- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/16451158
You must log in or # to comment.
i vote every single time. i say both sides are the same but i dont mean politicians…i loved obama. i was fine with biden, just wish he was younger. would still vote for him even if he was a corpse because… it would be better.
when i say both sides i mean the bitches online. the people in real life are pretty normal.
online you have facist christians and facist islam lovers. i cant say muslims because they arent actuallyuslims, they are people who say they are left but embrace an intolerant people who behad gay people. so they are the same. everyone who picks a side (right/left) online is a facist
Your main criticism of Biden is his age and not his unconditional support of genocide?
And the “I love Obama” is just utterly naive. They mean to say they love the dude who enabled the surveillance state and was a prolific warmonger.
What is one even supposed to say to this? Iran and its allies are fighting the fascists. Their opponents are genocidal nazi pedophiles bent on world domination. You’re willing to “both sides” that and not the stupid US electoral system?
both sides are pretty bad, but you still gotta get on the bus
All the busses are going to the same place
That doeant mean you have to get on one of the two major busses. It’s completely fine to pick a third smaller bus. It might take longer to arrive, but it doesn’t smell like someone pissed on the seat.
ranked choice voting would open up so many more bus routes
Funny analogy because I’ve had instances where the public transit was so bad it was faster to walk the ~3-4 miles then use it
I guess, to further the analogy - there’s likely a bus that will get you close to your destination, but you’ve got to walk the rest of the way (or vice versa), call that political activism.
and if there is a bus available to you and you don’t take it, you’re just a person yelling at buses, which helps no one (except maybe your mental health?).
Or alternatively you can use an ebike which is 3 times faster, or a regular bike which is 2 times faster if you have one, at least where I live. I don’t think comparing voting in the US to public transit which is also dysfunctional here is the flex you think it is.
One of Propagandas goals is to get you to give up. Uncovering truths and doing research is hard according to Josh Johnson, if it was easy more of us would do it instead of watching memes. Propaganda is designed to flood you with so much crap that you question everything and then give up looking for the truth because its hard. Ai has not helped this.
question everything and then give up looking
?
Why the second part?
Why not just remain questioning everything?
Propaganda is designed to flood you with so much crap that…
… that you [in the current form of propaganda] start to believe the truth is unknowable, because of all the lies in all directions at once. This primes you to give up [on truth and democracy], and seek a totalitarian/fascist strongman to save you.
Carry on questioning everything. Cannot have a fully informed public without educated minds. The mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting nor rejecting it.
Deploying non-belief may decouple you from susceptibility to such psyop propaganda.
We can still mend this.
(Also +1 Josh Johnson, probably my fave comedian these days.).
Probably just poor phrasing on my part.
The video I posted goes into more about how propaganda in the form of flooding you with to much info works and the problems that AI is adding to it.
It wasn’t poor phrasing, friend. It’s exactly correct.
People absolutely give up. They give up because the truth is depressing and the lies are depressing and it’s exhausting trying to police our politicians’ corruptions and the media is complicit and it all seems hopeless.
It’s easier to just put your head in the sand until trouble knocks on your door. And the sad truth is that people will continue to eat shit until there’s nothing left to eat at all. Only then, when they are hungry and cold and scared, will they finally stand up and be angry.
If you guarantee your vote to someone, they will lose any incentive to act for your benefit. It’s really that simple. And if genocide is not a bridge too far for you, God help you, because obviously there’s no limit to what you’ll put up with.
Good thing Trump ended the genocide!
Anything to not have to grapple with the idea that just voting blue is not enough, huh? And are we going to pretend that Biden didn’t gleeflully pour billions into the genocide?
Yes, don’t vote at all. Better to have more genocide but having the moral high ground of not having voted for less.
Is it really that uncomfortable to engage with the idea? This is just an online forum, there is no possible negative consequence to whatever you write. Humor me, try to refute the idea that voting for a politician purely based on the actions of their opponent disincentivizes the politician to do anything for your benefit. Note that I’m not mentioning genocide, morality, blue, green, red or yellow or whatever. As far as I’m concerned this is about a fictional country called Fakeland with two parties.
If you guarantee your vote to a politician, what incentive do they have to give even a single shit about your standards of living?
How do you guarantee a vote? It’s not like you’re telling the politician ahead of time.
You can’t really say you’re against genocide if you knowingly take no action against the candidate that says he wants to glass Gaza so he can build a nice resort there.
The idea is that you vote for the most pragmatic option at every election. No vote should be guaranteed, but at the same time it’s still your civic duty to make a choice as a voter.
I understand the idea. I’m pointing out the big flaw in that idea. And I disagree that it’s your civic duty to “just vote”.
That’s how democracies work, the electorate needs to be active and involved every election. Therefore, it is the civic duty of every citizen to participate in the system and cast their vote. You don’t have to “guarantee” your vote, but you should still vote on what you think is the best choice every time you get.
Oh you don’t like either candidate? What a special person you are! I can’t believe that a nation of 340 million people winnowed down their possible leaders to two people without producing one that you absolutely love!
you know, in that primary we had
I really don’t think that this is limited to American politics.
I want to preface this by saying that I do vote in every election, and I think everyone should exercise their right to vote.
That being said, both parties are bad. We’re in a class war, and the Democrats are just as beholden/part of the oligarchy as the Republicans are.
The Republicans are definitely worse than the Democrats. There’s no question there, but what we really need is a fucking revolution.
Also, it’s ridiculous for someone to think that every “Both sides suck” posts are bought and paid for propaganda. Some may be. I’d be surprised if it didn’t happen sometimes. But, the majority are probably just understandably frustrated people.
We shouldn’t be policing people’s expression of frustration with the system. If someone can’t express frustration without being told they’re a shill or a propagandist, they’re not suddenly going to become an engaged happy partisan. Instead, they’re probably just going to get even more disillusioned with the process and will stop talking about it and maybe stop voting altogether.
The democratic party sucks. It bends over backwards to help out corporate interests. It’s more interested in winning the next election cycle than it is in making important changes. It often goes wherever the wind blows without having any conviction.
OTOH, the republicans are much worse. They’re hell bent on enacting racist and sexist policies that will ensure straight, white, christian men remain in power. They’re currently led by an absolute moron who’s by far the most corrupt person I’ve ever seen in my life.
So, the options are currently between a status quo party that might not make your life better, vs a party led by a chaos gremlin which will systematically destroy everything within its reach. Voting for the lesser of two evils may be annoying, but it’s often important.
Another problem with the Democrats, even if the next election cycle boots these fascist fucks, it doesn’t automatically roll back all the damage the Nazis have done. Sure, the Democrats will repair some of the damage, but realistically, the needle never gets moved all the way back by the Dems.
They also have a history of not rolling back some of the damage, intentionally leaving some stuff broken. It sucks. But, when the two options for voting are the guys who don’t always repair all of the damage vs. the guys intentionally breaking things, it’s an easy choice.
But, while it may be obvious who any sane person should vote for, it’s also clear that voting should not be the only thing people do. Otherwise you really do get stuck with those 2 terrible options.
For me, Elizabeth Warren is one of the few really outstanding democrats. But, her political career wouldn’t exist without the protests after the 2007/08 financial collapse that led to the creation of the CFPB. The only reason that Massachusetts residents have the ability to vote for her as a senator is that they first protested against the bank bailouts and the evictions and forced the government to do something about that.
The idea of a “revolution” is just a meme. The only people who dream about them are people who are too online and college students, and the reason for that is because these are the people who don’t have a lot of responsibilities. A revolution means violence, it means destruction, it means instability, it means danger. These are things that most people want to avoid because they have families, work, and lives of their own. The only people who go out and do things like this are people with nothing to lose, like the people of Iran a couple of months ago. Just like what we saw in Iran, revolution attempts are not guaranteed to be successful, and even when they are, sometimes the new system is even worse. This is often the case, and for the people who gave up everything, their sacrifices will only be in vain. A revolution is not something that’s desirable or realistic.
We’re basically living through the second gilded age where robber barons are robbing the country blind to their benefit while government is rolling over. What we need is somebody like Teddy Roosevelt. Somebody who can’t be bought, can’t be influenced, and can’t be shaken. We need somebody who’s not scared of the billionaire class, not wooed by dark money, and is principled to their core so much so that they see it as their life mission to break up monopolies and take the billionaires. Once we have that person, a coalition will form around them, and that’s when real change can happen.
Yep, millennial Facebook-tier Office memes aren’t going to make me sign my name to endorse genocide, sorry Blue MAGA.
Nah, in the long run: a weak and unstable US is better for the rest of the world. Also: with the orange man, you know what you have and you don’t want to vote for more genocide, right?
Now the question is which is easier, convincing millions of people to vote for “anyone not a republican” or convincing a candidate to be more than “not republican”
Hey, primaries are around now. It’s a great time for that!
Participate in primaries. THIS is the election you want for that.
Depends on where you are. My state doesn’t have primaries till August and by then it’s basically already decided.
Same here, most primary candidate drop out before I even get my mail in ballot. Also there hasnt been a fair primary in 12 years so like so for over a decade party direction has been at the mercy of quid pro quo backroom deals, or straight up just appointing a candidate. Why would the next one suddenly be a fair representation of the will of voters?
What DNC did to Bernie caused Trump.
It depends. What it means to be “more than “not Republican”” is different for different people. Some will never be satisfied, and others are just plain wolves in sheep’s clothing trying to drive down Democratic turnout so the fascists can hold power.
While yes, those groups certainly exist, the majority of people just truly need help from someone who actually cares to help them, and not someone who says they do, but abandons the idea when it turns out to be difficult to supply that help because it never meant that much to them in the first place, if it was ever anything more than talk to begin with.
Pointing out the tiny problematic groups without even mentioning the much larger legitimate group reminds me of people who complain about welfare because of the tiny group of people that exploit it, completely ignoring the huge amount of people that just need help.
Every time the welfare thing comes up I respond, so what? Who fucking cares if some tiny minority of people abuse the system if it means the people who really need it have easier access, or access at all? No one abusing welfare is so rich you would argue they don’t need help anyway, unless there’s some sort of corruption going on. Big companies take way more in handouts from the government than people on welfare. Why can’t the big powerful successful corporations pull themselves up by their bootstraps?
You mean Republican, right?
;)
Same as Democrats are not democratic, Republicans are not republican. ;)
Hard work undoing the newspeek this deep into the Orwellian hole.
Past, you should probably read that book you’re quoting.
Newspeak was the idea that removing words from people’s vocabulary would remove the thoughts from their head, therefore becoming an avenue for control. Despite the Sapir-Worf hypothesis being bunked, I don’t think it was at the time.
What words were they removing from your vocabulary, how do you believe it is controling you? Modern examples would be something like ‘Unalive’ I guess, but not really. Sponsors trying to get you stop using the word dead, and talking about death. But, unalive is a work around, not enforced, so not really newspeak.
To only have two sides is the problem.
Sure, but as far as what we can control right now, let’s elect some fucking Democrats please
How much longer will this be a cookie cutter answer?
Until there are enough grassroots progressive candidates to take over the democratic party the same way the tea party movement took over the republican party, and finally some progressive initiatives can pass into law, such as eliminating FPTP.
Please don’t take the “just vote democrats into office” answer to mean “sit tight and do nothing but vote” when voting is really the bare minimum activism you should be doing to preserve a democratic system.
I just wonder how patient US voters are, for the changes you project.
Does it matter? Most voters have no attention span. They aren’t revolutionaries. They aren’t going to take to the streets no matter how bad things get. Stop trying to change people who aren’t going to change when you lack the influence to change them in the first place, and focus on trying to leverage what you’ve got as productively as you can.
Build your cadres, make the change you can, and make lemonade from the lemons you’ve got.
Let’s get Democrats controlling all three branches of government for more than 30 seconds to start.
And by “controlling” we mean “supermajority” thanks to the veto and filibuster.
And will things magically be better? Well, better, yes, good, no. First, it takes a lot of time to undo the harm fascists have done. And second, our oligarchs would still be in control, pushing for their needs above ours.
So we need to… solve… our oligarch problem AND win a supermajority AND then We the People need to push that Overton window back to the left, forcing our politicians to serve our needs.
…which is why I say we’re pretty fucked. But that’s what needs to happen, anyway.
Yeah, we need more John Fettermans and Joe Manchins and Krysten Cinemenmas.
And scolding people for criticizing Democrats as “both-siders” means you like your fascism with less overt racism.
Uh, if 95% of the voters are voting fascism one way or the other, it’s a start. I think you wildly underestimate electoral inertia. Don’t get me wrong, I wish you were right, but the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. Unless you’ve got an actionable plan to sway, like, 70 million people, maybe start with nudging the scales from fascism full-flavor to fascism lite and go from there.
Assumes facts not in evidence. Polls show progressive ideas are incredibly popular. Liberal Democratic politicians aren’t.
The road to progress isn’t through Gavin Newsom.
Then vote in the primaries, absolutely do that and encourage everyone you know to do the same. And if a shitlib wins the primary, vote damage reduction.
Mamdani.
He won the primary (in a Democratic stronghold). Awesome, let’s keep that up where we can. Vote in your primaries.
But if your district’s Mamdani is a long shot third party, maybe make sure the shitlib beats the fascist until that long shot has widespread support.
No, the point is to agitate you against an establishment that wants to prevent you from having a better choice.
Liberals who are passionately defending lesser evil electoralism before primaries have even started are either idiots in denial or moderates who don’t want to talk about why their party is nearly as unpopular as Trump.
Damn you really blame people for not choosing between Moloch or Baal.
You gotta keep voting the lesser of two evils for the main elections, while voting for the best alternatives you can find locally.
One should vote, it simply shouldn’t be the end of it.
If you voted Democrat and thought you made your part, wrong. You barely made one shift towards one slightly less terrible group. This is not victory. A part of what you should do, yes. All you should do - not.
The psyop’d to defeatism think the lesser of two evils is the best they can do. Remind them, it’s not. It’s still evil.
Awareness of the totalitarian tacking tip-toe con may help dispel the groupthink affirmation of succumbing to that. One “side” loudly promises one personal freedom cared about while quietly taking two economic freedoms that “side”'s herd don’t care about, then the other “side” loudly restores one economic freedom their “side”'s herd care about while quietly taking two personal freedoms that “side”'s herd don’t care about, back and forth, stripping you of freedom, keeping you blinded in fear of what the other is going to take from you, divided and conquered. … But try explaining that in a tweet/tictok sized explanation to those who’ve had their attention spans crippled.
Some say it’s futile. It’s not. Defy that dire prognosis.
Carry on mendwards. :)
Republicans also really love when you vote third party.
Republicans also really love when you vote third party.
(Or Democrat party too, depending on where the votes are being taken from)
Until enough people do, and sufficient votes are taken from the purple party, that they lose.
… But then, may also need to mend all the lobbying, gerymandering, voter suppression, rigged voting machines, electoral college, etc first/simultaneously.
Imagine if the people in USA got a system that helped them vote for what they want, not against who they don’t want. Imagine… :)
Until enough people do, and sufficient votes are taken from the purple party, that they lose.
Nope, you utterly miss the point. First past the post means that Republicans win when the anti-fascist vote is split.
If you don’t like the current candidates of the Democrat party, then go vote in the Democrat primary.
Imagine if the people in USA got a system that helped them vote for what they want, not against who they don’t want. Imagine… :)
There is this little thing called “objective reality”. First past the post sucks, but it is objective reality. You should try taking it into account, some time.
one week old account shilling for a political party
I remember when Gore lost Florida, and therefore the country, because less than one tenth of one percent of voters thought a protest vote for Nader was a good idea. In primaries and in smaller elections, sure, give third party votes a try. But the bigger the election, the more it converges on a choice between the two major parties, and one of them is worse than the other.
gore won that election. the supreme Court stole it.
Nope. Did not miss your point at all. You seemed to miss mine, and doubled down.
I’m not voting for liberal zionists under any circumstances. Your candidates and party suck and deserve to eat shit
…And that is how Trump became President.
Really is that so
