531
submitted 2 months ago by Confidant6198@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] lengau@midwest.social 18 points 2 months ago

Then vote Greens or PSL.

Sorry, I'm not going to vote "don't care" on genocide no matter how many faux leftists pretend it's the morally superior option.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 months ago

It's morally superior to vote for genocide but pretend your flavor of genocide isn't the exact same as the other flavor of genocide.

[-] lengau@midwest.social 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Look, if you don't care about LGBT folks, women who need abortions, asylum seekers, etc. you can pull that "don't care" lever. But "I care about making a symbolic, but ultimately toothless, gesture about Palestine more than I care about the lives of thousands, possibly millions of others" is what voting third-party is telling the system right now. If that makes you feel morally superior, we're at an impasse because I don't know how to explain to someone that an action to save lives is more powerful than an unrealistic gesture about saving even more lives, but which will realistically increase the amount of death and suffering.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Is there a red line for you in the sand, or would you vote for Hitler if 101% Hitler was running? When do you abandon hope in the Democrats, if being genocidal Imperialists doing nothing to help marginalized groups, and are running to the right of Trump in 2016 with respect to immigration, doesn't?

[-] lengau@midwest.social 14 points 2 months ago

That's a non-sequitur, because that's not what's happening by any means. But thanks for ceding the point that you're okay feeling morally superior by doing something that'll get more people killed.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago

So either there's no red line, or genocide doesn't matter if it's against Muslims for you.

[-] lengau@midwest.social 10 points 2 months ago

Yes yes, we all see the rhetorical trap you're trying to deploy. It's not exactly subtle.

Meanwhile in the real world, in most of the US there is no realistic alternative to the red/blue dichotomy, and so while we're actually building that alternative we have to choose between those two. At the national level and in most (possibly all) senate/house races, that's the reality of the situation. You either work with the coalition you think is less evil and try to convince them to be even less evil, or you admit that you're okay with the more evil option if it gives you a feeling of moral superiority.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 months ago

Meanwhile in the real world, in most of the US there is no realistic alternative to the red/blue dichotomy, and so while we're actually building that alternative we have to choose between those two.

You aren't building the alternative, you're arguing against building the alternative. You support the status quo.

You either work with the coalition you think is less evil and try to convince them to be even less evil, or you admit that you're okay with the more evil option if it gives you a feeling of moral superiority

Correct, you're doing the latter while I'm doing the former. Trying to work with Socialists and build a good party is better than sitting on your hands and giving the genocidal imperialists the keys forever.

[-] lengau@midwest.social 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

"Building an alternative" doesn't happen in the ballot box. It happens everywhere else.

It happens by getting a better voting system rather than FPTP, for which I'm doing actual, active advocacy. (Are you?)

It happens by working at a grassroots level to get people with better opinions elected, all the way down to local judges, city council members and library boards, where I, once again, am active. (Are you?)

It happens by getting involved in politics at a local level and building a movement. I'm doing that. (Are you?) It doesn't happen by throwing a tantrum in the voting booth.

The fascists know this. The fascists use this to their advantage. And the fascists would absolutely love for there to be 10 competing leftist parties acting as a spoiler effect for liberals. Because as bad as liberals are, fascists are worse.

Throwing out a "no u" when I point out how the things you are doing are paving the way for fascists is not a good argument unless your goal is to actually get fascists into power. And I will choose liberalism over fascism, because that's the harm reduction path to leftism, whereas letting the fascists win is the harm maximisation path.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

"Building an alternative" doesn't happen in the ballot box. It happens everywhere else.

Mostly correct, actually, it's just important to highlight how unimportant the ballot box is.

It happens by getting a better voting system rather than FPTP, for which I'm doing actual, active advocacy. (Are you?)

No, because that's silly, and won't fix anything. Only revolution can.

It happens by working at a grassroots level to get people with better opinions elected, all the way down to local judges, city council members and library boards, where I, once again, am active. (Are you?)

Ah, the old "out of sight, out of mind" approach! Certainly won't be sufficient.

It happens by getting involved in politics at a local level and building a movement. I'm doing that. (Are you?) It doesn't happen by throwing a tantrum in the voting booth.

Yep, I am checking out my local chapters of FRSO and PSL and am going to sign on with one of them. They are DemCent, so I can't join both.

The fascists know this. The fascists use this to their advantage. And the fascists would absolutely love for there to be 10 competing leftist parties acting as a spoiler effect for liberals. Because as bad as liberals are, fascists are worse.

Fascism is Capitalism in decay, you can't separate liberalism over time from fascism. Fascism isn't an idea, but a defensive response to leftism.

Throwing out a "no u" when I point out how the things you are doing are paving the way for fascists is not a good argument unless your goal is to actually get fascists into power. And I will choose liberalism over fascism, because that's the harm reduction path to leftism, whereas letting the fascists win is the harm maximisation path.

You say this while saying you help perpetuate liberalism, paving the way for fascism, lmao

[-] lengau@midwest.social 9 points 2 months ago

That's a lot of text to say "Yes, I want the fascist to win."

Making things worse isn't going to accelerate the revolution. It's going to make things worse and kill the most vulnerable in our society - the ones who would most benefit from a revolution. If you truly want a socialist revolution, you need to have enough people on your side. And having those people be dead is counterproductive.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago

That's a lot of text to say "Yes, I want the fascist to win."

In other words, you can't actually respond to my points so you'll misrepresent them. Typical liberalism.

Making things worse isn't going to accelerate the revolution.

Never said it would, that's why I am trying to do what I can before liberals speedrun America into fascism.

It's going to make things worse and kill the most vulnerable in our society - the ones who would most benefit from a revolution. If you truly want a socialist revolution, you need to have enough people on your side. And having those people be dead is counterproductive.

Yep, the Dems and Reps both are killing marginalized people, both domestically and abroad, so we have to abandon them and cease support for their genocide and imperialism

[-] lengau@midwest.social 7 points 2 months ago

You're talking in circles and fundamentally missing the point that neither voting third-party nor not voting isn't going to make things better. It's only going to make things worse.

The ballot box is for harm reduction, and equivocating the level of evil of two candidates only ever helps the more evil option.

If you want to make your first actual point, feel free to do so. If you want to keep repeating the very talking points that got us the situation that allowed for this genocide in the first place, don't bother.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago

You're talking in circles and fundamentally missing the point that neither voting third-party nor not voting isn't going to make things better. It's only going to make things worse.

Things are getting worse if either the Dems or Reps win, Third Party is the only chance electorally.

The ballot box is for harm reduction, and equivocating the level of evil of two candidates only ever helps the more evil option.

Pretending equal evils are different based on vibes alone isn't harm reduction, it's harm acceleration.

If you want to make your first actual point, feel free to do so. If you want to keep repeating the very talking points that got us the situation that allowed for this genocide in the first place, don't bother.

If you want to make your first actual point, feel free to do so. If you want to keep repeating the very talking points that got us the situation that allowed for this genocide in the first place, don't bother.

[-] lengau@midwest.social 6 points 2 months ago

In the above comment, we see the following:

  • Repetition of the same debunked talking points
  • Equivocation of the two major parties (which, as I've already mentioned, only helps the more evil of the two)
  • "no u"

It really insults the intelligence of those reading to think that they won't see through this.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago
  • Repetition of the same debunked talking points

Which of my points have you "debunked?" Lol

  • Equivocation of the two major parties (which, as I've already mentioned, only helps the more evil of the two)

You've been whitewashing genocide and fascism, without meaningfully backing yourself up.

  • "no u"

You insulted me directly, while leaving yourself wide open. You started directly insulting because you had no points other than claiming that genocide isn't that bad if the Dems do it.

[-] lengau@midwest.social 6 points 2 months ago

Which of my points have you “debunked?” Lol

I haven't had to, as all you've done so far is repeat already-debunked, faux-leftist points that enable fascists.

You’ve been whitewashing genocide and fascism, without meaningfully backing yourself up.

Ahh, more accusations. Genocide is bad. Fascism is bad. Thus my question: why are you advocating for actions that will lead to more genocide and fascism?

You started directly insulting because you had no points other than claiming that genocide isn’t that bad if the Dems do it.

Lying about what I've said in a written forum isn't effective. Once again, and in larger font:

Genocide is always bad, and more genocide is worse.

So why are you advocating for actions that fall in the "more genocide" camp?

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago

I haven't had to, as all you've done so far is repeat already-debunked, faux-leftist points that enable fascists.

In other words, you can't, so you call them "faux-leftist."

Ahh, more accusations. Genocide is bad. Fascism is bad. Thus my question: why are you advocating for actions that will lead to more genocide and fascism?

How would my actions lead to more genocide and fascism? Where do you think they come from?

Lying about what I've said in a written forum isn't effective. Once again, and in larger font:

Genocide is always bad, and more genocide is worse.

So why are you advocating for actions that fall in the "more genocide" camp?

Explain where the genocide is coming from, and how what I am advocating for leads to "more genocide." You keep repeating baseless assertions.

[-] Sas@beehaw.org 3 points 2 months ago

Jill Stein declared her goal as preventing Harris from winning the White House even though she knows she can't win herself, so basically her goal is to put Trump in power who is going to continue or worsen the genocide in Gaza while adding genocide on the US's queer population, women and immigrants and even descendants of immigrants that live there for multiple generations. As a little bonus he's going to give Ukraine to Russia by not delivering weapons to them anymore, thus helping a warmonger take over it's neighbouring country.

That is how your actions lead to more genocide.

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

getting a better voting system rather than FPTP

i just want to pass by to point out that not-fptp is implemented on many places without the big results the proponents of this solution say it to be.

the same goes for mandatory voting. we have the same issues with electoralism.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Tiltinyall@beehaw.org 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

There's no red line that Americans can VOTE on. We don't get to vote on how America goes to war, period. You really want to frame this in the context that your actually doing something other than undermining a fair election. You've gone way past the red line in your support of Trump.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago

Sure there is, you can vote Green or PSL. If you disapprove of the Democrats but will never not vote for them, you're the same as the rabid supporters of Zionism that vote for the Dems, materially. Are you looking to join a Leftist party, try to destabilize the system and establish Socialism? If not, it seems like you're just supporting the status quo and not lifting a finger no matter how bad it gets.

No, I don't support Trump, that's why I support leftist candidates and advocate for people to abandon the Dems and Reps.

[-] lengau@midwest.social 8 points 2 months ago

you can vote Green or PSL

You sure can if you believe that making an insignificant point in a ballot box is worth more than the actual lives of people who would die because of a Trump administration but not under a Harris one. But if you want to make an actual difference. the ballot box is one of the very few times you need to hold your nose and do the uncomfortable thing of choosing liberalism over fascism.

But if you're okay with fascism, sure. Go and make your vote a spoiler that helps the fascists win. I'm sure the people who die because doctors who were scared to provide medically necessary abortions will be grateful that you did the morally superior, but entirely ineffective, thing.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago

You sure can if you believe that making an insignificant point in a ballot box is worth more than the actual lives of people who would die because of a Trump administration but not under a Harris one. But if you want to make an actual difference. the ballot box is one of the very few times you need to hold your nose and do the uncomfortable thing of choosing liberalism over fascism.

You can vote for fascism if that's what you want, I reject it.

But if you're okay with fascism, sure. Go and make your vote a spoiler that helps the fascists win. I'm sure the people who die because doctors who were scared to provide medically necessary abortions will be grateful that you did the morally superior, but entirely ineffective, thing.

You're voting fascism in, the Dems have failed for half a century to codify abortion rights because they don't care.

[-] Tiltinyall@beehaw.org 8 points 2 months ago

You're all or nothing take on it sounds a little fascist to me...

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You wouldn't know what fascism was if you lived in Mussolini's Italy or Nazi Germany. Read Blackshirts and Reds, at least the first chapter.

[-] lengau@midwest.social 5 points 2 months ago

You can vote for fascism if that’s what you want, I reject it.

You're literally making the choice to put fascism in power. I'm trying to stop you from making the same mistake I made in 2016.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago

You're literally voting for fascism, not sure what you mean here.

[-] lengau@midwest.social 6 points 2 months ago

Words have definitions. Harris, for everything I don't like about her, is a liberal. Not a fascist. Trump, on the other hand, is a fascist.

The choices here are simple: fascism (Trump), not-fascism (Harris), or "I really don't care, do u?"

Why are you encouraging people to do things that will make it more likely for fascists to win and destroy what little leftist organizing there is in America? The only rational conclusion is that you want fascism. But you keep avoiding that question. Is it because you're taking a page out of the alt-right playbook?

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago

You wouldn't know fascism if you lived in Nazi Germany. Read the first chapter of Blackshirts and Reds, fascism is just Capitalism in decay, and neither the DNC nor GOP are capable of stopping that.

[-] lengau@midwest.social 5 points 2 months ago

Once again avoiding the question and making personal attacks instead.

Your words imply that you think I believe having Harris as president will fix things. I don't. What I do believe is it will slow the decline, hopefully enough for us to create ways to escape capitalism without having fascists commit more genocides than they already are. This is known as "harm reduction." It's a complex theory by which one takes actions to reduce the harm done with immediate actions when there's no immediate action that one can take to improve things. The ballot box in 2024 is not the time for a revolution, for said revolution would fail miserably, leaving us worse off. The ballot box in 2024 is the time for harm reduction.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago

Once again avoiding the question and making personal attacks instead.

What have I avoided?

Your words imply that you think I believe having Harris as president will fix things. I don't. What I do believe is it will slow the decline, hopefully enough for us to create ways to escape capitalism without having fascists commit more genocides than they already are. This is known as "harm reduction." It's a complex theory by which one takes actions to reduce the harm done with immediate actions when there's no immediate action that one can take to improve things. The ballot box in 2024 is not the time for a revolution, for said revolution would fail miserably, leaving us worse off. The ballot box in 2024 is the time for harm reduction.

That's not Harm Reduction. Harm Reduction doesn't mean to vote for genocidal imperialists as a temporary measure, it refers to implementing permanent solutions that increase liklihood of fixing the problem overall, like giving safer heroin to addicts and trying to get them help.

[-] lengau@midwest.social 4 points 2 months ago

What have I avoided?

Well immediately above I asked:

Why are you encouraging people to do things that will make it more likely for fascists to win and destroy what little leftist organizing there is in America?

You have asserted that the actions you advocate won't do that, but when I explain how they do exactly that, you simply make the assertion again. When that fails, you attempt to equivocate. But when I point out that more genocide is more harmful than less genocide, you simply ignore my statements and make your assertions again.

That's not helpful. It might convince some people, but only in the same way that repeating a lie enough makes some people believe it.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago

Why are you encouraging people to do things that will make it more likely for fascists to win and destroy what little leftist organizing there is in America?

The Dems and Reps work together against Leftist organization. They colluded to kick PSL off the ballot in Georgia, Tim Walz sent in the National Guard against Black Lives Matter protestors, and more. When you say that abandoning the Democrats "makes it more likely for fascists to win and destroy leftist organizing," you ignore what fascism actually is: Capitalism in decay. It isn't the Republican party alone, it's the bourgeoisie. That is why I advocate for abandoning them and pushing for Leftist organization like PSL and FRSO.

You have asserted that the actions you advocate won't do that, but when I explain how they do exactly that, you simply make the assertion again. When that fails, you attempt to equivocate. But when I point out that more genocide is more harmful than less genocide, you simply ignore my statements and make your assertions again.

You haven't explained how abandoning Democrats makes it more likely for fascism to win. Fascism isn't solely the Republican Party, it's bipartisan. Secondly, more genocide is absolutely worse, but you haven't explained how that would happen. If you don't analyze the root cause of genocide, how can you say the Dems are holding genocide back? Biden went above the Pentagon to approve the invasion of Lebanon, because support for Israel is economic and not moral.

That's not helpful. It might convince some people, but only in the same way that repeating a lie enough makes some people believe it.

Please answer my points, I repeat them because you ignore them.

[-] HatchetHaro 5 points 2 months ago

you keep saying "vote" as if it means the same thing in a ranked-choice voting system and a first-past-the-post voting system.

newsflash: you're not making the difference you claim you're making. if anything, you're making it worse. congratulations! good job! you did it! you get a good star!

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago

Not sure what you're getting at here, RCV or FPTP, doesn't make a difference, electoralism is useless.

[-] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

"You really want to frame this in the context that your actually doing something other than undermining a fair election. "

I find that arguing a person must vote for one of two pro-genocide parties already undermines your idea of a "fair election." What primary even nominated Harris as the Democrat candidate? -Not that our primary systems is particularly representative of a "fair election" system, either. I just don't remember when these were candidates voted on.

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

then is the system fair? is it really democracy whats happening here?

societies generally throw away the rules and stop relying on these institutions when it becomes clear they arent actually doing anything for us. why arent us?

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

why arent us?

That's actually prety obvious after reading Marx: the system still works as intended for whom it was intended to work, namely for bourgeoisie and their lackeys. The contradictions aren't yet big enough to cause the overthrowing of it. Liberals, people who we are trying to convince here to open their eyes and see that they are voting for genocide, for actual mass extermination of entire people, actually (with small exceptions) already have their eyes open - they just don't see anything undesirable in the picture: brown people half of world away and their deaths are perfectly ignorable for them, their lives are pretty comfortable and they just want to stop reading uncomfortable opinions and get back to brunch.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 months ago

You're going to have to explain this convoluted logic to your grandchildren when they ask you why you voted for genocide.

[-] lengau@midwest.social 10 points 2 months ago

What I'm going to have to explain to them is why I voted "don't care" in 2016. That's a mistake I will forever have to live with. But if I can convince a few people not to make that same mistake, I will at least be able to reduce the harm I did.

this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
531 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

45895 readers
1019 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS