Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Well it ain't like I got that much respect for them weak kneed, pansyass, gutless bitches either, Jack... had they reached down and found a fucking pair when it counted the GOP wouldn't have been able to create the epic clusterfuck they did, and if the current administration wasn't so focused on not offending anyone they woulda rightfully steamrollered them pissants and had something of a fix (although halfassed and terrible, given their own incompetence) on the matter already.

But when it comes down to a choice between incompetent and wackjob fucking crazy, imma hafta go with the former, since one handy virtue of it is being as incompetent at fucking things up as they are at fixing them.

-Frem

---

Quote:

---

In Demby's case, there are conceivable scenarios where he or other captives would have had a chance to "exercise some kind of vote." Perhaps Colonel Lloyd might have sought the advice of a trusted slave, or what if Demby or other slaves sought to "influence" the colonel's decision on an overseer by consciously working harder for the preferable villain. It's absurd to accuse these people of endorsing the institution of slavery. If they are able to discern a less murderous overseer and cause his selection, their behavior is an act of self defense.

Granted, there are ways to act defensively while damaging the system such as running away. But these are clearly more dangerous paths. Nor are all choices mutually exclusive. A slave could both choose an overseer and attempt to run away, thus increasing his odds of survival if he's captured in the escape attempt, thus making an attempt equal in effectiveness ' if successful -- to the slave who would only choose non-cooperation and running away as tactics. It is even arguable that the former is more effective at undermining the institution, as a "deceitful slave" might impose a greater economic cost in the form of risk than the predictable ethical "non-voting" type.

You can vote as an act of aggression. You can also vote in self-defense. If you are assaulted, you can flee the person. If cornered, you can choose to dodge the blow. If unable to dodge the blow, you might choose to block or deflect the attack. A proportional defensive counter-attack may even be of order. And while it's perfectly laudable that a person can choose fleeing or dodging as their personal range of moral choices, the choice is exactly that -- personal instead of universal. Aggression requires intent. Self-defense is the strategic root. Voting is a tactic.

---