Why do you have to specifically vote Blue though? Is it just politics that it has to be blue. That’s the political landscape.

The only reason it's "Vote Blue no matter who" is because right now, in America's FPTP system, the Dems are the only real alternative in most areas to the GOP. It's a pithy saying, not a political essay. The lesson is not "LOYALTY TO COMRADE BIDEN", but "Don't throw your vote away on a symbolic action; preventing fascism is more important than virtue signaling to no one, especially since ballots are secret"

Can you not see why someone would see not voting for genocide as the best possible choice they could make? Not that you agree with them, you don’t, I get that. But for them, with their moral outlook the situation was shit and they did the best they could to at least not support it getting worse.

The problem is that every view I can think of for 'not voting for genocide' is extremely flawed from either a logical or moral perspective. We live in a FPTP system with two parties/candidates with near-majority support. Practically speaking, one of them was always going to win when no dark horses emerged by, say, September. Realistically speaking, 'not voting for genocide' actually meant "Letting everyone else choose for me", and considering that "More genocide" was chosen, everyone who protest voted or abstained has to fucking reckon with the fact that they enabled the "More genocide" candidate, for no gain to anyone.

The only 'real' arguments against voting I've seen are likewise ridiculous - accelerationism or delegitimization of the results.

The issue with those is that accelerationism goes against everything we know about revolutions and building revolutionary apparati, while the argument of delegitimization of the results would require a massive boycott - and, as 'elections' in Iran have shown, still not accomplished much. Delegitimization of the results might have been more 'legitimate' a strategy if the two candidates were closer (ie one was not a literal fucking Nazi - maybe try this in 2012?), but considering that they decided that they preferred to try to make a symbolic victory against the system over preventing literal Nazis, I find it very hard to accept as any kind of moral or 'best' possible action. If you (generic you, not you personally) think symbolism is preferable to the literal lives of millions, you put too much value on symbolism.

The meat industry is inherently cruel. Again, why would I be annoyed that I said I am an animal cruelty activist and someone pointed out I support an industry that’s inherently cruel.

But again, the question is not of you being angry that YOU'RE being called out. The question is being angry that the animal cruelty activists worked against the reduction of animal cruelty.

Man, people can call me a shitlib all day, if they voted for Harris, they've a right to their further-left opinions as far as I'm concerned. But don't tell me you're a very serious leftist who hates fascism and then refuse to try to prevent fascism - at minimal cost and effort to your own views.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d still support more animal cruelty laws. I wouldn’t stand in the way of a total ban on meat as I continued to buy it up to the day it’s outlawed. I’m not blaming vegans for anything, I’m self reflecting.

But in this case, the vegans didn't support more animal cruelty laws. They prevented animal cruelty laws - not to put an alternative in place, but simply because they don't believe in reducing harm, no matter how many millions or even billions it effects. If they don't believe in reducing harm, what is their 'ideology', but a game or a sports team?

Most vegans might grouse, but would still vote for animal cruelty laws that REDUCE animal cruelty even if they don't ELIMINATE it for that very reason - that's precisely why so many animal cruelty laws have been proposed and passed - because vegans are willing to support harm reduction.

So why do these leftists we're talking about care less about people than vegans care about animals?