2090
fuck this
(mander.xyz)
Friendly reminder: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/yes-science-is-political/
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
2090 points (100.0% liked)
Science Memes
20279 readers
1487 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm not American so nobody got my vote, but seems to me like the issue is with the swathes of people choosing facism rather than progressives who chose not to vote.
Choosing how to act in a world like ours is tricky, anyone following a sense of right and wrong (even if I disagree with their judgement) instead of fear, hate, greed or whatever gets a gold star in my book.
Inaction is still a choice, though. I totally understand the sentiment behind that choice and even agree that we shouldn't be forced to choose genocide, but the alternative that we got is a man who not only wants the same genocide, but wants to accelerate it, put American boots on the ground to assist in it, and then turn the bloodied ground into resorts while also wanting to worsen life across the globe. So, by refusing to act, they didn't oppose that man getting into power. They cared so much about genocide that, ironically, they enabled making that genocide worse by not acting against that possibility.
The biggest issue, though, is with the people who couldn't be bothered enough to vote. Some, what, 40% of Americans never vote? Of course, there's plenty there who can't due to things like gerrymandering, but there's a huge swathe of white suburbanites who simply prefer the status quo to actually improving things.
But thanks to the two party system, what effect does it have? And I'm specifically talking about the voting day of the presidential election here, not primaries or other elections. Because that's where those efforts will have the most impact. Not that the Dems deigned to give us even the illusion of a primary this election (or in 2016, truthfully), but so many of these people seem to shake their fist once every 4 years and then go to sleep like cicadas awaiting the next presidential election.
I don't blame people for hating the weak candidates that the Dems consistently push forward to maintain the old guards' leadership positions, but I do blame them for looking at the alternative and saying "I'm okay with the possibility of that man winning if I don't vote or vote third party." The chance of a Trump victory and all that it entailed was a line in the sand that they were willing to cross.
As a trans woman, I blame them for saying, "Your life is not worth biting the bullet for."
Yet refusing to accept the reality of mathematics that showed that, in a FPTP system, not voting for a viable candidate opposing a fascist only helps the fascist is acceptable? Nah. The blood is on the hands of both dems and non-voters. Non-voters/protest voters don't give a fuck about trans people, as shown by their actions.
Knowingly putting others lives at risk by refusing to do what is literally the least one can do, that is, voting in a strategic manner to prevent literal fascists who have repeatedly taken action against LGBTQ+ and made statements in support of committing genocide against them, POC, and people who are neurodivergent and/or impacted by mental illness is not what an ally does. It is an action that demonstrates that the non-voter/protest voter does not find vulnerable peoples' lives important enough to warrant the effort needed to climb down off of their pedestal of egotistical moral superiority to do meaningfully lend support to their fellow human beings' right to exist.
And the Log Cabin Republicans exist. And the Association of German National Jews existed. Thinking that one is special enough to not be subjected to the oppression that others will face just shows that they are ignorant of history in addition to the betrayal.
Going to have to disagree there.
Prove that they are irrelevant.
Suppose there are 10 people eligible to vote.
3 of them are known to support a fascist and will vote, no matter what. They have religious figures reminding them and pressuring them to vote for the fascist and watch propaganda daily that maintains their outrage and support.
1 of them is a big supporter of the neolibs and will vote for them no matter what.
1 of them is a pragmatic leftist who grudgingly will vote for the neolibs because there is no other viable choice.
1 of them is undecided either because they don't think fascism is that bad, or think it won't impact them, or don't consider how it could impact people who are not as privileged as them, etc.
The other 4 are:
2 who are too filled with apathy to care about voting
1 who the fascists keep setting up artificial barriers for in order to prevent political engagement
1 who is thoroughly indoctrinated in the cult of anti-electoralism
That's 6/10 eligible voting (in line with the proportion of eligible voters that voted in 2024).
Further, historical data shows that when fewer people vote, the fascists win because of their dedication to their cause and authority figures coaxing them to do so. This data is readily available in terms that are easy to comprehend, even for those without technical or scientific education.
So, the breakdown is:
Fascism: 3
Neolibs: 2 or 3
Coin toss on whether the fascists win, because, of those deigning to engage in the electoral system, one of them is not convinced that opposing fascism is really that big of a deal.
What about third parties? They don't matter in this but because it is first-past-the-post and only a majority of participating voters is required.
But, the majority of polled people support left-of-center policies! Why are we forced to vote for neolibs?! Doesn't matter. 4 out of 10 eligible voters are going to vote in support of right-of-center ideologies. If more eligible voters voted, that wouldn't be an issue and the voice of the majority would be heard. But, between apathy, voter suppression, and the anti-electoralist/accelerationist cult, 40% are not voting. And that's still "good" compared to the last half-century.
So, there you go. Barely even scratching statistics and simple to digest as to why voters who refused to do their duty to oppose fascism share the responsibility with the neolibs.
That is literally how the mathematics of elections work, whether you wish to believe in reality or not.
Simplified: 3 > (1+1) but 3 < (1+1+1+1)
Questions?
It is vitally important, not just in elections but also in life overall, to recognize that not all possibilities are equally likely and to use available data to evaluate them.
For example, it is possible that a white rhinoceros might come down the hall and join me for a spot of tea and biscuits. I can, however, safely say that that is almost definitely not going to happen, based upon these data points:
Yes, this is a exaggerated caricature. However, data with even more clarity is available surrounding election outcomes. Betting on a possible outcome without any evidence to suggest that it is likely is foolish and betting on an outcome that one knows is unlikely, while increasing the likelihood of an outcome known to be harmful to vulnerable people is detestable.
So it seems like you fully understand the flaws of First past the post voting. Have you done anything to fix it? Are the democrats doing anything to fix it? Nows the time. Not during the election
Here, we have some agreement and common ground. Now is indeed a much better time to try for change than a general election. However, with fascists in power, free elections are likely to no longer occur for the foreseeable future. So, demanding resistance from elected officials and building community is vital to weathering this storm that was avoidable.
Now. I see that you have not responded to my request for what you have done, after my response to your accusatory question. Care to do so? Or are you just JAQing it?
Sounds like First-past-the-post voting doesn't properly represent the population. Let's try a new electoral system to fix this. The people of Alaska switched to Ranked Choice and they had a referendum last election to go back to FPTP voting, and they didn't want to.
Videos on alternative voting systems
First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)
Videos on alternative electoral systems we can try out.
STAR voting
Alternative vote
Ranked Choice voting
Range Voting
Single Transferable Vote
Mixed Member Proportional representation
I absolutely agree, though I know of at least one other place that tried it and had issues because nobody knew who the candidates were or what their positions were, but IIRC, there was some context to it that made it a "well, of course they had problems" situation instead of people just being too lazy to read up on the candidates (though that is a very real but solvable issue). Like there were 10 districts on the ballot with 6 open seats in each, and they had about 30 candidates per district or something crazy like that.