and/or win at all costs, there is "prevarication" or "sophistry" instead of "fallacy".

[-] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 points 15 hours ago

You're right, I mixed up sophistry and fallacy. Better check next time

[-] pinkystew@reddthat.com 2 points 23 hours ago

it does have some qualities of Nirvana fallacy in that it implies my support for a policy is inadequate unless I provide a perfect, personal solution. but thanks for your response.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 13 points 22 hours ago

It suggests that my solution, "house the homeless" should be discarded because it is not a perfect solution, which would be filling my house up with strangers. The goal is to make me say, "oh, I'm not willing to do that, so we should do nothing instead."

This may be a mixture of a bunch of different arguments. There is the anti-Nimby argument which calls out Nimbys who want an end to homelessness but vote against the construction of housing for them in their neighbourhoods. “Why don’t you house homeless people in your house?” is a much more extreme, unreasonable, and therefore less efficacious version of that idea.

There is also the more general argument (from the right) that government shouldn’t be in the business of housing the homeless. The above line then proceeds by saying that your unwillingness to invite homeless people into your house is an indication that your solution to the problem is to get other people to solve the problem for you. This may also incorporate the anti-Nimby line by further claiming that what you really want is an “out of sight, out of mind” solution to homelessness.

[-] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml 9 points 23 hours ago

we risk being excluded entirely

I misread "being executed entirely".

Oh. Wait.

[-] Wilzax@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

By moderating our online discussion boards to better weed out posts, comments, replies, etc. from foreign interference and domestic Astroturfing that present themselves as far-left in order to convince people that perfect should be the enemy of better. I swear, nobody comes to the conclusion "Esteemed prosecutor Kamala Harris isn't as bad as convicted felon Donald Trump, but she still has flaws and isn't worthy of my vote in a competition for the most influential job in the world that will certainly come down to one of the two of them" on their own. That idea has to be planted by someone arguing in bad faith, and repeated in many forms for someone to begin to believe it.

this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
844 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19159 readers
4529 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS