Generally, anyone who points out that the Democratic Party is run by a cabal of megalomaniacal war-loving psychopaths stands accused of sententious holiness on matters of grave, uh, compromise. Usually the accusers are themselves deacons in the church, who perceive in the dissenters an untoward fundamentalism, like Romenys gazing regretfully in the direction of a polygamist compound. They think that the dissenters and dislikers and malcontents and hippies and commies and anarchists and libertarians and minarchists and stoners and survivalists and queer liberationists and reactionaries and crackpots and so on are all too bathed in the fresh blood of the lamb to sully themselves with the dirt of two-party electoral politics. What they can’t appreciate because they are themselves so hopelessly wedded to their faith is that people aren’t troubled by hard choices or bad choices. We’re all obliged to make bad choices all the time, between worse and worst, and to live with them. What people reject is false choice, choice that isn’t choice, heads I win tails you lose choice, life flattened into politics and politics turned into a prisoners dilemma.
"Holy Blood, Holy Fail" - Who Is IOZ?
"Well, how about unprincipled abstention? How about the value of not giving a shit? What about indifference? What if the prerequisite to killing the gods isn’t casting down the idols, but simply ceasing to pray?"