Objection

if you choose not to, you will decrease their chances

False. If you chose not to, the chances remain the same.

Not voting for the candidate when you could’ve doesn’t improve the opponents odds?

No, it doesn't. Not voting for a candidate neither increases nor decreases their chances. Voting for a candidate is what increases their chances, voting for their opponent is what decreases them.

Actually mathematically false. You’re saying 1+1=4 because if it doesn’t your feefees will be hurt.

Nope, it's actually mathematically false, you're the one twisting numbers around. Remove me from existence and Trump and Kamala's chances will be the same, so I'm not increasing or decreasing either's chances.

Voting is in no way shape or form an endorsement of anything

Definitionally, endorsing a candidate is when you say, "This candidate is the best choice and I intend to vote for them." It doesn't mean, "I agree with everything this candidate says or does." If you vote for a candidate, tell people you vote for them, and encourage others to vote for them, that is definitionally an endorsement.

You’re obviously a teenager whose brain has not fully developed. If you’re an adult, god help us.

I'm in my 30's. You're just wrong about everything you said.

Really, not once have I explained to you why I spend more time on here talking about Kamala than Trump? Not once?

“I’m worried that they don’t mean what they say

No, they mean what they say, they explicitly support unconditional arms shipments to Israel and constantly reaffirm that it "has the right to defend itself." Your side is the one that claims they're lying and secretly support Palestine, against all the evidence and all their statements.

You're so predictable. Never have anything interesting or insightful to say, always just here to lambast me for not singing the praises of a candidate I don't even support. Boring.

I doesn't improve either candidate's chances at all. And voting is an endorsement, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.

Not that specific example, but I have used that approach before. I think the first time was about 10 years ago. There were a couple queer people in my friend group who would throw around the f-slur, which was whatever, but one night when we were drinking one of my straight friends called me it, and that bothered me. So the next day I sent a group message talking about how it made me feel uncomfortable and I didn't like it being normalized. It was a little awkward, but from then on everyone stopped using it and we all remained friends. In the long term, I think people actually respected me more for standing up for myself (since I was generally more of a pushover), and it stopped a behavior that had been making me uncomfortable and driving a bit of a wedge between us.

Most of the time, stuff like this don't come from malice, but from people having different norms or expectations and not understanding each other. They might get defensive in the moment, but once they're aware of it there's a good chance they'll stop. While people can be dicks, we are fundamentally social creatures and wired to avoid friction.

I will say it's easier to confront people when you have a voluntary relationship with them, because if they're dicks about it you can always just not hang out, but you can't do that with coworkers. If they attack you for expressing how their behavior makes you feel, then you can probably bring it to HR and you'll have a stronger case to say it's malice.

the various ways the current US government has been using its political might to try prevent the war from spreading.

You mean asking nicely and then sending more weapons when they completely refuse to cooperate? Or perhaps you mean setting "red lines" and doing nothing when they're gleefully crossed? Maybe you mean signing off on supporting Israel's expansion of the war into Lebanon?

If not, I would love to hear what the hell you are talking about.

What do you think voting is doing if its not increasing or decreasing the likelihood of a candidate winning?

Establishing a credible threat of defection in response to unacceptable policy. Building up a party that actually represents my interests.

If there’s only two possible outcomes between three choices, and one of those choices is clearly the worst outcome and another one of them is clearly not a possible outcome, which choice would you make and why?

That question is much too abstract.

A third party winning this election is not realistic, but there are other tactical and ethical reasons for voting for them that have nothing to do with winning, as I said.

Alright, so at least as a theoretical abstraction, it has potential to work. You can argue whether I'm right to try to apply that tactic in this situation, but as a tactic, it is very much logical and coherent.

You haven't actually presented any reason why, given that it works in the abstract, it couldn't work in this situation. All you've said is that it won't work, but unless you can actually support that position there's no reason to think that.

If a large enough bloc of voters won't vote unless you support a specific policy, then you have more of an incentive to support that policy. Do you dispute this?

Trump is worse than Harris, and one of them will win the election, that is true. But I don't agree that that means I should vote for Harris. I believe it is necessary to hold politicians to a minimum standard, and that refusing to vote for a candidate that doesn't meet that standard is a means of enforcing it. Even if a third party can't win this election, voting for them still serves to establish a credible threat of defection. This is one of many reasons why the ideology of lesser-evilism is incorrect.

Choosing to not vote or to vote third party reduces the chances of Harris winning and increases the chances of Trump winning

It does neither of those things, actually. It neither increases nor decreases the chances of either candidate winning.

I'm getting an error of "max comment depth reached," so it seems we'll have to call it.