12
The Truth
(mander.xyz)
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 10 Oct 2025
12 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
9732 readers
2798 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If I'm clueless, by all means educate me.
I say I voted for genocide because if you are eligible to vote in the US, you voted for genocide as well. Yeah, you can tell yourself that abstaining your vote is not voting for genocide, but unfortunately that's just not true. All options in the the last US election were voting for genocide. The one choice you did get was what amount of genocide you were voting for, and the option of least genocide last election was voting left.
You can try to justify your action all you like. "If I don't vote, the Democratic party will have to change if they don't want to lose next time", "I didn't vote, which means I didn't explicitly sign off on genocide", etc. I've heard them all.
The Democratic party will not change, because the people in charge of it largely agree with what the Republicans are doing. The only way to get meaningful change from the Democratic party is to stack the deck of Presidential candidates with politicians that are wanting meaningful change. The way to do this is to vote in people that want meaningful change from the bottom up. And in the meantime, vote in the lesser of two evils to try and minimize the damage as much as possible before that happens.
Inaction is a form of action, and actions are defined by their outcomes. By not voting, the only meaningful outcome of your action was that more genocide is happening than if you voted left. Whatever other result you think is happening isn't.
Read Reform or Revolution. You're clueless but you don't need to stay so.
Okay, I read it. I agree with it all, and yes, perhaps the ability to change the Democratic party from the ground up is a bit fantastical. However, this does not contradict my main point, which is that by not voting, you voted for more genocide than by voting left. Even if you believe that, fundamentally, the only way to achieve change is by revolution, that doesn't contradict my point. Not voting is not a form of revolution. As is laid out by the pamphlet, Revolution needs to come from outside the system, but that doesn't mean you can just wash your hands from the consequences of your actions. Revolution doesn't happen over night. I think everyone should be doing what they can to contribute to a revolution, but not voting does not do that. As people try and organize a revolution outside of the system, they should still use the systems in place to prevent as much tragedy in the meantime as they have power to do so, and by pretending you can ignore the system, you are actively contributing to worse tragedy then by partaking.
You're going to have to make a real argument to defend your stance, calling me stupid and quoting an entire pamphlet isn't really proving what you are trying to argue.
This is such a bizzare dissonance that I don't know how I can help you.
You're happy to admit you voted for genocide, ostensibly read an essay about the contradictions of liberal electoral politics, but still come to the same conclusion that voting for a party in the US is important.
Only one of us voted for genocide. Stop lying to yourself.
You seem to be missing my point entirely, which leads me to believe you haven't thought out your own opinion on this fully. Also, you have yet to give any actual reason that would prove not voting is the best possible action, or that it doesn't directly result in more genocide than voting. If you aren't actually going to say anything in favor of your own argument, I must assume you are arguing in bad faith. Further, it appears your understanding of your reference is flawed.
Nowhere in the paper that you mentioned does it say that voting is pointless, just that it won't lead to meaningful systemic change. Which does suggest that this system does not work long term, and definitely needs to be dismantled. This is something I agrre with. However, in the short term your vote does in fact matter when it comes to the immediate future. By not voting, you directly contributed to genocide. By voting, I would have directly been contributing to genocide. Unfortunately, we are in a country where there are three actions to take, and all lead to genocide whether we want it to or not. I understand that it feels better for you to pretend that ignoring the system means you didn't pick a worse genocide than if you voted, and I understand that it sucks that we are forced into 3 choices that all result in varying levels of genocide. In the short term, immediate future, the best play is to vote for the least genocide. In the long term, it is worth trying to dismantle the system completely from outside the system itself. These are not mutually exclusive.
You're like a shitty little liberal LLM.
Stop writing essays and go organize for the Dems.
Yeah, I kinda figured this was where you were heading. You're either very misguided or a troll. I wanted to give you an opportunity to explain your stance without devolving into name calling or insults, but at every moment you could have explained yourself, you dodged every question. You had me read a paper that I read in good faith in hopes that it would explain your point of view, because for some reason you aren't willing to. However, the paper, while adjacent to the issue, didn't actually condone your decision at all, nor condemn mine. I honestly can't even tell if you yourself know what was written in that paper. It feels like I'm talking to someone who is parroting an opinion, not forming one for themselves.
I get that it's a hard pill to swallow, but from all ways I can find to look at it, your not voting directly supported genocide, worse than if you voted left. I get that you need to tell yourself that you are obstained from that guilt in order to sleep at night, but it doesn't change the impact of your actions.
At this point, considering your inability to engage in a proper discussion, I'm no longer writing for you but others who may want to continue this discussion. I really want to understand the reasons why people didn't vote, as I haven't heard a good explanation for it.
Let's be clear here, I am not a liberal. I didn't like any candidates from either side. I hate both sides of this system and want to see it dismantled. However, I can also see that, because I live in America and am eligible to vote, I have been forced into participating in a broken system, whether I want to or not. I don't happily claim that I voted for genocide as you appear to believe, I'm just not blind to the fact that there is no way to not vote for genocide in this system. Not voting is still an action within the system, as it directly results in a boost in favor of whatever party that opposes the party you would have voted for.
You just wrote a book on why we MUST do sham liberal electoral politics and advocated for voting for genocide. You're a capitalist, you're a liberal, and you're clueless.
Take your annoying trolley problem bullshit and hilariously vapid and vaccuous essays and go fuck yourself, liberal.
Voting for genocide is exactly who you are, and no words you can muster will spill blood on my hands. Only one of us voted to condemn Palestinians: you.
Still hurtling insults and dodging questions. It appears that's all you're capable of. Have you ever had an original thought? Say whatever you need to help you sleep at night mate
Capitalist. Liberal.
lol
Shouldn't you be campaigning for another genocidal candidate? How do you have time to drop "lol" when we need to get out and voooooooote?!
lol
Who will you vote for in 2028? Gavin? Pete? Which clown are you going to thrust in front of me and demand I vote for them? Kamala again?
LeSsEr eViL shit is still evil, genocide-boy.
You seem upset. I'm not trying to demand you do anything. In fact, I'd reckon we share the same views politically, in all cases except for vote/no vote. There are many people that hold the stance that not voting was the morally correct move to make. I have never seen someone defend that stance though, they all devolve into ragebaiting, just as you are now. I was really hoping I could hear why someone would obstain from voting, and the line of reasoning they used to come to the conclusion that it was morally the only correct option, because I wholeheartedly disagree, but am open to having my mind changed.
But you seem to be purposefully playing dense to be a troll. I would expect someone who holds such a strong opinion as yours would want to help bring people to an understanding of that strong opinion, but you don't seem to care about that at all. From what I can tell, you just want to point fingers and feel like you are above everyone else.
If you think for a split second that we "share views except for voting" you truly are out of your depth.
One of us is a socialist. The other is what we can only assume is a SocDem, otherwise known as a liberal, or as you've just recently learned, a capitalist. We believe in completely different things. The rich part is how you think you're on the left yet have zero understanding of where the line actually is.
Also, I know you read an LLM summary of Reform or Revolution. You're intellectually bankrupt and politically confused. And also completely owned. Are you going to revert back to dropping "lol" soon?
Do you notice that your responses ignore almost the entirety of mine? Do you notice that almost every single thing you've said thus far is an insult? Do you notice that you are creating a narrative of myself that doesn't line up with what I'm saying? Do you know how to structure an argument? Do you know how to explain your own opinion? I'd like to have a genuine discussion about your opinion, but you don't seem capable of that.
Also, I actually did read Reform or Revolution. I took a good hour and a half out of my day to do it. And I only responded "lol" when you lost your composure and started responding with zero substance. If you can't be bothered to hold your end of a conversation, even to the insanely low standards you have been thus far, why would I put any effort into a real response?
Are you a SocDem? Was I right?
No, you were not right. I'm a Socialist through and through. Nothing good can come from capitalism or a democratic republic. I just feel that I have a have a moral obligation to do what I can to save innocent lives, especially if all it takes is to swallow my pride and disdain for the game I am forced to play and check a box. As the very document you had me read suggests, I don't believe the system can be changed from within. The system needs to be dismantled from the outside. I feel like a broken record because I've already stated all of this.
A socialist who advocates entryism into US electoral politics is confused and probably not a socialist. You haven't even heard of Luxemburg's essay, a staple of early reading lists. Have you consumed any socialist theory, not through an LLM? What in your head makes you a socialist in the same breath you, in your own words, vote for genocide of the Palestinian people?
Is it Gavin? Kamala? Who's next? You're a Westerner roleplaying as a leftist. You will never convince a leftist to sponsor a genocide like you have. It's not happening now, or ever. The idea that you see benefit in voting for a genocidal administration means you're so much farther right than you'll probably ever realize. Your harm reduction theory will go down in history as complicity.
Time for a "lol"?
You respond so angrily and accusatorily. Why would I reply with an lol if you are actually making an attempt at communication? Why do you assume I use LLMs? I have given zero indication that either of those beliefs would be true. You are showing yourself to be someone that comes up with a view that you don't change despite all signs pointing to it being wrong. Either you are a troll, or your preferred method of discussion is to speak loudly with fingers in your ears.
I've read plenty of socialist theory, but I have never gone through a socialist reading list. Plenty of derivative works cover the same stuff as that pamphlet.
And again, you seem to be purposefully ignoring my point, likely because you've already decided what you think I believe, and are unwilling to change that view despite me telling you you are wrong.
I don't advocate for any candidates on either side. There is no candidate that I back. If I could start the revolution myself tomorrow, I would. But I can't. No one can. The way I see it, the revolution won't come due to who you do or do not vote for. If you disagree, explain why. Tell me, what are you accomplishing by not voting? That's what I've been asking since the very beginning, and yet you, for some reason, choose to continue being uncouth and not actually engaging in this conversation.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with refusing to sponsor genocide, and everything wrong with the opposite.
You are a confused SocDem who readily admits to intentionally voting for genocide. To not antagonize you would be a failure of ethics.
I just want to understand your stance. What are you accomplishing by not voting?
What did you accomplish by voting? You sold your soul for a game you didn't even win. It's no wonder you're so agitated by my ethics.
You seem to think I'm upset. I've been enjoiying our chat. I've been on the internet long enough to not let some random troll get on my nerves. I'm just genuinely curious in what logic lead you to your decision. Now, I've already said what I accomplished by voting. But you should know that, as you have presumably been reading my responses. If you aren't going to answer my question in your next response, I'm going to have to call it here. I'm patient, but my enjoyment of this conversation was from the pretense that you would eventually stop your seething and barking and actually open up on your thoughts around voting. From your current behaviour, I'm disappointed to say I can't see that happening. I'll just have to find someone else with your same stance that is actually up for a discussion.
I will never, for even a second, back down from liberals. Your ideology is shameful, and you know that because you're trying to pass yourself off as a socialist.
You sponsor genocide and try to justify it in bad faith. You got called out and dismantled and all you have left is "muh civility". And now you've run out of steam.
Is it Gavin?
So just to be clear, the reason you didn't vote is that you won't back down to liberals? Sounds a lot like "owning the libs, " which is the reason I see a lot for why people voted for Trump. I mean, it's finally a reason I guess. Thank you for sharing.
Earlier you referenced the trolley problem. In the standard trolley problem setup, do you think that the morally correct move is to not touch the lever?
I don't argue in bad faith. I'm not being malicious or dishonest. I genuinely feel that, as folks who are voting-eligible in the US, we are in a form of the trolley problem. I don't know how it could be seen any other way.
As for being called out and dismantled, you haven't even contested my decision besides saying it's wrong. That's not an argument. I want to see some logic behind why you condemn a choice, and logic as to why your choice is better. If it's because voting leads to genocide, I want to hear your explanation on why not voting doesn't lead to genocide. Considering that, by your own admission, you make voting decisions based around "not backing down to liberals", maybe you really don't hold that opinion with any logic to back it.
For a scoialist, you are very focused on specific candidates. I'm not going to tell you who to vote for, I don't think of things in that way. When it comes time to vote, I suggest voting for whoever you personally think will lead to the most harm reduction, as it's the only good option I see us having. Expecting more from the system is putting more faith into capitalism than it deserves. Last presidential election, I felt that was Kamala, and honestly not by much, but I'd genuinely like to hear why you may have thought that not voting would be the least harmful option.
I thought you were done? Can't help yourself, eh? Now you're asking me trolley problem shit and talking about harm reduction.
Sheesh. Totally and thoroughly cooked. You're metaphorically short circuiting like all liberals do when pressed on Gaza.
You act as though I've contradicted myself. You answered my question, so I continued the conversation. If you hadn't, I wouldn't have. I asked a follow up question, hoping you'd answer that one, too. Like last time, if you don't answer it, I'll have to call it here.
In 2028, are you going to ask me to vote for Mayor Pete? Lmao.
Edit: Dunked