In a pluralistic society, individuals are rarely responsible for any measure of “change“. While we may venerate- and even idolize - such memorable figures in our history, and rightly so, the vast majority of change is both slow and takes place because of the concerted effort of a large amount of people who don’t really take any credit for it.
So, while your statement is, technically, correct, it doesn’t account for how such things typically come to pass. In other words, what you said makes sense logically, but practically, that logic plays a very small role in the reality of the situation because most people act illogically.
“Sure, I could have voted against murdering everyone in the bus, but I’m only one person, so what’s the point?” isn’t exactly the position I would expect. Or, for that matter, respect.
The analogy is of stopping a vehicle by hitting the brakes.
You object that one individual has all the control in the situation.
I point out that if it the brakes were only hit by a vote of everyone in the vehicle, it wouldn’t be less vile to abstain from voting than it would be to abstain from hitting the fucking brakes.
The analogy does not hold up when change can be affected by the individual.
In a pluralistic society, individuals are rarely responsible for any measure of “change“. While we may venerate- and even idolize - such memorable figures in our history, and rightly so, the vast majority of change is both slow and takes place because of the concerted effort of a large amount of people who don’t really take any credit for it.
So, while your statement is, technically, correct, it doesn’t account for how such things typically come to pass. In other words, what you said makes sense logically, but practically, that logic plays a very small role in the reality of the situation because most people act illogically.
“Sure, I could have voted against murdering everyone in the bus, but I’m only one person, so what’s the point?” isn’t exactly the position I would expect. Or, for that matter, respect.
Was this responding to my comment because I don’t see any logical connection?
Hardly surprising
The analogy is of stopping a vehicle by hitting the brakes.
You object that one individual has all the control in the situation.
I point out that if it the brakes were only hit by a vote of everyone in the vehicle, it wouldn’t be less vile to abstain from voting than it would be to abstain from hitting the fucking brakes.
I object that you oversimplify to gross misrepresentation.