(I want to be clear that I'm not advocating for accelerationism, I'm just seeing holes in the argument) Pushing people in a vulnerable position now to make change for the future is a great example of the needs of the many ethical arguments. Advocating against change because it hurts me in the short term is inherently selfish. I know people that are accelerationists, and The ones I know don't assume that they'll come out ahead or even the same. They recognize that the system is inherently broken and they think they need more people uncomfortable to make meaningful change.

Except the Armageddon is real but no-one will rise up to save us when every major city is nothing but glowing embers under an ever gray nuclear sky while the remnants of humanity fight each other with sticks over the last grain silos.

So-called American "revolutionaries" make me sick with their reckless disregard for the unavoidable responsibility their country has with regards to their military. An "accelerated downfall" won't just affect you bozos. Especially not if the means are "stoking the fire of imperialism".

If I could press a button to accelerate the US downfall and magically contain the fighting to the lower 48 in a way that leaves whoever is left standing nuke-less, I would, but that's not an option on the table, so barring that, please vote against the guy who really can't be trusted with the nuclear briefcase, yeah???