735
me_irl (lemmy.radio)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] chunes@lemmy.world 1 points 36 minutes ago

Anyone can make a cool-sounding quip. One I've heard a lot is "If voting could change anything, they wouldn't let us do it."

The Hungarian flag might be a better choice here instead of the US flag.

[-] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

I love how the same people who say voting is pointless because both sides are bad are the same people who complain about people saying both sides are bad.

[-] MyVeryRealName@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

karmawhores

[-] Smaile@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

fundamentally misunderstands why people don't vote before all of this, dems also suck and also bleed the country dry and get up to under handed behavior as well without punishing offenders. only dif is that they're not actively attacking people. a cold comfort in reality, i would suggest to those people moving to a dif country if they can tho. nothing for them in the states or any place in a similar situation since even if they win they'll be right back where they started before with a bigger bill.

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 9 points 7 hours ago
[-] 7101334@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago

To anyone who doesn't read the link, they gave the most likely candidate to actually beat the corporate-owned Democrats 10 minutes to support updated paperwork, and disqualified him when he didn't respond within 10 minutes.

Now Bacerra is virtually guaranteed to be governor. He is, to no one's surprise, owned by corporations. He allegedly said "what Israel did is not within international norms and it should not be part of the community of nations", but being a corporate-owned Democrat, I'd be surprised if he actually does... anything at all to facilitate Pissrael's expulsion from civilization.

[-] BehavioralClam@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago

They try hard to stop people from the groups they know don't support them, because that makes the cost of fraud more, as the competition will have an easier time doing it themselves.

[-] Smaile@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

yup, only reason they do it is because its a bigger pain in the ass later to rewrite for the history books if they don't manage decent.

[-] cheffrey@lemmy.zip 24 points 10 hours ago

We’re obligated to use every tool at our disposal in the fight. No one tool will fix everything.

Voting is one of our many tools

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 10 hours ago

We’re obligated to use every tool at our disposal in the fight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_boycott

Voting is one of our many tools

You need someone to vote for.

[-] Ashelyn 1 points 51 minutes ago

Election boycotts require a mass movement to work, not just general disenfranchisement and non participation. Catalonia comes to mind, as controversial as that was by the "just vote" crowd when the referendums were making headlines. I can't think of many places in the US where that sort of coordinated non-participation is even floated as an idea in the public consciousness. If you have any examples I'd be interested to hear though

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 37 minutes ago

Election boycotts require a mass movement to work

Absolutely. And that's what we saw during the '24 primary in Michigan. Tens of thousands of spoiled ballots from residents disgusted with the Gaza Genocide.

[-] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 6 points 4 hours ago

You need someone to vote for.

Easy. I will vote for the person who will do the least harm to my country as it is a fact that someone will be elected.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

vote for the person who will do the least harm

Republicans say they're doing this every election cycle.

Democrats say they're doing this every election cycle.

It does not appear to be a working strategy, when your "least harm" candidates are all dictated by their advertising budgets and national media relationships

[-] Lileath 1 points 2 hours ago

Who would you vote for in an election between Mussolini and Franco? Because that is where your country is headed

[-] ShadyGrove@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

ah yes, because there are only two candidates on every ballot.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] mathemachristian 3 points 7 hours ago
[-] binux@sh.itjust.works 18 points 11 hours ago
[-] Lumisal@lemmy.world 5 points 9 hours ago

Fun fact: North Korea and Russia also do voting.

Clearly then there's a chance for things to change in those countries via voting, according to this meme!

[-] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

You didn't understand the meme.

[-] rumba@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 hours ago

I see a lot less trying and a lot more doing....

[-] arcine@jlai.lu 10 points 11 hours ago

Voting is useful. But it is not enough.

[-] PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 14 hours ago

I find many anarchists are against electoralism but still vote because they recognize it's easy and can make a tiny difference. They just focue their efforts on direct action rather than electoral politics. The ones who say "don't vote" are idiots

[-] Azrael@reddthat.com 5 points 9 hours ago

Anarchism isn't strictly about being against electoralism. It's more about the justification of power.

If a hierarchical system can't morally justify why some should command and others should obey then it should be dismantled.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Azrael@reddthat.com 2 points 9 hours ago

Why is the dog wearing an anarchism T shirt? That it not what anarchism is at all.

[-] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Maybe. That is, though, what people who wear anarchism t-shirts are.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2026
735 points (100.0% liked)

me_irl

7765 readers
2551 users here now

All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS