I feel like there’s a certain type of “ex-evangelical” progressive who obviously supports mandatory progressive causes like abortion access and LGBT rights, but then in practice supports them “so strongly” that they can’t compromise on anything. And if that means that they can’t vote for candidates who support those issues because they aren’t “good enough” and those issues get set back, well… That’s a trade-off they’re willing to make!
If there’s one pro-choice candidate and one anti-choice candidate and you campaign against the pro-choice candidate because you don’t think their support is strong enough, knowing that the alternative is the anti-choice candidate… I feel like you’re not that pro-choice?
Or if you have one candidate who wants to maintain LGBT rights and one who wants to roll them back, and you oppose the pro-LGBT candidate because they don’t want to… add 3 new sex markers to government IDs, but the other candidate wants to make it impossible to change the sex marker on your government ID at all… I don’t think you’re actually being very supportive of LGBT rights?
People are addicted to trying to find a way out of the trolley problem. Sometimes you do indeed have to decide whether or not to pull the lever and yes, sometimes somebody is going to die because of your choice. Voting is harm reduction
amhrancas 