yeah I'm forever voting blue no matter who. The republican candidate will always be a fascist. It will never end with Trump. It's going to be fascist vs not fascist blue vote and I will eat whatever shit the blue vote shits out. More cops? I'm all for it, not a fascist dictator. Support Israel? Fine with me, not a fascist dictator. It sucks but that's just America now for the next thousand or so years, fascism or something else. Better hope the something else isn't closer to fascism than before or else you're fucked.
It is less than five months to the election. Please provide us with an alternative. Happy to hear you out. If you don’t have one then cool, no harm no foul and I’ll be voting Biden in November.
And 5 month ago it was double that time and people already screamed that pointing out that an alternative to two genocidal geriatrics is needed were screamed down as being Trump puppets.
We already wasted half of that time to find a solution with people being vigorously opposed to demanding a solution as they are afraid to lose the status quo.
Declare to the Dems "I'll only vote you, if you stop genocide, internment camps and start taxing the rich properly." Then follow through with it. Already saying you dont want to follow through with it is telling them, that they dont need to listen to you. This is the only language they understand. Ideally look into organizing for a third party, so the Dems can be overtaken by a better third party which can take their place in the political system. The DNC has proven time and time again that they will be authoritarian and undemocratic to ensure no actually progressive candidate to make it into their leadership.
I hate Biden, and I do think that voting isn't going to solve our problems, but do you really think that NOT voting is going to solve our problems? Democrats know that they're always going to me more left than the Republicans, which will be enough for most people, and that very few people are going to try holding out for leftward change that could've been voted in during the primaries but wasn't.
What we need to do is vote for Biden to prevent Trump from destroying the country in 2 weeks flat, then actually force change. Voting works great when the system works, but it's been broken for a while - we need real action now, up to and including a revolution if need be.
All uprising means innocents killed. There were many innocents killed in the American revolution and every other revolution, yet most are celebrated, because we all understand that revolutions only happen because far too many innocents are already being killed, and at least this solution stops that eventually. Revolution as a whole is meant to be a horrifying last resort for people who are left no other choice.
People are not calling you a Trump puppet because you criticise Biden. People are arguing with you because you think not voting is a solution that Democrats are actually affected by.
By not voting, you just ensure the person you want the least to be in office wins (Trump). There's plenty of shills trying to discourage people from voting with that rhetoric. Republicans only win when dems don't show up.
I am not saying not to vote. I am saying not to vote Dems if the Dems dont stop the genocide. So vote third party or better yet pressure the Dems now to stop the genocide, so they can be voted for.
The last one is the best option. But it only works if they understand that you are serious about it and will not vote for them no matter what.
The political cycle is not 10 months long. Or 24. Or 48.
If you want change, you need to be involved in pushing over a large number of heavy objects over a long period of time. No one candidate, no one election, is going to change anything.
Because your damn country isn't "descending into fascism", it's been bathing in it for centuries, and every time there's someone trying to lift y'all kicking and screaming out of it just a little bit, the totalitarians crop up to try and self-destruct it all. Then, suddenly, a bunch of you come out of the woodwork to declare that it's better to blow it all up, actually, than to do literally anything to stop it, because you believe there should be a quick and easy solution, and everyone else around you is just an idiot for not seeing it.
But you only believe that because you're some kind of self-important, hubris-huffing sucker.
You know what is definitely not fixing it? Reassuring the Dems at every step that they will have your vote no matter what, as long as they are only slightly better than the Reps. Actually it is directly encouraging them to be at their possible worst.
Think of politicians as children and you as their parent. Do you think "reaffirm your child that no matter what it does, it will always get its favorite dessert" is a good parenting strategy? You raise egocentric psychopaths this way and this is exactly what you are getting as politicians.
If you have a dem that no longer aligns with your interests, you vote them out during the primary.
But then you show up during the general, hold your nose, and vote Democrat.
Want to know why?
Because the Republicans will vote Republican no matter what and we've unfortunately pushed our democracy to the point where we either vote for the somewhat okay guy or the guy that will bite your face off.
I wonder how many accelerationists around here are fascists/explodingheads users. Fascists don't fear the prospect of pretending to be something they aren't if it means furthering their agenda.
They're not afraid of posing as, say, a disenfranchised, discouraged and disillusioned left-winger who believes both sides are bad and there's no future except revolution.
They're not afraid to post about how "Genocide Joe" is funding genocide in Gaza while neglecting to point out how "Totalitarian Trump" would send B-52s to carpet bomb Gaza and the West Bank until nothing is left.
They're not afraid to point out how red states are still succeeding in trampling over LGBT rights under Biden while also ignoring how Trump would almost certainly push for that nation-wide.
They'll cry about our current supreme court justices while ignoring that Trump was the one who put those justices in power to begin with.
To be clear, I think the US is pretty far from saving and that it'll take a miracle to save this country from ruin. However, I'd rather see the country collapse slowly and in a relatively controlled manner that gives people time to prepare for its demise; while also giving people time to attempt to patch and fix the holes.
Revolution is high risk, high reward; if the left-wing wins, then you might get the socialist utopia you've always dreamed of. However, what if the right-wing wins? Yanno, the people with the majority of privately owned guns in the US. What if they win?
A Trump presidency means your leftist revolution against a fascist government will almost certainly be opposed by both rednecks and the US military.
However, if the fascists revolt during a Biden presidency, then the military will likely be backing you.
In the event of armed revolution, the president, whether it's Biden or Trump, will use the military to protect and reinforce their power. With Trump, opposition to his power will be coming from the left, so that's who the military will target. With Biden, the opposition will come from the right, and so the military will target them instead.
Of course, that doesn't mean you'll get the leftist utopia you've always dreamed, but at least you'll remove a lot of fascists from the equation. Removing those fascists means it'll be easier for the country to swing to the left and stay there. It won't happen overnight, but the result would likely be a government far more stable than if you tried to burn everything down and start over from scratch.
The reason why I say all this is because I feel that we are closing in on a revolution. Something is about to snap, and it will happen either during the elections or soon after. As such, you really, really don't want Trump, because Trump means you'll be fighting against the biggest, most well-funded and technologically equipped military in the world.
The air is tense and electric, filled with gasoline fumes and heated by our exhaust. The masses are shuffling to and from their workplaces, burned-out and overworked. They are struggling to afford rent, afford food, afford sleep and water. Static electricity is building on their shuffling bodies, and soon a spark will leap from an outstretched finger, igniting the air and bathing the US in fire.
Yeah, I'll admit that I'm pretty jaded and cynical when it comes to politics and the future of humanity. I'm not all that old either, but I'm old enough to remember how it seemed like life was getting better until Trump took office, and how much the US tumbled as a result.
I'm old enough to remember when being left or right wing was a debate and not a fight between competing "truths"; and how the US left and right wing were sometimes willing to compromise on issues instead of fighting a culture war where they try and see how badly they can fuck up the US and still successfully blame the other party.
I'm old enough to remember when people typically trusted the news and science; and conspiracy theorists were amusing nutjobs at best, harmless annoyances at worst.
I'm old enough to remember when the idea of a Christian theocracy in the US was considered insane by anyone except the most extreme conservatives; while militias were something only domestic terrorists and the most extreme political radicals supported.
And I'm honestly, not that old. I just... I've watched the downward spiral and it seems like no one in power actually wants to stop it, which is why I've become so jaded and cynical. It's why I think revolution is coming, and I'm just hoping that the political ideology I'm aligned with won't be forced into fighting a losing war against the US military.
That's why I think people should support Biden. No, he's not a good person, and I don't think he honestly has the best interests of America and the rest of the world in mind. Sure, he's tried to do some good things like (unsuccessfully) forgiving student loans multiple times and showing support for America's unions, however he's still enabling Israel's genocide and he's still beholden to the corporations that fund his party (which means he'll avoid real changes whenever possible). Yet, if Biden gets elected and the American right-wing revolts (I'm convinced they'll try), then the US military will be fighting them, not us. If Trump gets elected then there may not even be a chance for revolution before cops start kicking people's doors down.
Anyone that wants to accelerate things has never lived in the kind of world that they're advocating for.
I had a teacher in school that was a Bosnian Muslim during the genocide of the Balkan wars. She, her older brother, and her mom made it out. I never heard her talk about her dad, so I don't think that he did. She and her older brother would practice their drawing by the light of burning tires. The eventually escaped to England, and then got asylum in the US.
I would agree with you, but who's working on fixing things? It's looking close this time, and the historical pattern is that the Presidency flips parties when an incumbent can't run. What's the plan so we can ensure that a GQP authoritarian doesn't win in 2028? This was the talking point in 2020, and very little happened; Biden's AG even waited almost 3 years to appoint a special counsel, only after being buffaloed into it by the House January 6th committee, virtually ensuring that there trial will be delayed until after the election. And there's still no action whatsoever to hold Bush administration officials accountable.
I've asked the question "what's the plan to stop fascism in 2028?" several times now, with no other response, so I guess the answer is, "pull off a communist revolution in just 4 years."
Yes, by all means, exercise your right to vote as you see fit. But if the only way we can avoid fascism is by never losing an election, shouldn't we be seeking better ideas and stronger protections from fascism now before that plan fails?
If you don't vote you're not a part of the conversation. You obviously don't have any grasp on how the election process works anyways, so why are you even keyboard warrioring this at all?
I'm not saying that either. I told you to use your right how you see fit. It is not my place to tell you how to vote, nor is it my place to negatively pressure strangers into voting for my preference. I think everyone should vote. I'm also saying that promising votes to politicians regardless of their actions indicate that their actions won't hurt their chances.
I'm also saying that promising votes to politicians regardless of their actions indicate that their actions won't hurt their chances.
That's very true and likely going to lead to a very nasty future once this is thoroughly exploited. But I don't think that just "there should be something better" might help. Also, there might exist unsolvable problems, and if this is one of those we're in a very bad position, indeed
That's also part of my point. Voting will not get us out of this problem. We need to pressure politicians, we need to protest, we need to organize, and we need to implement more successful alternatives to the status quo. We will never avoid fascism if the only thing we do is vote. Right now the best way to pressure the better candidate is to make him believe, right up until election day, that he will lose.
You can't have it both ways. You might only be "pretending" to be withholding your vote but your "pretend" stops when all the people you've dissaffected don't show up.
Studies show that even in states that still do a plurality vote but encourage 3rd party voters see higher overall turnout and generally favor democratic candidates. The only ones disaffecting voters are the ones pushing the narrative of "a vote for x is a vote for y".
You have to choose your words more carefully. There's a lot of astroshitting all over the place. Should expect no less, if the primary races and 2016 and 2020 were any indication.
I agree "vote blue no matter who" is potentially dangerous. However at this current juncture, it really doesn't matter. Republicans can't be allowed to have control of another branch. They've shown their hand, and are pulling no punches. Straight up lies, exaggerations, and accusations fueling a culture war in a strategy to get to 270 with as little a popular vote as possible.
If we could win by more than the slimmest margins, there'd be a hell of a lot more room for division within the party.
Ideally the Dems would win so hard that the Republicans would be forced to change or go extinct. And ideally, the Republican party would lose so badly for so long that they cease to be relevant and the Dems split into two parties.
Why 48% of the country votes against this is mind boggling.
Paradoxically, people somehow think that voting for a third party will make the Dems change their platform n
Not sure how that's supposed to work. The more people that vote for a third party, the less people vote for the main party. That could make the result 48-47-5 with Trump still winning, and the Dems have no way to move the needle, because now they have no office. Or it could make it 28 third party, 30 Biden, and 42 Trump. Either way Trump wins.
Third party votes take votes away from the most aligned primary party and ultimately makes the outcome less desirable. The only way they can be effective is when the aligned party already has a very comfortable lead, and even then its risky.
I also think it's incredibly arrogant to think that a third party could come completely out of left field and score the highest office in the land while holding few (if any) state and local offices.
You don't understand how FPTP works. It is designed to penalize people for voting for a third party (because it will always devolve to two parties. They may occasionally change, but it starts at the bottom, not at the oval office).
This "lesser of two evils" is a consequence of that. No one candidate is going to be best aligned with the majority of people. When there are two candidates, one will be more aligned than the other.
When a third candidate enters, they have to be closer to one of the two, and attracts voters that were more closely aligned with the primary party candidate.
So if you've got a close FPTP race, you could easily take a race that would otherwise be 51/49, make it 47/49/4, and even though the majority of people were more closely aligned with Candidate A, because some of them went for C, candidate B won instead.
Therefore, it's foolish to abstain because you disagree with all candidates, because somebody is going to win no matter what. And it is foolish to vote for a third party, because they will not win, they will only detract from the closely aligned party, which in turn favors the less-aligned party.
Then you should know that to move things left, you need to vote more local progressives.
People don't start out going for the presidency (and they shouldn't, as the obvious recent mistake of a president shows).
Slowing down fascism provides opportunity for progressive politicians to make moves in the right direction, and take positions that are higher up the ladder.
Allowing a nose dive to fascism prevents the progressive folks from having an opportunity.
In short - yes, slowing it down is good enough at the presidential level.
I do know that. You seem like you're pretty in tune as well, so you should be aware that being permissive and/or welcoming of 3rd party presidential candidates generally favor democrats at the state and local level.
And it depends on the main candidates as well. What we have now is "strong" words against genocide while continuing, or fascist genocide. The third party candidate (RFKJr) is an anti-vax, conspiracy theorist, covid-19 denying, whacko with name recognition for a while host of democrats, and was one until. He's a spoiler candidate. Voting 3rd party in this election is, imo, dangerous.
I'm not sure what mutual respect you're referencing. If it's the kind you've been putting forth then I'm right there with you, and you have nothing to complain about.
If you're just saying "no fair!" then too bad, there no fairness in life. That's reality.
By mutual respect I mean not assuming ill will when a new person enters a discussion. I've voted in every single presidential, state, local, municipal, and union election since I turned 18 in 2014.
Yes we should definitely be looking at longer-term, better solutions. However, the election is in less than five months. So please propose a solution or stop naysaying without any alternative.
Do you acknowledge that you're voting for a coin toss between a slower descent or a faster descent into fascism? Averaging out to you being in favor of an even faster descent into fascism than the person you replied to?
Yes but not voting for that candidate is effectively just like voting for the other even worse guy.
I mean we both know that Biden ain't great, but Trump? Trump is far fuckXng worse! Don't like the genocide ? Biden is wayyyyyy more likely to sign a ceasefire than Trump. Want Trans Rights? Biden doesn't care, Trump wants to remove them. I'd rather have Biden's apathy than Trump's hate.
You know what would force Biden to provide actually decent politics? If people demanded them and withhold their vote otherwise. And you know who would rather want Trump to win, than provide adequate protection of human rights, including Trans rights? Joe Biden, the guy you want to vote for. The DNC and him are laughing their asses off together with the Reps that no matter what, you will keep letting them get away with it.
The one risking Trump to win again is Biden. And he does so because he doesnt give a fuck about protecting you or anybody else. If you remove yourself from the power of punishing a politician and will always reward him no matter what, you are removing your own democratic power. It is not about "owning" Biden. It is about taking your power and sovereignity, that you are supposed to have in a Democracy. By giving them the blanket check, you are surrendering yourself to them and encourage them to do their worst. And make no mistake. The Dems will start cracking down on LGBT people if they think that to be necessary to gain votes in some states.
Well what are you going to do about it?! As far as I know there is nothing you could do to change that before November.
If you vote for Biden now you get 4 more years where you're free to protest as much as you want, because contrary to Trump, Biden is likely to be receptive to your protests. We are not powerless.
And even if we were, what would happen? You don't vote for Biden -> Trump wins -> the whole country shifts even more into conservative ideologies -> you don't vote democrat again -> same thing but worse.
you are removing your own democratic power
Ok I see your point but not voting is like not even using that power and if you read my previous point you can see how your democratic power will go even lower if you don't do anything.
There is other parties on the ballot too. Definetely people should be voting, but they shouldnt vote Dems if the Dems continue genocide. Imagine there is 20% Green vote all of a sudden. Then Dems will be scared shitless and know that they have to work to win back those voters because the next election it might be that the "two parties" will be Green and Reps instead.
But better yet apply the pressure now and go demonstrate, talk to your representatives, take union action against the genocide...
You're just an accelerationist. Fatalism, nihilism, apathy, hopeless, etc aren't anything new, most of us disagree with you. I wonder if your outlook would improve if you got therapy or if you had a little skin in the game and stood to lose something.
The little bit you have actually said has indicated that and you have done absolutely nothing to refute it so my advice is that sarcasm only works when the targeted recipient of it has been shown you would only say it sarcastically.
Why not? You're claiming they're operating on a principle of trying to accelerate collapse, and that Trump is the candidate to do that. But this is completely inconsistent with what the person is saying they'll do. It doesn't explain their behavior.
Who says they aren’t?
So we're just making things up whole cloth about people now?
It's cute of you to step in to defend your alt account, but you can't be serious.
They're an accelerationist, for whatever reason, they want collapse. The quicker it happens the better, they admitted as much above.
You're supposing that Trump is the candidate to do that, I think most of lemmy would agree with you so I'll cede that point.
That point ceded, we can agree most of lemmy won't vote for Trump right? So what would be the point of talking about voting Trump here? It's far more effective for the accelerationist (who likely isn't conservative anyway) to be a "leftist" who's so disgusted with how corrupt and unfair the system is they simply just check out and encourage others to check out as well, "both sides are the same" of course.
So we're just making things up whole cloth about people now?
We're inferring things, it's quite a bit different comrade.
In a democratic political party you can influence the politics democratically. In a fascist party: Not possible.
The country does not need to hit rock bottom before it can improve. It can be changed democratically from within if you allow it to by voting for anything but the party that will take away that possibility.
I don’t understand this logic when we saw the influence sanders had on liberal US politics without even being elected president. The party looks completely different from 10-15 years ago. We can move the needle.
Of course it’s not enough. I doubt it ever will be. But it sure does change and I have seen the results first hand. We all have.
You need to go take a civics class and stop trying to suppress the leftwing vote. Do you expect anyone to sit down and explain to you how campaigning for issues works? Do you expect us to list every decent win "the left" has gotten the last 5-10 years?
What have you gotten accomplished? What have you even participated in?
Just because you sit in a basement unplugged from reality, doomscrolling, doesn't mean the rest of should sit here and take advice from you. You admit you just want fascism faster.
Bad-faith, accelerationist, useful idiot. If it weren't so cliche I'd call you Vlad.
That was a lot of words to not even attempt to answer a very simple question
Bad-faith, accelerationist
I like the self awareness displayed by calling me bad faith and then immediately reiterating the thing you just made up about me and decided was true based on what seems to be a deliberately bad interpretation of my original comment.
So what do you suppose we do? Start a revolution against the biggest military on earth? I believe America needs to stop having a two party system, this way there is more chance someone like Bernie gets elected. But alas who will vote for them...
I already said this somewhere else but please vote, not voting for Biden is essentially like voting for Trump. And once Biden is in you can be as mad as you want against him, protest and shit, because Biden might actually listen, Trump would never.
No, it's not "essentially like voting for Trump". It's voting for the person you voted for. What is the fundamental difference between voting for Biden and voting for a different candidate in the event of a Trump victory? There is none. Do not shame the voters. Shame the politicians into acting in a way deserving of leadership.
So what if voting blue will end up with innocent people dying? Their sacrifice for my freedom will not go without honor. I will enshrine their lives with a statue commemorating their bravery in the fight for my freedom. The lives of innocent trans people, black people, and Palestinian children is a steep cost but it's one I'm willing to spend for me to go to Starbucks and get a latte for $9. Who's to say my life is worth more than theirs? Well Joe Biden made that determination for us, so I believe that's right! I'm glad it's a bunch of random black and brown people getting blown to bits for my right to vote, not me!
If the Dems keep winning the Republicans will have to slide left. It happened in the UK with Labour (unfortunately in the opposite direction).
When that happens, and Trump is not literally attempting to end democracy using project 2025, the plan of strong-arming the dem candidate into being more left is plenty feasible, and the risks are less dire.
It happened in the UK with Labour (unfortunately in the opposite direction)
This happened after Labour's entrenched power groups vigorously sabotaged Corbyn. Corbyn committed a somewhat serious blunder during Brexit, but he still had Labour well in the direction of defeating the Tories, and that might have happened earlier if his most spiteful opponents hadn't been inside his own party.
Ah yes, that time several years ago when the dems won last election, the republicans responded by "sliding left". When the dems win 2024 the republicans will also be very civilized and non violent and slide even further left. Non-whites and LGBT people everywhere in America will be safer the night Joe Biden is elected than the night before, you heard it here from HauntedCupcake first!
You mostly don't see it because they win inconsistently by a narrow margin. It would totally happen if the republicans weren't so popular and the Dems kept winning. Hence the hypothetical.
The main issue is convincing the populace, but my point is more that the US has a way out of fascism, the public just need to recognise and want it
Thats not going to happen. The small handful of swing states will dictate a pattern of both parties steadily and we'll just keep going lower. Im sorry but there's zero chance the US doesn't elect enough republicans for them to be forced to change policy. They're making gains.
whichever side we support stands a chance of winning. They aint gonna compete in a game of skill in November, they're gonna ask us who wins and we decide.
Yes, "we", consisting of statistically significant factions of the voting population. Campaigns take time and money, neither of which any candidates besides the two front-runners have enough of to be competitive. They're not gonna ask you who wins, you don't decide. I don't see 70 million Americans shifting to anyone else at this stage.
Is it a paradox to say that driving in circles around a roundabout is pointless because it doesn't get you anywhere, but driving along the route to a destination does? Driving is driving, does it work or not? Paradox! Smearing food on your belly doesn't satisfy your hunger, but eating it does. Does food satisfy hunger or not? Paradox!
If we had approval or ranked choice voting, voting third party would accomplish something. Since we have First Past the Past elections, voting third party is as effective as smearing food on your belly or circling a roundabout for hours.
Its pretty irritating everytime someone brings up ranked choice voting. They know its a good thing, they want it to happen. But its getting brought up to try and criticize my choice of candidate. You want ranked choice voting? You know who supports ranked choice voting in their election platform? My candidate! I am well aware of how shit FPTP voting is, Im not the one promoting it.
I'm not promoting it either, that doesn't change the fact that it is what we use. Voting for a candidate that supports RCV doesn't basically mean that the election you voted for them in becomes retroactively RCV, you act based on what the system is, not what it should be.
That's not how the system works. All voting third party does is equivocate approval for the two front runners. Do you approve of the insurrectionist fascist and the neo-liberal equally? Are they exactly the same to you? Do you think they are equally supportive of election reform?
The fascists with minority support only have power because kids who don't understand the electoral system either abstain from voting, or vote third party. If everyone held their nose and showed up to vote lesser evil, the Republican party would wither away into being a third party themselves and a progressive party could actually gain footing.
Your candidate doesn't stand a chance precisely because people like you keep pretending the system works differently.
If everyone held their nose and showed up to vote lesser evil, the Republican party would wither away into being a third party themselves and a progressive party could actually gain footing.
Hows that goin for ya? Making any progress in the decades you've been trying that for? 'If everyone just did this', yeah? How about if everyone just voted for the candidate that supports ranked choice? Just get everyone to do X.
Pretty well actually, considering the glacial pace inherent to changing a political landscape. It's made it onto the ballot in several states, and is used several local and state-wide elections here and there. The Fair Representation Act has been brought to th the floor in 2017, 2019, 2021, and again this year but it hasn't been voted on yet.
How about if everyone just voted for the candidate that supports ranked choice?
How's that going for ya? Elected a third party candidate to the presidency yet?
so Im looking into states that have implemented this, to see if electing democrats had anything to do with it. Looking at Alaska and Maine at least, democrats had nothing to do with it, they were citizen initiatives brought to election referendum, neither democrats or republican representatives introduced or voted on it. Notably, the Alaska state legislature has more republican members than democrats.
How’s that going for ya? Elected a third party candidate to the presidency yet?
I think you missed my point of us being in the same boat. You're not likely to get enough people to vote for people they dont like to crowd out republicans in Washington, and Im not likely to get enough people to vote for people they would otherwise love with a D or R by their name.
The Fair Representation Act has been sponsored by a Democrat every time.
It's orders of magnitude more probable to get the slim minority you're talking about to align D than it is to get the overwhelming majority I'm talking about to rally behind the same third party candidate. It's not even worth comparing, the concept is laughable at best. To even hint at that happening this election is bordering on clinical levels of delusion.
If you want to campaign for your candidate next cycle, be my guest. Start early, organize, fundraise and get the message out. Next cycle. This cycle, you're dividing the anti-Project-2025 voting bloc. This cycle, you run the very real risk of ensuring there is no next cycle. Remember that.
Yes, a democrat, with single digit cosponsors out of hundreds of democrats in a democrat controlled house the last time it was brought up. If the democratic party wanted ranked choice voting, we would have ranked choice voting now. the democrat controlled house didnt even bring it up for a vote. That's the thing, it's republicans=conservative and democrats=progressive for you, but a large number of democrats are conservative to me. I dont think a fully democrat controlled congress passes ranked choice voting. I dont think they pass lobbying reform. Hell there are democrats that still vote against minimum wage increases. I dont think a fully democrat controlled government looks much different from the one today.
What's gonna be different next cycle? You think Trump's going away? You'll be right here again in 2028 telling me democracy is at stake if I dont vote for your choice.
Don't forget that it's not ok to vote for your candidate because they don't already have enough support, therefore there's no way to ever reach the threshold where it'll be ok to vote for them.
It's only ok to vote for the neolibs that the billionaires approve after a promise that nothing's really going to change.
Even in a state that's so blue the Dems have no chance of losing, voting for or writing in someone left of the incumbent will still be deemed a vote for the red team.
Exactly this. If you don't want me to quit without notice, do you also vote against politicians who vote for "right-to-work" legislation?
Yeah, you don't get to write a fucking law that says you can fire me on the spot for any reason at all and then insist that I give you two weeks.
Besides, these days it's a different world - there's a labor shortage. A serious one. Warm body? You're hired. Nobody gives a fuck. They can't afford to. Especially in minimum wage.
Relatedly, my conspiracy theory is that the spate of recent layoffs are coordinated pushback against all the strikes and unionizing as well as pushback against RTO etc. Just a wild idea I had... May be total horseshit, idk.
On the other hand, we have seen collusion in the past within some sectors (e.g., price fixing, no poach agreements, wage fixing), and antitrust violations often go unpunished or weakly penalized, corporate leadership is strongly driven by profit often to the exclusion of ethics and at the expense of all else. And employee compensation is a significant part of most company budgets. So, I think my wild idea is at least somewhat plausible.
It's my fault. I finally got so fed up with blue collar stuff that I decided to start getting into the tech field, then pretty much immediately it all collapsed. Sorry for trying lol
As someone from IT, there isn't really a shortage. There are literal crowds of quite advanced developers searching for jobs. The only problem is that they don't have commercial experience and all companies only want seniors/teamleads/cto's with 10+ years of experience, to do at best middle-level developer's jobs. The shortage is artificial, but, I'm not complaining, as it's the only reason I get paid decent wage.
That’s not a wild conspiracy, that’s just how capitalism works? There is always collusion between capitalists to suppress labour power. Like we have repeated historical exemples of this. And yeah, through the same historical examples, get ready for the rise of fascism lol
I think the layoffs in IT are directly related to AI. I'm in IT and I have been for decades. With AI I can easily say my output has quadrupled. Maybe even more. But when everybody in your workforce can do the work of five people, you can wake up one day and realize your company is overwhelmed with redundancy.
This isn't going to remain limited to just IT and no, it's not just like the Industrial Revolution.
With my current workload I've found extremely limited opportunities for AI to help at all, but I'm certain that'll vary wildy by the individual job duties that fall onto a role
IT as a whole isn’t having a problem, just the developer segment of IT is getting canned because 7/10 people who went into “IT” in the past 20 years got pulled into development work and now there’s too many. IT is a huge sector, development is just a part of it, a part everyone went into because Silicon Valley was paying a ton of $ but not guaranteed stability
For the shoplifting thing, it depends which store it is. Big chain grocery store? Yeah, I couldn't care less what someone takes. Small single owner shop? Fuck you for stealing from that guy. Those stores struggle enough just trying to compete with the Walmarts of the world.
Wal mart is still the one and only store I used to steal from back in 90’s. Had to wear umbro shorts since they had that webbing in them and then grab a few CDs and beads to make necklaces that I would sell. By the time I got to high school I was over the shop lifting thing.
Most stores don't stop you. The security guards are just there for the police report and a description. That said, if you get recognized coming back to the same store, they will call the cops.
When the food is multiple grocery bags full of steaks I'm a little less inclined to a charitable view.
That said, I'm still not going to do anything about it. Intervening on the behalf of a grocery store is insane, even if I were opposed to what's happening. Not my monkeys, not my circus.
I think the real division on the "left" can be boiled down to those using all the language and rhetoric of left wing ideology but in service of fascist and conservative ideas.
For example, tankies or people who have been brainwashed by tankies; a person can spend all day talking about how they support Palestine and BLM and LGBT rights etc. but then turn around and defend the CCP, which completely undermines any claim that they're actually on the left/center.
So in that way it's less of a "progressives never agree" and more of a "anti-progressive ideas are constantly pushed into progressive spaces to undermine them."
God that show has aged him haha (or I'm just getting old and that show's been on way longer than I perceive.......yep I'm going with that first thing I said. :P)
Isn't that the point of the meme? Leftists can share 94% of views, but if they disagree on one thing they are treated as the worst enemy, rather than the people who share 0% of the same views.
Correct, if those differences are irreconcilable. I can ally with lefties that want slightly different things, but "America is evil therefore Stalin wasn't that bad" is not someone grounded in reality.
Don't take this as Stalin defending, but if you are trying to accomplish movements to the Left and both Person A and Person B want Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, and Person C wants literal fascism, is Person B being a Stalin defender worth creating a 3 way battle when people who identify with C far outnumber A and B combined currently? That seems to go against what is strategically necessary in the US, at least.
I think it's more important to build a cohesive worker movement that's as large as possible before we move on to discussing Marxism vs Anarchism vs some other flavor of Leftism, at least in the US.
Person B want Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, and Person C wants literal fascism
Person B being a Stalin defender
They're the same picture /s
But seriously, the only reason Stalin's USSR wasn't "fascist" is because fascism is explicitly a right aligned ideology, but it was essentially fascist in practice. His whole thing was totalitarian rule and blaming enemies of the state for any shortcomings, which is just fascism with a coat of paint.
I'm not disagreeing with you here on whether or not the USSR is good or bad, that's not my point.
My point is that if both person A and person B want worker ownership and person C wants a dictatorship of Capitalism, then person A and B should ally, even if temporarily.
Let's say you and I align politically 99%. Our only point of contention is that I want to kill or jail you specifically. Are you going to ally with me and hope I change my mind later?
This is exaggerated to make a point, not a direct analogy.
Not necessarily, I'm saying your hypothetical lacks necessary information.
Presently, you've framed it in an Idealist manner, not a Materialist one. People's views aren't selected by a Random Number Generator in real life, they are the consequence of their Material Conditions. Matter creates thought, ideas do not create matter.
Looking at our hypothetical, you have a Leftist with the currently unexplained ideal that I personally should die for no reason. This doesn't make any practical sense, so we cannot apply this theory to practice.
In the case of this entire meme, there exists a divide, generally, between Marxists and Anarchists. Using your example of a Stalin defender, which situation is more realistic?
A: A Leftist believes everything the US state department has levied against Stalin is true, he killed 200 million people and murdered puppies, and believes that this is good, actually, and we should do more of it?
B: A Leftist believes nothing the US state department has said is true, and believes Stalin to be the second coming of Jesus Christ and Marx himself, and believes this to be a good thing?
Neither are realistic, but A makes far less internal sense, and cannot be reasoned with, as mass cruelty is the point. Person B, however, could be misled and instead worked with. Person B has good intentions with a faulty understanding, person A has bad intentions with a faulty understanding.
Do you see my point? Without knowing the origin of views, how can we hope to address them and how to deal with them?
Ostensible leftist that knows what horrific things Stalin did, but thinks they weren't that bad or even good, somehow. It's even more detached from reality than example A. Spend some time on lemmygrad and you'll see what I'm talking about.
That didn't really answer my question, did it? Do you agree that the why of views matters in many ways more than the views themselves when it comes to seeing if someone can be swayed or not?
If we both share the common goal of dismantling Capitalism in the short term, and your intentions come from a place that can be reasoned with, I would ally with you, rather than endanger the leftist movement overall and risk fascism.
I'm glad we reached an understanding here. Where leftists/progressives differ from your viewpoint is that we generally believe tankies cannot be allied with prior to changing their views. Authoritarian governments taking power just about always purge political dissidents. Since progressives are anti-authoritarian, that means them. Allying with authoritarians and hoping to convince them to not be authoritarian before taking power is a losing prospect.
Again, spend some time on lemmygrad and maybe give some gentle pushback on their beliefs and see what happens.
actually, "Jupiter" would not exist as a concept if not for someone raised without it inventing it in the first place.
People are influenced by their environment for sure, but not only is the environment influenced by the people too, there are also myriad other determining factors at play.
but just as matter shapes humans, humans reshape matter, which reshape humans who repeat the process.
You're FAR too fixated on matter. How old are you again? Did you recently read philosophy for the first time and it just so happened to be of a materialist nature? Because you're very much giving off that "child repeating things they don't understand" vibe.
That's the driving force of history.
Nope. It's MUCH more varied and complex than just people interacting with matter.
It's absurd to think that ideas change matter without material changes.
Not anymore absurd than your extreme oversimplification of the concepts of knowledge and opinion.
IDEAS change depending on how you perceive them. Matter isn't always involved at all. Not everything is arranged in neat rows to fit your silly pet theory.
Nope, sure doesn't. It also doesn't mean that the metaphysical is the origin of that which shapes ideas. There are no ghosts out there giving you ideas.
^ It's like my best friend from High School who disowned me. We were always on opposite ends of the political spectrum but always met in the middle at "everything is fucked and rigged." Of COURSE he was a capitalist conservative, his Dad owned a successful construction company, but we still saw the same flaws in the system and respected/saw what the other was saying on whatever issue we discussed.
I won't say he didn't work hard or anything, he did go to college (paid for though, of course) and work a real job in his business/bookkeeping field for a while. But sure enough after a few years with his family resources and connections he started a real estate business and now I'm a filthy commie even for just utilizing VA health care (which isn't a "freebie," but a part of the agreement when you join.)
My point is, we were able to find middle ground and agree on certain things, until his privileged position allowed him to "win." Then, all of a sudden, the system is perfect and I'm just a loser who wants winners to pay for losers and if I want healthcare (or whatever) I should just get off my ass and "win." Of course the system seems flawless and superior when you have all the material conditions to just waltz in with no struggle or strife.
((Lesser point, we were friends for like 20 years from age 14-15 and I still miss my friend))
Sure. But if you have to pick between a 3 way fight and a 2 way fight, it is easier to convince someone with 94% shared views while allying with them than it is to win a 3 way fight.
A united front is the only way to get Socialism in the US.
Yeah because it's historically been REALLY easy to get rid of authoritarian allies once a semblance of victory is achieved 🙄
Also, for a left libertarian (aka an anti-authoritarian leftist), the authoritarianism itself is a huge part of the problem.
Personally, I'm not a fan of people being murdered for trying to unionize like fascists would, but I'm also not a fan of people being murdered for NOT unionizing like stalinists would.
On the nose! Capitalism always devolves to authoritarian or fascistic systems when left to it's own devices. Broken by anticompetitive behavior. And Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism start there. Going from one to the other is a lateral move. Their benefits and faults are oddly similar. Despite how vehemently they despise each other. The authoritarian nature is the fault. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Those things people disgree on are entire political axioms, so yes it is much bigger than a meme. Tankies think strong men are a good thing, which should be antithetical to anyone with the faintest hint of actual big boy anarchy in their politics. Worshiping leaders OR positions is literally and directly antithetical to MUCH of the left.
OFC there will be infighting when most people don't even understand what the left stands for. IMO, we shouldn't even dignify tankies and other strong-men liking idiots with a label anywhere close to "left". They're just idiot fascists wearing a different coat to try and fit in.
I don't see many actual Tankies then, I guess. Most Marxists just want a Worker-State and explicitly reject "Great Man Theory." I agree that worshipping strong men is antithetical to the left, but I also see this in a very fringe minority, and at that point the meme no longer applies as there is far more than 6% divergence.
MAGA Communists and PatSocs are clowns, I agree, but I don't think they share a significant percentage of views with anyone on the Left, Marxist or Anarchist alike.
If you haven't met one, you must not have been around long. They're all over. People who will rail against the US, but extoll the virtues of the USSR or the CCP? The ones who aren't just open sycophants for strong men are often completely ignorant to leftist ideals, like a strong state that dictates all sorts of things to the populace is itself in any form antithetical to many leftist axioms.
Any "lefty" that cannot explain how ACAB applies to even good cops is a pretty terrible leftist, as a different example. It's not about reducing specific occurences. It's about designing systems that naturally resist the BS.
It's only "worshiping" in the extreme examples. The "Normie" examples are people that literally cannot imagine society without armed police while claiming worker's rights, as an example. If you're for workers' rights, you shouldn't be for a sanctioned force that constantly fights against both protesters and picketers alike. It's about a gross disconnect in ideals vs what someone pushes for.
Like someone who realizes executives make way too much money, but scoff at worker co-ops. Either for not going far enough to worker ownership, or for being some hippy idea that won't work. There are fake "leftists" of many types.
Yes, there are clowns all over, but you HAVE to realize there are many, many people running around who are only missing the clown makeup...
It's the difference between agreeing on a problem vs agreeing on a solution. It is a WORLD of difference.
Most Marxists just want a Worker-State and explicitly reject "Great Man Theory." I agree that worshipping strong men is antithetical to the left, but I also see this in a very fringe minority
A minimal state. Representative of the people/proletariat. Not a brutal mono party that tries to crush all dissent.
And if strong man worship is so fringe and antithetical to ML. Why has it been a defining feature of every system of governance based on it? Stalin, Mao or Xi today, Castro, Kim Il Sung. Fringe is supposed to imply it's not a core component of every single implementation and yet it is.
I think it's fair to say that Marxists agree with Marx, and so the best representation of Marx is Critique of the Gotha Programme. The state should be as minimal as can be based on the Material Conditions, ie a stronger state is necessary if you are constantly being attacked by Capitalist nations, and a weaker state is necessary if you aren't. I don't think people are advocating for a strong monoparty, but a unified front of Workers. At least, in my experience.
Stalin, Mao, Xi, Castro, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Lenin, Trotsky, Che, Sankara, Deng, whoever you want to pick, aren't so much worshipped as they are studied, for their mistakes and the good things they did. Some are obviously more mistake than others, some were a net negative, some were a net positive, what's important is to study what happened so we can learn from it.
Yes. External factors are one thing entirely. And completely unrelated to crushing dissent. Dissent is an internal thing. And if you automatically classify all the dissent as a product of external factors there by making it something to fight and crush. You may have just perfectly encapsulated the issues with your ideology.
Also while I agree capitalists are not really good friends. They used to be Allied with the Russians during World War II for example. It's almost like something happened post World War II that was actually the problem. And not just that capitalists must be fought everywhere. Do you know what that might have been? It's something China is currently dealing with and failing in their own way. And I'm not going to say that it's not hypocritical for many Western countries to criticize this considering what they've done. But just because a criticism is hypocritical doesn't mean it's not valid.
I never said I was against dissent. I'd be in favor of trying to rehabilitate fascists and Capitalists, sure, but open discussion of ideas is important. You calling it "issues with my ideology" is a bit silly.
I am not sure I understand where you are going with your second paragraph.
When internal dissent was mentioned you automatically jumped to externalizing it and fighting it. Not addressing it. You say that you're not against it. But you just said that you were against it.
You can play ignorant if you like. We aren't obligated to believe such poor acting however. You know exactly what I'm referring to. They forceful annexation of much of Eastern Europe post World War II including the dividing up of germany. And more contemporary. China's failure upon absorbing Hong kong. And saber a rattling regarding Taiwan.
I don't believe fascists or Capitalists should be allowed to violently attack people and attempt to gain power, that's silly.
As for expansionism, I am not sure why you are expecting me to defend that or apologize for it, I am not in control of the 20th century USSR or modern PRC.
I agree. That's not what I was talking about and you know that.
I didn't ask you to apologize. I was simply explaining why a lot of countries are against Russia China Etc. That they much like the capitalist countries have given plenty of reason for people not to like or trust them. Which in many ways does a tie back directly to their mistreatment of their own citizens. Capitalists are no more anyone's friend than ML are.
It's almost like you're engaging in bad faith. Which if I had to go by our history of interactions I would say is the most likely explanation.
So if we both know what I am advocating for, and what most people are advocating for, then why are you trying to pretend I agree with punishing dissent?
I agree that people have reason not to trust China or Russia. As much is valid, of course it is. I disagree that Marxists are somehow more dangerous to people than Capitalists.
I have been engaging exclusively in good-faith, the fact that this entire convo has been you putting words in my mouth means you're more likely to be bad faith. I still engage because I value constructive conversation, but if you aren't interested and are trying to disengage then there's no point.
A few things here. You have consistently, in this conversation even, many times lumped together and conflated all capitalists as a monolithic group. Do you have a right to object when someone does similar back at you?
Second you aren't "Marxist" or representative of all marxists. You are on a domain specifically dedicated to leninism. A specific sub branch of Marxism not representative of the group as a whole. Which also includes other groups like Marxist Libertarians and communists etc. Hi! While defending ML against Marxist and adjacent critiques. What are we supposed to think?
If anyone has put words in your mouth. Consider the fact that you've repeatedly deflected and ignored what was said. Leaving everyone to assumed your answers. Nothing was stopping you from being direct.
If everywhere that's implemented capitalism largely becomes violently exploitative. (And they do) And everywhere that's implemented governments based off ML ideology has always become violently oppressive. (And they have) Then neither is a flaw of their respective ideology, or they both are. And if an ideology is flawed, our allegiance should be to outcomes. Not the ideology. Herein lies the rub. And where the similarities in capitalism and Marxist-Leninism shine. And why the rest of the left dislikes both. Both have been tried and found lacking. We need to move beyond both at this point.
I lump together classes with their class interests. Nuance exists among individuals, but not among the average. If a Capitalist violently attacks others, they should be rehabilitated.
Lemmy.ml is explicitly a FOSS and Privacy instance. I do not have a Lemmygrad.ml account, which is explicitly Marxist-Leninist. I am a Marxist. I defend Marxism.
What did I ignore? What did I deflect?
Either way, I would say without analyzing trajectories and whys behind movements, you're doomed to repeat their failures and cannot be counted on to replicate success. You ought to mechanically and logically explain systemic failures and systemic victories.
If we strictly go off of track record snapshots devoid of any context, then nothing is good, and nothing can be done to improve, as Anarchism, Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, all have failed to exist perfectly. If we can learn, however, then we can move on.
While I agree largely with your conclusion that anti progressive ideas are pushed to undermine progressive spaces, I don't really agree with how you get there and with the examples you choose to arrive at that conclusion. There obviously are actual bad actors, and actual hegemony to get these bad actors into being, but there is also a lot of real people, actually still learning about the topics, or just plainly with a different perspective on some of the issues that you might be discussing.
For it to be an ideology that is self consistent leftism actually needs differences and disagreement, or said in another way: if we were to prescribe beliefs instead of trying to teach them we'd also just be trying to build our "own" authoritarian hegemony. I can invoke successes of or defend the CCP and the soviets just as I can invoke successes of the US or EU or India realizing that all states are fundamentally bad, still sometimes perhaps by accident they do good things. And that examples and mental shortcuts, as well as actual experiments that might be of a socialist nature, are just what they are argumentative tools.
I've been called a tankie just because I see the downfall or backsliding of the US as good thing and don't really accept that china would be as bad as the US has been for the last 40 years or so. Which is perfectly normal for someone who doesn't really reap the benefits of US hegemony, and sort of just ranks authoritarian institutions by size(strength)(wealth) to arrive at a measure of subjective dislike.
It's almost similar to someone calling me a tankie because I purchase Pepsi instead of coca cola on that given day, when we all know I should make my own tea or at least just buy the supermarket/local brand to begin with.
I don't know where you are and what kind of people you meet on a regular basis but to me the simple and fast ways of understanding other people almost never hold true, most of us humans just lead to complicated lives to easily subjectify us. And honestly I wish most leftists would not try to subjectify other people to begin with.
I'm sure there's some tangible "definition" of tankie, but I've been on lemmy for a while and I still couldn't tell you what it is past "person I disagree with" lol
I've been called a tankie for saying Marxism is a valid strain of Socialism, so I have forever been skeptical whenever someone is called a tankie.
Do genuinely awful people exist on the "left," like PatSocs and MAGA Communists? Yes, but they are by far the fringe.
Generally, leftists will agree when breaking up issues into their component parts, but will often disagree if posed at a macro level, which is why infighting is both common and largely worthless.
I'm having a hard time understanding the perspective of someone who believes that lefties would benefit by having the world's largest army and nuclear arsenal under a government backsliding all the way into theocratic authoritarianism. Like step one is a little putsch, step two is murdering all your political opponents, then it is time to invade neighbors to steal resources. Yes, the US is already invading countries to steal resources, no, I don't think having an authoritarian cancelling voting will help reduce that any. What am I missing? Just fuck it, ramp up climate change and war, get it over with, and pray socialism crawls out of the rubble?
I'm having a hard time understanding the perspective of someone who believes that lefties would benefit by having the world's largest army and nuclear arsenal under a government backsliding all the way into theocratic authoritarianism.
Well some leftists would loose a lot obviously, specifically those in or directly around the US, but fascist regimes are not very sustainable, and certainly loose the ability to ally and coerce over time.
And This loss of ability to project power (by the largest and thus likely the most destructive institution of coercive power) is what I see as a critical step towards a communist or just any different way of economic and political organization on a global scale.
I don't want a facist US regime, I would never tell any leftists to advocate for one, but I would tell them to prepare or flee nonetheless because it is still likely, or at least possible that it happens (again).
I'd much rather have a reasonably progressive US voluntarily give up power in good faith, curtail her own economic might to allow her citizens a good life and our shared world a sustainable economy and ecology but given that among many other titles, she also holds the title of the foremost petrostate, and at least one of the largest Tax heavens, in the world I unfortunately don't really see that happening, I still hope for it, but as far as I understand powerful interests aligning and climate change, the world economy... it just doesn't seem particularly likely.
I'm in Germany so not anywhere extremely tied into the US, but at the same time both are imperial core, there is a lot of cooperation, I would likely feel a lot of the secondary effects, but I also believe perhaps naively that not all of the world would , blindly follow the US in it's slow march towards fascism. And with each institution peeling of from US hegemony there is at least a chance to throw a big political lever in the rightish direction, whether it be the EU, IMF, Nato or whatever else, a movement that at the moment is blocked largely by US and perhaps wider western but also sometimes chinese or russian imperialist positions. And of course the Capital that these states (actually) represent.
Like step one is a little putsch, step two is murdering all your political opponents, then it is time to invade neighbors to steal resources. Yes, the US is already invading countries to steal resources, no, I don't think having an authoritarian cancelling voting will help reduce that any. What am I missing?
All of this is already happening anyways, murdering political opponents internally as well as outside of the US,furthering climate change, destabilizing and undermining trust etc. again sliding into fascism is not what I want, but even a fascist US would be bound by physical, organizational, and social circumstances, and thus for the wider world likely less catastrophic than you might believe it'd be if you were raised or resided in the US.
I can't claim for certain that the US is having a Weimar moment, and I cant be certain that a US fascism in the modern era would be shorter and less gruesome, I also can't say it'll be better afterwards, but I feel all of these things to not be completely outrageous predictions, because as leftists probably should, I can try to interpret the historical Weimar moment, and the current political landscape...
Just fuck it, ramp up climate change and war, get it over with, and pray socialism crawls out of the rubble?
Well again, ramp up in war and climate change are already happening, and in my world the wars are already the 20th century ideas as well as their capital, lashing out against 21st century thinking, changes in circumstances, and the very real onset of this era of climate change scarcity that we are entering.
So to some extent from my point of view yes, you don't have to keep trying to be a democracy with institutions and foundational texts as well as family hierarchies from the 18th century, that were made and changed by your political enemies, you can fight for (but hopefully mostly against) the fascism that the powers at be try to impose upon you, but without just believing the popular vote, and the systems it enables, will save you here.
If you crawl out of an actual civil war esque partial collapse as hardened syndicalists, or if you can get rid of FPTP and establish a democratic socialist party that is able to actually make international agreements in good faith, for me it mostly doesn't matter. I'd prefer the second if I look at the human cost of both options, but because the first option I'd guess could be faster in implementation, and the result would be similar from an international perspective, I don't completely hate it, very literally I could likely "live with it", precisely because I likely won't have to live under it, much more than anyone from the US could.
Essentially I don't identify with the US emotionally, I have almost no image of her institutions being good, so I can compartmentalize and write off that particular nation state much easier. For me a fascist or civil war ridden US that is short lived and likely reemerges with better bones might actually be very similar to one that transforms more amicably.
I can just say suffering is going to be inevitable, but that the suffering to change things for the better, to make them work sustainably, to make them work for the people, is the one i hope Americans actually still strive toward deep down, because I by pure circumstance don't need to suffer in that same way, I will suffer differently and for a different reason, fighting essentially the same fight sure, but from a different position with different levers to pull and different pressures to withstand.
We had fascism here openly 80 years ago, it's still here trying it's hardest to grab power and survive, but perhaps obviously it's fastest decent, its quickest downfall was almost the exact same time as it's most emancipated period, in fact they followed each other in lockstep.
Yeah, this is kind of what I'm talking about. You can't on one hand say you're for progressive leftist ideals, which are centered on human rights and democratic freedom and then also employ the rhetoric of a far right dictatorship. You're just soft-selling authoritarianism at that point in defense of some empty label.
Criticizing the US is one thing, even wanting their power balanced by other nations is sensible, but pretending the CCP is anything but a far-right totalitarian dictatorship isn't productive if the goal is a world with more opportunities for progressive ideas to take root -- there is no scenario that manifests out of the CCP increasing its geopolitical influence that isn't objectively worse, regardless of what bones there are to pick with the right-wing in the US. The goal should be defeating the far-right in the US, not kneecapping the US so the CCP can start expending their imperial ambitions.
China accumulating power only moves the global needle further towards authoritarian norms, not away from them. It results in more cross pollination between right-wing groups internationally. We are witnessing it right now, as US democracy declines (not US power) and China rises we see a not-so-coincidental rise in far-right groups everywhere else too (which China and Russia happily foster and weaponize. Very progressive of them).
In the US (or any democracy) there is still much more political diversity, so if you criticize US actions you're really criticizing one of those groups and their abuse of US power. By contrast, China has a single state party with a single person at its head with more or less unrestricted power. It is quite a few steps ahead on the road to fascism even compared to the US. So it doesn't make sense to try and bill them as the same thing.
There is no internal force within China working to reform it, not even potential for it, but there are progressive groups in the US pushing against the right-wing authoritarianism rising in their own country. If there weren't we wouldn't be seeing the evolution of public perception on issues like Israel/Gaza. That is a direct result of Americans themselves pushing from within using their (slowly diminishing) rights. You see nothing like that in China because it's simply not possible, fascism is already locked in there. It doesn't help you or anyone else for them to gain more influence.
Dictatorship and authoritarianism are diametrically opposed to every progressive political goal, they aren't concepts that can be harnessed for some greater good, they are never a means to an end.
This is because, as you allude to, the defining characteristic of the "left" is that it is always looking to evolve society past the solutions that have proven to be failures (like monarchy, theocracy, corprotocracy, communism, libertarianism etc.) in favor of decision-making that's based on reality as we understand it now and can be adapted without concentration camps and mass graves.
"Leftism" is when people try to use knowledge for the goal of fostering human dignity, well-being and freedom, but it is also when people are ready to cast aside ideas that fail to produce. It doesn't matter what flavor of progressive someone is, those are still the central defining notions that unite anyone inclined to be "left wing".
If someone finds themselves defending ideas or groups that don't serve those basic purposes they're simply no longer promoting progressive/left ideas -- they're promoting failed ideas that will inevitably be incorporated by the right to open new routes to the same resolution as any right-wing effort. That's what conservativism is; a failure to move as our understanding of reality moves.
So, yeah, some people only just becoming politically aware might have muddled thinking about things they were taught along the way, but they need to be shown how those ideas don't really reinforce the end goal they actually want, not to have those ideas treated as legitimate and valid forms of progressive political philosophy. They need to be taught how to examine any idea for what it is, not what they want it to be.
This is the problem with having loyalty to labels, specific theories and personalities over basic principles and practical realities. You become inflexible and vulnerable to having your good intentions exploited, ending up in these weird positions where you're supporting the very thing you claimed to be against (like self-proclaimed leftists who still defend Stalin or the CCP despite the mind-boggling levels of human suffering they've produced)
I don't care about implementing one specific left-branded ideology or another, my concern is more with ejecting conservative political thought so that ideas and information can be discussed and debated to find the solutions that actually produce good for everyone. That simply isn't possible until the people get past the corpses of their darlings, whatever they may be.
That deliberation should be able to happen without people dogmatically attempting to shoehorn in ideas that have already been tried and failed. Progressives should not be precious with ideas that way and should be willing to label ideas based on what they produce in reality, not just in theory.
I think it is often more subtle than something like Tankies defending the CCP or Russia. A lot of people who call themselves left or progressive still think the world just needs the "correct" strong-man, when one of the biggest defining things of "left" is going against engrained power structures.
While it is possible to be left-ish and support particular leaders, it is seldom a sign of an actually enlightened person if they think only a "strong man" can fix things. Tankies fit squarely in the center of that, but there are LARGE fringes where people seriously do not understand some of the core axioms of "left" politics while also not being full blown tankies.
i mean i wouldn't be opposed to a strong man leader, provided they're an absolute saint and ceaselessly preach about being good to one another and spends shitloads of time practising what they preach.
Humans do naturally gravitate towards having leaders, however it's important that everyone keeps in mind that leaders get their power because people trust them, and if they violate that trust they shouldn't keep the power.
Being a leader shouldn't really be a position of power, it should be a position of responsibility and scrutiny.
I mean, you can use that same logic on the US government, even Democrat run ones, which have supported genocides in the past and even current ongoing ones, and have tried to stomp out left movements, been racist, sexist, and homophobic. But people have still supported the US and the Democratic party and called themselves leftist. The point is, I assume as I'm not a CCP Stan myself or anything, is to give critical support to back an actual socialist project and give a counterweight to a pure single superpower world (esp. When that superpower has destroyed or undermined almost every left project it can in the world). Critical support meaning you pick out the good from the bad, supporting the good and criticizing the bad. China actually puts a leash on its billionaires = good. But they seem to be forcing some cultural integration of Uyghurs = bad. But they're providing lots of housing and cheap EV's = good. But they can have bad working conditions = bad. But they're helping support economies and infrastructure in the global South with the Belt and Road project = good. But they keep doing that shit with territory in the south seas = bad. But they seem to have a long-term plan for implementing communism that they are actually following = good. And so on. I do think some people go too far in being CCP supportive, but I also think some people on Lemmy go too far the other direction, and think everyone that gives the slightest critical support to China or analyzes some US propaganda on China a bit before swallowing it is a CCP troll.
In the end, it's a mixed bag, but I do think there is some worth to not having a single hegemonic superpower in the world, so other leftist countries or colonized global south ones have alternative access to allies, trade, and support without bowing down to the US and their often reactionary policies. Cuba for example was doing pretty good until the Soviet Union fell and basically the only market became the western, US-controlled one that they had been mostly sanctioned the hell out of. I wish it was a better country than China, but hopefully they improve their social issues as they improve economically, which tends to be the pattern. I just wish they'd stop doing the aggressive maneuvers near the Philippines and Vietnam.
This is exactly what I see. Many people see critical support and assume it as uncritical support, then extrapolate nonsensical views from that. Like, if someone says they think it's cool that China has high speed rail, that doesn't mean they wish 100 Tianannmenn massacres annually and to personally fellate Xi.
But the same people will say that Israel has to be 100% opposed, even though they are a democracy where lots of people disagree with the current actions of the government.
So China's problems are ignored but Israel's are not. That's the definition of bias.
I don't really think this is an equivalent statement. Israel isn't opposed because it's a liberal democracy, but because it is an aparthied state carrying out a genocide and propped up by the US to protect its business interests.
I think this is an unintentional oversimplification of their views.
Put another way, if someone considers China a lesser evil than the US, that doesn't mean they are giving China a "pass." I would argue that there are no truly good states right now, so everyone is ultimately picking a lesser evil.
If I say China having high speed rail is good, that doesn't mean I agree with the homophobic legislature in China.
Nah dude you got it all wrong, Tianannmenn square was a western psyop. and all those "prisons" in xianjiang are just really secure hotels or something idk.
thats because china is not right wing. we defend the mostly good things accomplished by the current and past socislist experiments in eg. cuba, china, ussr etc, not the bad things that happened there in the way here. the world is not black and white.
we MLs advocate for learning with past experiments and we were never urging anyone to view the tiannamen incident, the ukraine incident or similar, as exaggerated and propagandized as they were by the west as a good thing we should repeat. we don't want bad things repeated.
I think what annoys me is when people assume I support shit like the CCP or Putin just because of my leftist views, or because I didn’t make sure to criticize them every single time I criticize anything/anyone else (good ol’ whataboutism). The amount of times I’ve been attacked by supposed leftists that are really just liberals in disguise, is far too high.
“Hey, you didn’t criticize Putin in your comment that clearly isn’t even about Putin in any way, so I’m going to make a sweeping assumption and say that you support him.”
Don’t criticize Biden here, or they automatically say that you want Cheeto Hitler to win and you’re actually a fascist. So many people fail to see that their commentary and childish reductionism is counterproductive to a leftist movement. They also fail to see that what they’re doing is a tactic of neoliberals and fascists. It’s divisive language that solves nothing, and is used to always keep the opposition in a defensive stance. We’re seeing it first hand today with Israel and the US government repeatedly stating that defending Palestine is considered antisemitism. They went as far as redefining the word entirely just so they can drown out the peace movement with noise.
While I doubt this actually happened, I'm still disturbed by everyone cheering it on absent any context that would make OP not look like a petulant child.
Quitting without notice doesn't require justification, fuck the bosses, whatever.
But for all we know, this manager had bent over backwards to stand up for their employees, or cover for them. Maybe this employee took advantage of that and was miserable to his coworkers. Those are just as likely as anything else, given that no further information was provided.
At least invent a backstory how this manager was dogshit or abusive, or the company was awful. Make us want to believe that you're not just someone with a persecution complex who's quick to anger and lash out.
I'd say the reply from the boss is enough to justify that response. The boss is chiding him for not putting in a 2 weeks notice, calling him unprofessional. From this one interaction you can make a pretty good assumption as to the quality of the boss. The only proper response to someone quitting is either a counter offer or a farewell, not a guilt trip.
Not really... It is unprofessional. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, just that it's not always unreasonable for a manager to point that out. Again, we lack any other context for the situation.
I would add, that he also followed it up with a good luck and didn't drag it out. So, based off what limited evidence we have available, he seems like the more reasonable person in this situation.
Have you never had a good manager and a bad coworker?
When companies firing people for base reasons, i.e. reaching quarterly targets, is also universally seen as unprofessional and shunned as such, we can talk again. Until then, they deserve exactly as much courtesy as they are willing to give.
That's some pretty wild stuff you have to make up just because you have no good response. That's not even a straw man but a straw giant space monster. Sheesh dude ...
You can absolutely fire someone after they quit if notice is in your contract. Employee gives notice, doesn't show up for two weeks, and is fired with cause.
I don't know where you all work. But over here it is standard even for 'unqualified' work to have at least 1 month notice. For both sides. This gives employers and employees some time to find something new.
I'm speaking for the United States, minus Montana (if I recall correctly).
Neither employers nor employees are required to give notice. However, it is standard practice that employers do not give notice and employees do (usually two weeks).
When I worked at a callcenter they offered a new contract trading an agreement to give 2 weeks notice for a better paid vacation plan, with the consequence of failing to give notice being that the any unpaid pay periods would be paid at the minimum legal wage (which is of course a very pitiful wage I might add)
Fuckin managers will fire you with 0 notice, but that’s life and “at will employment”. You fire the business and you have to give 2 weeks because business run “lean” and “at will” is only supposed to be used by the business.
Well, there’s risk and reward in business, and more risk in running lean. Managers can always structure their departments to not be impacted by an inopportune departure. After all, people can get hit by a bus leaving their house in the morning.
Hell, if an employee is that critical, maybe they should be put under an employment contract with set terms and compensation agreement. You know, like most directors have.
A good rule of thumb is to never, ever burn bridges with past managers. Keep your dignity and remain professional. You never know when you'll need them as a reference.
In the US, that's straight up illegal unless they write you a reference separately. When the hiring company calls they can only give the legal answers.
Also, you could just write that letter yourself and have a friend be your ex boss. The rules are meaningless and the points are made up.
It is not illegal to call and talk about you with a reference that you gave them - that's the whole point of a reference. Separately, yes, calling a former boss may only get the prospective employer answers like "they worked here and are eligible for rehire", but that's usually a human resources policy to avoid a costly, but ultimately winnable if you only tell the truth, lawsuit. It's not illegal for a former boss to shit on you if you were shitty, and it happens all the time at smaller firms, in small industries, or small towns.
Why in the name of Murphy would you give them a bad reference?
This is explicitly an issue with employment verification and there are very clear legal boundaries there. Your revenge fantasy does not apply to reality.
Because you seem hellbent on finding a way around the law. HR departments don't do more than dates, rehire eligibility, and character of termination specifically because of legal liability.
So who am I going to believe, the guy saying you can shit talk whoever you want, or the professionals who do this every day in a legally safe manner?
A former manager of mine has been trying to convince me to return anytime she sees me since I left almost 2 years ago, offering me better pay and a position much higher on the foodchain. She also respects why I left (I had bigger ambitions that they couldn't meet at the time) and respects my reason that I haven't taken her up on that offer (that place only has really garbage benefits)
One of my wife's friends babysits for the director of IT at a large company 2 hours away and apparently I can get an interview with them if I just say the word.
Being professional and staying on good terms is not just for the employer, but it can also be a safety net to fall back on if things go sideways. Being able to reach out to contacts and say "Hey, I'm unexpectedly looking for a job now, do you have any openings?" is a very good place to be, plus sharing openings with former colleagues is a good way to help eachother out.
Dunno why you're getting blasted, you're right. What good is chastising the employee at that stage going to do if it isn't meant as a guilt trip? Does anyone really think the manager had his best interest in mind and is trying to look out for his future? Or is it more likely he is trying to keep shifts covered for 2 more weeks so productivity doesn't completely tank? I'd be completely okay with a simple "ok" or thumbs up emoji compared to a lecture.
Pretty much this. The manager, from one text, comes across as a holier than thou, "think of your coworkers!! We're family!!" Kind of person. One text can reveal that much. The "good luck" doesn't come across as sincere, since it follows that whining. Dude wants shifts covered for 2 weeks, he can hire someone else, do it himself , or fix whatever problems (probably money) made the person leave in the first place. Or they're a middle manager and get off on being overly focused on the "rules". Or he's just a low end shift manager, in which case why lick the boot that hard my dude?
It is sad this is the defacto situation now, but it shouldn't be that way. Managers should be there in interest of employees, to keep them on board, happy, and able to do their job efficiently... The company can't run without workers. Too many companies have forgotten that. A manager should be a buffer between the employees and the "corporate machine" (or better yet get rid of the corporate machine, but ya know...).
Maybe MY experience is limited, but what manager these days isn't pulling double duty? They do 3/4 of the job time with duties no different than the people under them, and also have to do all the managing part when possible. This is how it's been in the public service, retail, and customer service jobs I've worked.
Basically my experience. 90% of my job is unchanged, but I have to deal with extra emails and making sure there's toilet paper. Granted, I'd never bring up 2 week notices. Companies will not ensure that for workers, so workers should make fun of those companies for suggesting that. Hell, my mom's work asked if she'd give them 6 months noticed because they were understaffed and the other staff couldn't do their jobs and she laughed at her boss and told them they wouldn't do that for her.
They're saying that just because you claim something ought to be a certain way it has no bearing in how it is, or ever was.
This is a common thing done by libs to support capitalism. They talk about how it "ought" to work, as if there is any way for capitalism to exist that is not inherently anti-social. Its a defense used by the cynical and well meaning alike, a deflection to ignore the reality of how these hierarchical relationships were always designed to be. Its similar to how libs say its not capitalism its "crony capitalism"
What you're saying ought to be not only isn't, but never was. And talking about how it "ought to be" isn't a defense of reality
Ah, thanks for the explanation. I wasn't trying to defend anything, but I suppose I see how including the "now" in my original comment might be construed in a "things used to be better" way. Wasn't my intention, I have no idea how it used to be anyway.
Not going to edit the original though, for preservation of the context for this conversation.
Of course. Yeah i didn't think you meant it as a hard defense of anything. Your comment seemed totally well intentioned. And if capitalism was capable of good and not an inherently anti-social system then it ought to be like you're describing.
I think a lot of well intentioned people can get caught in that place of talking about how it ought to be instead of realizing why its not.
It's not licking boots to acknowledge that managers are people.
Every evil organization in history has had good people working for it. You hating them is yet another way the "above" people divide the "lower" people.
That being said, absolutely assume the manager is on the side of the company. This is a meme, we can't even prove if this shit is real. Fuck the company.
Pointing out the lack of context and the tantrum like behavior isn't nuance. The fact that you think otherwise makes me concerned for your ability to safely cross the street.
If you see this and your immediate reaction is to chastise some hypothetical tantrum then you might just be a bootlicker. At least own up to it instead of deflecting with arrogant ableism
Tantrum behavior like doing mass layoffs in response to a labor strike, a la UPS?
Of course. When workers stand up for their rational self interest, it's a tantrum. When bosses retaliate en masse against workers standing up for their rational self interest, that's just business 101.
Read your comment again, and then try and demonstrate the extrapolative capability of an adult crow, human child, or large language model. Go on, I believe in you.
Alright chucklefuck, pointing out that one whiney dick is throwing a tantrum has no logical bearing on the labor movement writ large, or my support of it.
Think a little slower, friend. Like you said, "hypothetical" boss - his whole point was that from the meme we don't actually know anything about the boss. You psychic?
Nah. Fuck em. If they were a decent manager they'd thank them for the notice they did get because they know that many managers punish people for giving notice.
All 2 years of it I see, my man you gotta open your eyes then. The amount of pettiness in that industry is insane. Your ignorance of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist
My man… just because you’ve seen it doesn’t mean everyone else has or that it’s common. Maybe you’ve just worked a shitty places. But that doesn’t mean it’s industry standard.
At least in the US, it seems pretty standard. Never worked retail myself, but everyone I know has hated it. Certainly a lot would like to imagine doing this kind of thing (but few actually would).
I can only say that my experiences in the field has been completely fine- and this includes working for Disney. And I can say that at 52 years old- I’ve been in the business for a long time. Never had a problem with anyone, and no one has had a problem with me.
If a person has a gripe with an entire industry- maybe the problem is with the person and not the industry.
How many Lemmy users do you think have never worked retail customer facing jobs, or food service? I'm betting it's a minority, but I could be wrong.
Either way, whatever internal compass you use to determine another user's job history needs some tuning because I've worked in plenty of service industry jobs.
Y'all are pretty tech savvy around here. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that the majority of Lemmy users skipped the retail/CS/hospitality jobs in favor of entry level IT/ tech jobs.
I'm guessing this has more to do with the US, than the particular profession.
I'm so used to workers rights, that getting a glimpse into how things are over there feels dystopian. Laws everyone would want, and benefitting everyone, except perhaps exploitative businesses, are "controversial".
It's very difficult to even fire someone here, and even if you did, 3 months to find something else is the norm. More often than not, you'd also be paid without doing much work during that time. If you resign, the company also has 3 months to figure something out.
Why... Would you not want that kind of predictability be the norm? It's not a net benefit to be able to resign or be fired on the spot. The only way that makes any sense is to just focus on one of the sides, at the convenient time. Bleh.
Setting aside hefty political corruption in the US, and media owned private interests that would make the Pinkertons shed a tear of joy... hm, and aside for a very peculiar election system that not only goes for the worst 2-party approach, but even has set it up in multiple ways in order to allow the minority of the two, to win.... ah... I see your point.
I'm curious about the relationship to managers in different industries. Fast food compared to programming. Warehouse/stacking managers have always treated the workers like idiots where I've been at. IT support depended on the company. Mail sorting was pretty chill as long as the work got done.
I'd be more inclined to see your point, except that the manager in question said "each job requires 2 weeks notice" like he was indignant that he didn't get something he deserved.
That's not only not true at all, it's active manipulation on their part in a hail Mary attempt to have their work covered for enough time to look for another employee.
It may be unprofessional to quit without notice, but it's really unprofessional to present the act of quitting as requiring 2 weeks' notice, particularly in a place that might also allow the employer to fire someone for any reason at any time with no notice.
it's really unprofessional to present the act of quitting as requiring 2 weeks' notice
If it's part of the contract then it's not unprofessional at all to bring up the terms that you've agreed on. My job requires a month's notice and it wouldn't be unprofessional for my employer to bring that up if I tried to quit on the spot.
That being said, I don't live in a place with "at-will employment", which is a fucking travesty and should never have been allowed in the first place.
It's not typically written into the contract for most jobs I've seen, but it's still considered very unprofessional to leave without giving the company time to find a replacement. It doesn't just mess with the company or your boss; it messes with your coworkers, too, who now have to pick up the slack.
Basically, while it's not written into your contract, it's still considered socially unacceptable not to give a two week notice barring any unusual circumstances.
It's always been in my contracts, a month's notice is the norm here. I've never broken that but I've also been fortunate enough to work at places where work and life are balanced. I wouldn't have wanted to disrupt the work for my colleagues and my managers have always shown their respect for me to the point that I want to work with them instead of against them. I don't think I'll ever work for an employer that puts the company over the wellbeing of their employees. I've seen what being a real team means. People cooperate freely and go the extra mile for eachother if necessary and cut massive amounts of slack to anybody in the team that's having a tough time and needs to focus on their life outside of work for a bit.
That said I won't ever get any bonuses or make large amounts of money in my career either but that's not what I'm after if it would mean putting work before life.
It's not unprofessional at all; at worst, it's discourteous, because notice of departure has zero to do with your professional conduct, it's a courtesy. You can professionally quit on the spot, look:
"Due to a change of personal circumstances, I will be resigning immediately, effective at the end of the day. I will work with you to make this transition as smooth as possible within that timeframe, but it is not negotiable."
I can understand going either way on that because they're semantically similar. However, I personally draw a distinction here because I'd much more readily accept being considered discourteous at work than unprofessional.
If it's considered 'unprofessional' then that is a raging misconception. At will contracts also mess wirh the company and your coworkers, demanding a courtesy you won't give your workers is horseshit.
Mine tend to ball out to a month's notice (on either side) for every year employed at the company....but i do business critical shit. I do not get the impression this is what is in the text conversation depicted.
Because the quote poster is using it wrong. She should have replied. Quote posting is supposed to be used like a screenshot of the original post but not a screenshot.
On Xhitter it actually depends whether you want to share your story to other people reading the replies, or rather to your own followers. This case is the latter.
I would love to see it, but I'm mostly just gobsmacked by how much balls-out plutocratic fuckery we're already accepting. Corporations snatching up all the houses, grocery stores jacking up prices with abandon, our sick joke of a medical system pricing us out of being alive, insurance companies charging more and covering nothing. People seem more upset about streaming services raising prices and shovelling ads into everything, but they're still fucking paying for them. It's insane the abuse that the public is willing to accept, provided that there's someone worse off who we can look down on.
Look all I’m saying is, when shit like this happened to medieval Chinese peasants, millions of landholders died and they still had more free time than us
(Before a liberal points out the obvious, I am aware technology has advanced since the Qing dynasty)
The systems of control they have created are resilient.
When you hear the GOP talking about how privileged we are to have indoor plumbing and refrigerators you really start to understand where they think the bottom is.
The death penalty is always wrong.
Murder is not a punishment and once you've stripped her of her ill-got gains there is no longer any reason to kill her.
While I agree in principle I tend to think there are still unforgivable crimes and irredeemable people out there.
Then you don't agree.
I wasn't aware crime was about forgiveness.
I thought in-so-far as societies implemented systems of justice, their purpose was restitution and rehabilitiation.
No one gains anything from a person—irrespective their prior actions—being murdered and we all lose a bit of our soul each time a state execution is allowed to take place.
I really expected better from Vietnam, whose "quarantine at gunpoint" public health policies I heartily endorse.
Child predators have recidivism rates of 10-35% depending on which studies you're reading. Each one of those assaults is a potentially life-altering trauma induced in a child. Exactly how many should someone be able to do before we consider they're not going to be rehabilitated?
A life in prison and state sanctioned execution are different, though.
It's also worth considering why these criminals are criminals. If they were, say, violently abused as a child themselves...does that matter? Functionally, it doesn't matter to the victim --- I get that. But should the state be in the business of executing such people?
But should the state be in the business of executing such people?
Honestly I've always felt this was the strongest argument against a death penalty. That said the argument carries nearly the same weight for life imprisonment, and still some for the act of imprisonment at all. We continue to trust juries of fools to judge people to this day, but that is still unfortunately more palatable than giving the right to someone to unilaterally choose your jury.
I'm onboard with a culture of reform and education for convicts because it works, but I also recognize some people cannot be reformed and keeping them imprisoned is needlessly dangerous for many parties. There needs to be a line where we accept someone is too far gone.
Yes, which is why my question isn't just rhetorical. How many is too many? You could make a case for 1 (if you believe the crime is too heinous), or 2 (if you believe in second chances), or 3+ even. But where do you draw the line and accept someone isn't going to stop?
OK, so ignoring that not going to change doesn't mean the death penalty is valid (the very idea presupposes the existence of states and the idea that a power structure can put people to death), that using the upper limits of your statistics means that for every 1 (0.35) who would reoffend that is murdered, you've also murdered 2 (0.65) who would not.
So if you do want to go ahead on your executions, the number of reoffenses should be up at 3 or so as a minimum.
But there are better ways to deal with it, as executing people is bad for the people who have to do it, the families of the executed, and sometimes even the victims and families as they're robbed of a chance for closure and understanding.
It's not just about the assault that happened, it's also about the risk of considerable harm in the future. Killing someone for one act of sexual predation is going to be considered extreme by many but not all people. But what happens after the second or third times? How many is too many?
Add into that how you've just given child abusers incentive to murder their victims and scared children out of informing on a family member for which the death of whom they do not wish to be responsible.
But what kind of fucked up society can only stop anti-social behavior through murdering its perpetrators?
And do you think these child predators had charming upbringings? Or perhaps they were filled with horrors and trauma?
Yeah, there are absolutely evil people out there, and if you think the state should execute them, that's your opinion. But to think that all heinous crimes come from a vacuum is naive.
Allow me some cognitive dissonance because I really don't know what society should do about psychopaths, predators, or cases like those execs who put melamine into milk to spoof the protein metrics, leading to the horrible deaths of a large number of babies.
Holding them indefinitely is a useless drain on the state, killing them leads to the inevitability of innocent people dying.
I wouldn't go that far, but since about 90% of the comments you've ever made on Lemmy are just you arguing over inconsequential things with random people, I'd wager you are.
Alright, my bad, I wasn't looking at the instances. So I'll expand that to Lemmy and kbin.
I don't think people getting murdered by the state is "inconsequential"
None of what you're arguing about really achieves anything. Nobody has changed their opinion because you argued with them, and because of how much of a dick you're being, you've definitely killed the opportunity to have a proper discussion with people about it (which may have been able to convert more people to your side)
No need for that, maybe just coming to the realisation that some people have differing opinions to you and trying to change them isn't a great way to spend your weekend.
Anyways this is the last time I'll be replying to you otherwise I'd really just be a hypocrite. You'll eventually figure it out, whether or not you listen to me
The way these people affect so many lives negatively with their fraud is much worse than a person committing murder.
The literal misery they cause to so many people for their own benefit without a fucking iota of shame and their sociopathic behavior is enough to consider eliminating them from society.
The way these people affect so many lives negatively with their fraud is much worse than a person committing murder.
Irrespective how is two bad things better than one bad thing? I would think fewer bad things would be net better.
The literal misery they cause to so many people for their own benefit without a fucking iota of shame and their sociopathic behavior is enough to consider eliminating them from society.
You speak of "sociopathic behavior" while advocating state murder. 🤨
I know. It sounds fucked. But these people are a cancer on society. There's very little that can be done to reform these people. And the problem is that capitalism rewards this kind of behaviour.
These people currently are ruling the world. If they aren't the head of some large company, there the head of a government. Because of their large wealth, they have a huge influence on the policies. They're basically dictating the laws that are governing them. It's like playing Monopoly with your own made up rules.
You can't stop those people any other way. The French understood this. When the price of food was out of reach, heads started to roll. Literally. Nowadays the people can't be violent anymore. Heck, the mere act of peacefully protesting is met with police violence and oppression. How the fuck are we supposed to get the message across when those people have their own militia protecting them and their interests?
That's the problem. There's one side that's trying to play by the rules and be nice because they have empathy. Then there's the other side who lie, cheat, and break the rules for their own benefit without shame.
How the hell are you supposed to play the game and "be better" than the opposition, when the opposition is taking advantage of you?
There has to be clear and grave consequences to discourage them from abusing the system and the people. If it has to be the death penalty, then so be it.
I'm tired of our societies being run by a bunch of industry barons who own everything. Food barons, healthcare barons, banking barons, housing barons, you name it. The mega conglomerates that we can't escape from who are literally destroying this planet and leeching off of everybody with made up excuses about the state of the "economy". Having all the world's fortune in the hands of about 10 people. We can't stop this by playing nice and asking nicely. Not when they control governments with their financial influence or because they've become too big to fail. No. You build fucking guillotines and you execute the motherfuckers.
How the hell are you supposed to play the game and “be better” than the opposition, when the opposition is taking advantage of you?
You do that by not murdering them after you have taken power and over the means of production.
Having all the world’s fortune in the hands of about 10 people. We can’t stop this by playing nice and asking nicely.
Alright so you've seized all the money in the world and taken over all the land and machinery that enables production through the application of labor via militant witholding of the same. You and your comrades have all the guns.
...why at that point do you need to use those guns to murder people who are no longer holding murderous control over those common resources?
I refuse to acquiesce to or defend a system of belief that requires people die.
Once you win, you don't kill or you never had moral authority to employ violence in pursuit of winning in the first place.
In other words, you don’t murder disarmed prisoners of war.
During class war they are the enemy and deserve what comes to them. If taken alive and their weapon of war removed, they don’t need to be dealt with the same way.
Once they are no longer a threat you can work on rehabilitation and restitution.
But...second...I struggle with the rehabilitation bit. Some people cannot be rehabilitated. It is a hard truth I have learned, coupled with pain and regret, many times in my life. I'm just curious what you think the course of action should be at that point?
I'm not suggesting death/murder, but I do struggle with the idea that if they're miserable, and the people around them are made miserable, and the people trying to help them are made miserable...what do you do?
You do everything you can for them (whilst making sure they're not a danger to other people), give the caretakers / wardens plenty of time off, and you give them the option for assisted suicide. In my ideal world, everyone would have the option for assisted suicide though
I disagree. I don't subscribe to a world view where every life is sacred. Society has a right to protect itself from persons that will always endanger other people and that includes killing them. However, it has been quite clear that we cannot guarantee that no innocent people are killed. And that's why I'm OK with the death penalty only in principle, not in practice.
persons that will always endanger other people and that includes killing them.
You cannot know that, and if you have the ability to strap someone down and end their life, you have no need to do so since you clearly have complete control over their person.
I’m OK with the death penalty only in principle
You shouldn't be. States qua arbiters of justice should not intentionally kill people under their control.
you don't keep that control over billionaires.their money has too much loyalty.
so they need to be killed. I do agree that the state shouldn't be making the decision, but Vietnam is weird and still at least dresses up as communist.
Taking their money away isn’t enough. These billionaires often have deep connections to people who could easily help them regain their wealth and power. I’m not sure what the answer is but taking the money won’t solve the problem in every case.
it takes seconds, other way takes years, and its not worth risking it getting away. it's not human anymore, and its a danger to humans, so if its not down for trying to be human again; kill it. don't waste the effort when there are living people who need help.
And you end up with dirty sheets. No matter how fast it is it doesn't address your problem.
Don't call people "it" my dude.
Irrespective how monstrous a person acts they're still a human and you can't distance yourself and your capacity to engage in the same monsterousness they did by dehumanizing them.
so I dont care about biology-on a moral level; obviously its cool and I need to think about it at lunch- a life is precious for actual reasons
and being wealthy diminishes just about all of those reasons.scientifically, there are studies that prove it. the wealthy are less intelligent less logic less compassionate less connected to the world. they dehumanize, in the terms that matter to me, themselves.
I'm not suggesting you should get the wall the moment your income slips into six figures, but in extreme cases, where all humanity has fled, theres nothing worth keeping there. its an it. no moral wrong in killing it, at least no more than a rat.
now, I'm not going to go around smashing rats in a hydraulic press for fun. that's sick. but I'm only going to spend so much time doing catch and release in my pantry before I try poison or snapping their necks, because I have other fucking shit to do with my life, and I dont consider the rat worth that much fucking time.
biionaires get coddled from every direction. if nurturing warm fuzzy feelings were going to work, they would have by now, so I'm in favor of actually fixing the problem. that means a guillotine.
and being wealthy diminishes just about all of those reasons.scientifically, there are studies that prove it. the wealthy are less intelligent less logic less compassionate less connected to the world.
So take their money.
they dehumanize, in the terms that matter to me, themselves.
You dehumanize yourself when you dehumanize others.
I’m in favor of actually fixing the problem. that means a guillotine.
money us the concept of deserving and promise of agency, which has been pressed so deep into them that they are stained with it, to any remaining capitalist loyalists or other idiots.
you can take their money, but that isn't really taking their money. youd need to take their faces, their names, their fingerprints, And the memories of all their secret stashes or things they could use to authenticate to associates. which seems way more fucked than just killing them.
dehumanize yourself
in what ways? ive been through an amount of shit, already skewed pretty far from default. might not be in a way that matters to me. hell, if you could lower my very human chance of breast cancer, I might even be willing to do something I find unpleasant.
generally I agree, but you need to be more specific here. maybe if I salt half as many people arguing half as much for the dignity and humanity of the unhoused and laboring classes, it would be easier to rake this shit seriously, but I'm not going to devote a second more than necessary to dealing with billionaires, and in a revolution, that means a bullet.
Robespierre
that fucker's problem was trying to autocratically lead a movement of popular power while keeping the people infantilized. nothing wrong with killing the aristocracy.
if money were money, the stock market wouldn't exist.
if money were money, Donald trump would be a beggar in a gutter.
if money were money, the wealthy would pay taxes.
if money were money, you could do a revolution with the power of gold.
its not, he's not, they dont, and you can't.
universal human dignity
why? based on what? at what point(s) does it start applying? at what point(s) does it stop?
what if I go into a coma. total vegetative state.
what if, in that vegetative state, my brain starts to physically die, which parts would I need still biologically functioning (though no longer effectively being a brain) to qualify?
if I take a shit, there are human cells in that. does it deserve dignity?
if I die, that's human. does it deserve less dignity if it gets burned, or when the blood is switched out for embalming fluid?
what about another animal just as intelligent and just as capable of feeling as us, maybe more? say an elephant, a whale, a cuttlefish?
what about a hypothetical uploaded mind? or a from-scratch agi; what traits would it have to have to acquire various degrees of human dignity, and not just be a script/dataset for me to copy+paste+delete at my whim?
if you think about it, and make it more than some mystical magical woowoo bullshit, some things are going to have at least a talon/tentacle/hoof in that aren't 'human' and some things are going to be out that appear very much 'human', and maybe even were in the past.
most if my criteria for giving a shit are things you are scientifically proven to lose with wealth. are they recoverable? maybe, in the way you can unmix a drink. and in an ideal world, maybe we should. we dont live in an ideal world. the labor cost and risk to others whose humanity is at risk (from dying) takes precedence; its a triage thing.
and if it's happening; I might as well enjoy it. revenge can feel nice, even if its usually stupid and counterproductive.
okay so when I die where does that dignity go? my writings? my body, my soul?
because your version of this idea sounds anawful lot like a soul.
getting a bit off topic
no I'm not, you just can't answer because you haven't thought out your ideas. I don't even think they're inherently bad, I think youre just wearing them like an aesthetic.
What are you, a toddler? You asked for a cutoff and I gave you one. If you didn't want an answer, don't ask.
okay so when I die where does that dignity go? my writings? my body, my soul?
because your version of this idea sounds anawful lot like a soul.
What's your point? I never mentioned "a soul" as it relates to human dignity but if even you seem to be using it as equivalent to or allegory for writings so what if it does sound like that?
Like you seem to be trying to sculpt my position to some preconceived notion you have of organized faith so you can then attack that when I have never mentioned religion.
I just said you shouldn't murder people once you've already seized "their" assets.
what makes that cutoff meaningful? seems arbitrary. explain why its not?
is my corpse deserving of dignity? the computer program? the whale?
I'm saying you have essentialized 'human' and designated it special, without any explanation (or appreciation) of why it's special or cool. it sounds an awful lot like 'the thing I am is special because I'm one'. which sounds pretty Fucking religious to me.
so explain. feel free to get weird with it.
I'm also saying you can't sieze all their assets. money isn't just money, and its not the only thing that's money.
I’m also saying you can’t sieze all their assets. money isn’t just money, and its not the only thing that’s money.
What the heck are you talking about? Find the things which can be exchanged for goods and services and that those things away. Cart off shiny rocks. 0 out electronic ledgers
Billionaire handshakes are meaningless. If you've seized all the food and means of production what does it matter if gardeners try to play Parker Bros. with one another?
see I notice you ignored the hard part of what I have to say, which tells me you can't really describe this thing you respect or why you respect it.
money is real and not just a fantasy bullshit excuse
okay see this is just super unrealistic.
yeah sure after its already established for a while and money is a historical relic like skull calipers you can ignore them. that takes a while, and they're threats until then.
This is a discussion about personal morals. Some people think it's OK to execute some criminals, others are completely opposed to that idea. There is no objective right or wrong here.
For you your arguments might be compelling, but they don't convince me. I can have complete control over someone and still decide to kill them because I don't want to bother with locking them up, for example. And who says a society should not kill? That's not even an argument, just an opinion.
Loblaws is the largest grocery conglomerate in Canada. Its owner, Galen Weston Jr., the chairman and CEO of George Weston Limited, a holdings company that owns so much shit in Canada. And also executive chairman and president of Loblaws Companies Limited.
Weston jr is the figurehead of food price inflation in Canada. He's basically responsible for starting the trend and everybody else followed.
Food insecurity has become a serious problem if Canada and food banks have been solicited like never before since the pandemic.
This is doing to be a hot topic issue in the next federal elections. But already, Loblaws lobbyists are already courting the main party leaders to ensure they don't do anything to decrease the control they have on the food industry and the profits they make.
It's disgusting. I approve of this steal from Loblaws day. But it shouldn't be limited to Loblaws. This should be every major grocery store like Metro and IGA.
Some time ago, we lived in a place where the only grocery was Sobeys. Now that we've moved to a place with half a dozen options around - chain and independent alike - the grocery bill is down 30%.
Republican and Democrat are the two biggest parties by a large margin, but a few other smaller parties exist. Plus, some people run as an Independent. They're not affiliated with any party at all.
Edit: I never meant to imply the other parties had any chance at winning an election in a meaningful way, which is what these replies seem to think I was saying. (They don't have a chance, honestly.) But other parties do exist, including a party in which you can "vote green". That is all I'm saying.
In a first past the post system of districts with single representative candidates, it almost always resolves to two viable parties. That's the way it's been for basically all of American history.
The parties can change, but the shape of the system remains constant: a vote is only effective when cast for the largest opponent of your least desired candidate. It's unintuitive and discouraging.
The parliamentary systems used in much of Europe, for all their flaws, do allow for more robust and diverse representation.
Greens in America aren't in a position to govern. Even if Stein got enough electoral votes through the work of 30-60 literal miracles, she'd be totally unable to govern effectively. You need a deep bench and more of a base in the other branches of government to form a party that can effect changes and run this country
Then we can use third party candidates to determine who the power actually goes to. At the end of the day. America is so bipolar split tlboth parties are now completely at the mercy of anyone who can garner 10% support. RFK Jr at this point can literally be the decider or who becomes president and who doesn't. Maybe we can use that as a tool of power to force the 2 parties to open the voting system up or have their power cockblocked from them every election cycle.
No, this is not how it works. Please look up the spoiler effect.
I can't vote because I don't live there, but am in the imperial core of countries, so it would be very nice to not have fascists in charge, considering we literally have prosecuted whistleblowers reporting on warcrimes at the behest of the US government. We're your little bitches whether we like it or not.
Y'all really do need to be hyper-focused on pushing for sweeping electoral reform, for sure.
In the meantime though, voting for a 3rd party under your system is basically a vote for the person you don't want.
Vote Biden if you would dislike having Trump more. If you don't want to do that, then yeah, you're basically admitting you're cool with the outcome of Trump presidency.
Please don't waste your vote, your vassals beg you.
Look up the spoiler effect. Please! This vassal is begging you.
The question under your system (please inform yourself about first-past-the-post) isn't who do you want to win, it's who you do you want NOT to win.
If you vote for your third-party candidate, it's equivalent to not having voted at all, if they have no chance of winning.
You're going to get Biden or Trump with how people vote (spoiler effect, look it up), one of those is going to win, make your peace with that.
So, which would you rather?
I am happy to spell out in greater detail why voting for a third party candidate is a waste of time under your system, happy to chat if there's still any confusion about it.
first, i think it will be helpful to recall what a myth is: it's a story we tell to explain the world around us. the spoiler effect is one of those stories: it explains, for some people, why clinton won in 1992. but analysis of the facts of that election find that, in fact, perot hurt clinton's margin of victory.
this myth is persistent, and reinforced by multiple media sources and even academics, but there is no way to actually produce a test of the theory of its existence or its mechanisms. so while you might like to tell this story, even if only to yourself, to justify voting for people who do bad things, to pretend that this myth is objective fact, that it is a natural law, is either misguided or dishonest, depending on whether you actually believe the myth.
The question under your system (please inform yourself about first-past-the-post) isn’t who do you want to win, it’s who you do you want NOT to win.
wrong. the question is "who do i want to vote for" and i want to vote for the person i want to win. incidentally, i don't want to vote for someone i don't want to win.
If you lived somewhere with a decent preferential voting system, you'd be right.
You don't though, and it's not misinformation to say that under a first part the post system, voting for a third candidate that is not going to win is a waste of the influence you have. CGPGrey explains it well
🤦♂️ It's a "law" in the mathematical/scientific sense. It is a model that explains something.
You're just spouting smart sounding words without actually proving anything.
Please, please, do explain how the spoiler effect is wrong.
Tell me how when you have first past the post and a two party system, voting for a third candidate who won't win isn't just making it more likely the candidate you'd like less to win.
Please, would love to hear you well reasoned and sound argument.
it argues that a certain type of election system tends to lead to a two-party system. however, from a critical perspective, this theory might be untestable. why? because someone could argue that any outcome can be explained by the theory. for instance, if there are more than two parties, it could be said that the system still favors two but this is just a temporary exception. this kind of reasoning makes it very difficult to disprove the theory, turning it more into a statement that's true by definition than an actual hypothesis based on evidence. similar arguments have been made about economic theories that rely on assuming everything else stays the same. to be more than just a statement, this theory would need a way to be tested with evidence and potentially proven wrong. that way, it could be a useful theory for understanding political systems instead of just an unfalsifiable claim.
The evidence is all of the first past the post systems that trend toward two dominant parties. There are 1000s of example elections, and the elections which don't conform to this are just as bad, because the winner will win with even FEWER votes than 50%. If you have 5 candidates and people are voting fairly evenly between them, you can win with just over 20% of the vote. I hope you can believe that, that's just the mathematical reality (that I'm really hoping we don't have to debate over, it's a fairly simple mathematical problem).
The myth is that what you have can actually provide voters with a meaningful choice. That's the media narrative, that first past the post is meaningful and gives the president a mandate because people voted for them, but it most certainly doesn't.
it seems that you are already trying to explain away exceptions rather than accepting that this myth lacks predictive power and may not, in fact, accurately explain any past elections at all.
Do you think anyone other than Biden or Trump will win? If you do, then your choice is clear, and as much as you question the existence of the spoiler effect (which is not being spread much by the media in the US, it's being spread by detractors of the current voting system), it doesn't really matter. People will vote towards those two candidates (hope we can agree that this is the likely outcome).
If that's the case, voting for a third candidate is as good as not voting because if your candidate doesn't win, and you COULD have voted for your next choice (why ranked voting is so much better, and it's the voting system letting you down), then the candidate you most don't want (assuming 3 candidates) has a better chance of winning (since you didn't vote for your second choice).
You say this isn't provable because it's about people's beliefs and it can't be tested, but sorry, elections are about human choices, beliefs are at play. I don't think it's a coincidence that democracies with ranked choice voting have more first preference votes to smaller parties, and that it's overwhelmingly so.
You can't really escape the fact that even if people just voted for their favourite candidate in first past the post, people would win with less than 50% of the vote (unless you're saying that the votes don't add up to 100% then I dunno what to say)
you're missing the crux of why it's not provable: there is no test for it. it's not that it's "about beliefs" is that you can't conduct an experiment to determine the validity
ask yourself: what test can we make that would disprove the theory?
maybe i'm just not smart enough to come up with one, but i can't conceive of one. an untestable, that is, an undisprovable hypothesis, is an empty tautology. or, at least modern epistemologists and critical rationalists have treated them this way.
maybe disprovability isn't a necessary facet of sound scientific theories. i tend to agree with popper, though.
Okay, the test would be that we have first past the post (single winner elections, like for president, or local electorates with single candidates elected, not proportional voting, which is better), produce elections with a spread of votes across many candidates, and don't consistently trend towards two.
This is definitely testable and disprovable, it's just that the outcome is overwhelmingly the case I have described, the spoiler effect leading to two dominant parties. There may be outliers and times where a third candidate does win, but these are the overwhelmingly rare exceptions.
we need to define terms like "consistently" and "trend". but even once you do that we still have the problem that you're already explaining away exceptions. this theory is not disprovable because there is no outcome that you would say actually disproves it. you would say we just need more data.
I'm not explaining away exceptions, they're called outliers. In any set of data there will be deviations. When I want to plot some viscosity data and get a few random points on my chart that don't line up with the rest of the curve, I'm still very confident that my curve is close to being accurate, as long as I have enough data points.
We have enough data points on first past the post elections.
For it to be disproven you would show first past the post elections don't have to two party systems in the vast majority of cases (which isn't the reality).
Now, you can try and handwave this away by saying, "oh but that's what people were TOLD TO BELIEVE, so you can't prove it". That's why we have not just the correlation to rely on, we have maths.
And you can't (I hope you don't) really disagree that you either have many candidates, who then win with less than a majority, or two parties, which then necessarily means the third smaller candidates can't win, and so people then vote for one of the larger parties so their vote counts. That's the binary state of affairs, there are no other options, the reality of maths doesn't allow for anything else, the votes add up to 100% ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I'm not saying we need more data though, we have the data, plurality voting overwhelming results in two party systems. This is disprovable and I'm totally happy to change my mind based on the evidence and data.
I'm not straw-manning, you said before with regards to looking up the spoiler effect "I have. it's not a natural phenomenon, it's a story that the media tells."
Apologies if I misunderstood what you were saying there.
I’m not straw-manning, you said before with regards to looking up the spoiler effect “I have. it’s not a natural phenomenon, it’s a story that the media tells.”
in that context, the fact that the media says it and academics say it is a reason some people might believe it. i'm saying even if you do believe it, it's an undisprovable claim. it has little explanatory power, and ultimately, yes, is a myth.
Then Ms 8h account with their full name (deeeeefinitelty not a shill, deeeefinitelt a genuine user. Yeah people on Lemmy toooootally use their full name as if it were facebook), I'll just have to conclude you're trying to sway leftists not to vote for Biden, so the world ends up with trump.
Okay 👍 Please do explain your whacky logic though. I came to the conclusion you're a troll because you're not really engaging by explaining your position beyond: "I don't wanna, it's a lie! The media is lying!!"
Go learn maths, go understand the mechanism behind the spoiler effect. Go look at the literal mountains of examples of it in play. Unless you think it's just some massive coincidence that every first-past-the-post system trends towards two parties.
I'm very keen and willing hear to any actual logic you bring to the table to justify your belief.
Sorry, that's my bad. Your initial response was quite frustrating.
Emotions are high because this election affects people around the world, and hearing that you don't care enough to make a difference, is not very pleasant.
if the difference i made put biden in power, i would feel terrible. same for trump. so i will vote for someone i do want to have the office for 4 years.
For sure, I wouldn't like voting for either, also.
Just that if they're not equal, then that means you have a preference. And I hope you will act on that preference and make a difference, instead or just making yourself feel good that you've voted for the candidate you liked best.
You've been robbed of that choice by your voting system.
Well I suppose for voters like you, then yeah, go vote for your candidate. Just seems odd that you're saying you don't think their equally bad, but instead of then making a difference to ensure the less bad option wins, you'd rather make yourself feel good for voting for someone you like best.
May the gods have mercy on us mere vassals who are watching from the sidelines.
Stay safe in these troubled times friend, and thanks for engaging, even if at times it got a bit heated and apologies for offence caused.
As an outsider it's really annoying when someone just doesn't understand the reality they find themselves in.
A third party isn't in the cards, it never is, but it especially isn't right now. The only way to get a third party elected is to change your voting system, but that's a process that takes years, decades even. It's really not as easy as wasting a vote with a third party, it takes a lot more effort. And the only way to start or continue that process right now is to vote Biden because if Trump wins you might not even get another election to vote in.
And Trump has a good chance of winning because the republicans aren't having such discussions. They know what to do, and come election day they'll all march in and do their job, like they do every time. Remember that he only won last time because people like you felt icky about voting for Clinton.
If you allow me a moment of catharsis, I'll just add that if you Americans once again subject the world to more Trump insanity, I really hope you get to feel the worst of it.
he only won last time because people like you felt icky about voting for Clinton.
he won because people voted for him. I voted against him, and I'm going to again. and I'm voting against biden just like the last time. you're characterization is patronizing and dismissive of real concerns.
lol, you're so free in the freedom land that you taking an un-awful option from the trainwreck gets you hate from the cult on both sides of the mainstream political parties.
if a political party wants to enter the parliament, they gotta get at least 2% of the votes. so if you vote for one of the very unpopular parties and they only get ~1.5% you've effectively wasted your vote completely (This is how it works in my country - of course things are different in the US)
Things are even worse in the US. For president you need to get a plurality of the votes (more than any other candidate) nationally (let's ignore the EC for now) which means that any vote not for the two candidates who stand a chance is wasted.
But also in their congressional elections they set up the system so to get in you have to get a plurality in some district where only one representative will be sent each time (FPTP). So even if your party has 15% nationally, unless they can win a plurality in some districts, they won't get any representation.
Thats why 3rd parties are pure vote wasters in presidential elections and in Congress you only have a handful of independent reps who somehow win their districts without party backing.
Cobtrast that with most of Europe (including Denmark(?)) where you have proportional voting for a parliament and then parliament forms a government. You can vote for your green party and while they might not get to be Prime Minister, they might be needed for the parliamentary majority to form a government and get the environment ministry. Win! Or they might just exert slight pressure in parliament directly, which is where laws are made. Not a loss!
The poor 'Mericans, meanwhile, are screwed. The only reasonable choice is between the two major parties at the elections. To turn that oil tanker they have to get involved in those parties and try to affect which candidates are put forth and then the party even skips that step entirely if they happened to have won the last presidential elections.
It's unfortunately a bipartisan system with the shitty electoral system that needs reformation. It's barely a democracy, but there is a clear option out of the two, and for now, ensuring Trump is not president again is a step in a better direction.
The conclusion is moot when the premise itself is wrong. Twitter was only "a neoliberal place" if you're only looking at the neoliberal part of it. It's like saying "YouTube is a site about sports highlights" because that's all you watch.
If you used Twitter and only saw neoliberal garbage, that's on you for following neoliberals. It completely ignores the majority of communities.
When I was active on there, if I saw a political tweet it was pro-socialist 95% of the time.
The users on it might "do socialism" but the owners, curators, and managers just saw that as a product for them to sell ads next to. The socialism is sort of bait.
Having a show featuring socialists or with socialist themes doesn't make your network socialist.
Yes, Jon Stewart is a neo-liberal. I didn't really think that was seriously disputed.
Anything approaching a socialist network was dismantled long ago. There is no left-wing establishment. They were priced out of existence intentionally and then targeted by brutal crackdowns, hostile regulation, buyouts and in some cases straight up outlawed.
I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understand how Jon Stewart and socialist networks relate to what I said.
I'm saying that if your only option for a network is neoliberal and you have a (socialist) message you want to get out, using that network to do it does not make your a neoliberal.
If you have a socialist message that network is not going to let you get it out unless it thinks it's going to be able to sell commercials alongside it.
If at any point in time that network thinks that something you're going to say is going to undermine its neoliberal position it will censor you and it has proven that time and time again.
Your mistake is thinking that you get to use the network to do your message when in reality the network is going to use you to get its revenue.
If one of the owner bros decides to give you a platform it's because they are making money on it. Just like neoliberals give platforms to fascists. Neoliberals don't really care about the ideology as long as it doesn't threaten their revenue.
i think youre misunderstanding the point they're trying to make, but then again they're not expressly clear who they're talking about either and "neoliberal" is a term that means different things based on how we've been using it etc etc.
If the Twitter/X thing teaches you one thing, let it be this: Twitter was a neoliberal place. Then Elon Musk made it into X, a fascist place. Once again, neoliberalism laid the foundations of fascism.
I suggest they're referring to the ownership of Twitter, not twitters users here. Twitter was owned by neolibs (they assert) and sold to Elon. They're saying Elon is making X more fascist, not speaking about the userbase.
Neoliberal folks are still using X, calling it Twitter to make themselves feel better, and pining for the good old days.
And there’s the real lesson: When neoliberalism turns into fascism, neoliberals will adapt to life under fascism. Right, class dismissed.
Now he's moved to the userbase, which is confusing and muddles things up a bit. but his point here is the neolibs are the ones who stayed on X even after fascist users started coming in due to a fascist ownership. They complain, but they get by, because (and this may now just be my projecting my own thoughts) neoliberals have 0 morals and 0 insight.
You said you aren't there anymore. I think this means you're exempt.
I stopped being active on Twitter long before the sale for unrelated reasons but I've popped on from time to time because I still have friends on there who don't use other platforms.
I take issue with the "everyone who stays is complicit" argument in the same way I have issues with the "everyone in Alabama is a racist magat" because it completely ignores why people actually stay - community and connections.
Unless you can convince your entire circle to switch to a different platform all at once, the move is painful. I get it.
People can't just pack up and leave because they disagree with their neighbors in real life, that takes money which not many people have a surplus of, especially in Alabama. That's not a choice.
Using Twitter is completely different, it costs nothing financially to stop going go a website. Your point about the social aspect and need for community is not wrong, but also if one values their social connections with fascists and fascist-enablers.. well.. I think you see where I'm going with that. That is a choice.
He’s also saying neoliberals/centrists are largely performative, and they are fine with fascism. It’s a variation of the Nazi bar story.
There were always problems with Twitter’s moderation as it was lighter on the right than the left. The famous comment about not banning Republicans congresspeople comes to mind. It was never as right leaning as Facebook though.
I am a proponent of the fediverse as well but I do it without disparaging the people on X who are still there because the community they've been a part of for 2 decades is still there.
That's like saying "you don't have to be in the guild, you can still private message people"
There's more to a community than just the people you're close enough to have other forms of communication with. I don't have the contact info for a lot of my acquaintances online outside of the specific platform I talk to them on
That’s how it works in anime right? We do a tournament and the survivor will be the strongest leftist. They’ll be able to defeat all fascists by themselves. Truly a masterful plan.
He bought it because even though he has more money than he could ever spend, all his small mind craves is other losers thinking he's cool. He was granted extra money when he bought it by people who hated the fact Twitter was used to support revolution in the Middle East and wanted to ensure if that ever happened again, they would control the person who could shut it down.
Let's just all team up together, pool our issues and grievances as a group, and then have one person represent us to the compamy presenting our issues as some sort of united front. You know, so we could increase our bargaining power as some sort of collective.
We're geniuses. No one has ever thought of this before.
I've found a lot of people are legitimately more interested when you sell stuff this way because terms like "union" or "socialism" have been heavily stigmatized "for some reason"
I never liked Biden since the Obama years and I now hate him quite a bit. Sadly voting for him at this point is simply necessary, because if I am not in a good enough state to survive then I cannot support the Palestinians nor Ukrainians.
I don't get this attitude. Obama was literally against gay marriage. Biden's policies have been so much more progressive than Obama's and yet nobody I know likes him more. I'm not a "fan" of Biden but that's because it's weird and creepy to be a "fan" of government officials. He does a lot I don't like but if you literally hate Biden I don't forsee any president ever meeting your criteria.
The vote I cast in 2020 was against trump and not for Biden. I feel pretty good about that decision considering what happened afterwards. I'll vote against Trump again as many times as it takes.
This particular vote is an "A\B" question. No matter what you do A or B will be chosen. All other "choices" will be ignored and will have 0 effect on the outcome. The only thing that matters in this vote is who wins.
Not voting at all, or even voting for C, both have the exact same results as voting for whoever wins.
So if you choose not to vote, and Trump wins, then you created the same results as if you had voted for Trump.
If you wanted to vote against Biden but did not want to vote for Trump then you should have voted in the primaries to defeat Trump before he was the only alternative to Biden. In fact, of you had blocked Trump from being nominated again, Israel would not be doing what they are doing. Israel actively wants Trump in power, so that is why they are doing this now.
Yeah this isn't even like a complicated idea; I don't get why people have trouble with it.
As a practical real world example: in the 2000 election, Bush won Florida by 537 votes. (the exact number is questionable because of the recount and the bullshit that was Bush v. Gore. Which we can and should be very angry about but also doesn't change the conclusion here).
97,488 Floridians voted for Ralph Nader.
Now, I'm gonna assume that people who voted green care about like. The environment. And I'm quite sure that Nader was more progressive on environmental issues than Gore was -- Gore would probably have been a boring and relatively centrist democrat. But by voting for Nader over Gore we didn't get Nader, we got Bush.
If even 1% of the green voters in Florida had held their noses and voted for the candidate who they maybe didn't align quite as well with but had an actual shot at winning, we could have had a president who actually recognized climate change as a threat almost a fucking decade before we did,instead of a climate change denier. Would it have fixed everything? No! But we'd be a hell of a lot better off than we are now.
Exactly. This is what I cannot understand from all these "true hyper-leftist" people. You do realize that the future of the USA is at stake here, and that our system is fundamentally rigged to not allow any real alternative as a choice, right? Your brain-dead "BIDEN BAD VOTE THIRD PARTY" is just going to enable Trump and then you'll never be able to vote for anyone ever again as you are forced to participate in alt-right Trump rallies every single day and post on the Trumpernet about how much you love Trump. This isn't much of an exaggeration -- this where they want to go if Trump wins.
You're not supporting Biden. This isn't how our vote works. You're voting for the person less likely to fundamentally fuck our country up. And in case you still don't quite understand who this is, that is Biden.
Nah, everyone is free to hate. However, support from others on this planet against Trump is also important. To some degree we all affect one another and his rise into the seat again would directly impact a LOT of people, even outside the U.S.
BUT
I'm hoping that there is now enough anger and frustration for us to carry the momentum past the voting gates and straight into very strong pressure towards all politicians. This IS fixable. The message is there, even if it will result in violence from our militarized police force.
This is ignorant fear mongering. If thats the way the system works as you say? Then its our duty as citizens to destroy the system entirely. If thats America then this is not a democracy and its certainly not a democracy worthy of being preserved. IF that is the system you claim Joe biden stands to preserve? Then we SHOULD let trump come in and tear the whole thing down.
I think trump is a fundamentally morally detestable character. Butt iv lived thru 1 trump presidency. Hes backwards, hes an ass. Hes not a good leader. But hes not the end of everything as we know it. And I'm not giving more power to a corrupt party of beaurocrats who continue to lie to my fucking face while selling me out to corporate interests behind my back and completely hollowing out our countries economic capability all the while refusing to make good on any of their promises and funneling all my tax money to foreign wars while we bleed for healthcare. Fuck this countries "democracy" the fact you even believe we live in a democracy is hilarious. Congress has a 14% approval rating. Our representatives do not represent the will of the america people. They represent the will of their largest financial donors.
I get what you're saying, but I'm trying to parse what is actual "things that can / will happen under a Trump presidency" vs "what the democrats and liberal media want us to think can / will happen under a Trump presidency". I'm likely voting Biden simply because I saw what a shitshow the Supreme Court became (and will be for quite some time) under a Trump presidency. But I also notice Biden did fuck all about it so part of me wonders if the democrats are doing nothing for the simple fact that they have a fearmongering device setting the up for the next election. I mean, honestly the state of politics in the US is just pathetic.
I feel the frustration, and agree with it. But the choice you’re describing does not exist. The options aren’t “fucked up status quo” with Biden and “start over fresh” with Trump, though. The options are “fucked up status quo” with Biden and “way fucking worse corporatism, inequality, treatment of any marginalized/minority group, personal freedoms, bodily autonomy, religious liberty, foreign relations, healthcare, education, environment… oh and let’s just completely give up the little voice we have” with Trump.
All the stuff that pisses you off about the corrupt bureaucrats in the Democratic Party exists across the board in the Republican Party, but worse.
I could see somebody voting for Trump hoping that the world ends more quickly and rebuilds so that their great-grandkids, if they exist/survive, might live in a better system. But the price for placing that unlocke unlikely bet is to fuck up the system now and in the near future, negatively affecting tens of millions to billions of actual people.
Ignorant? Look up Project 2025. Then tell me I'm exaggerating. You are either laughably ignorant about our situation, or you're a Trumper trying to convince people that everything will be fine when it will absolutely not be.
Vote blue in 2024, then push better agendas and vote true left next time. Because I can guarantee you if Trump wins, you won't be voting any more.
The largest current of leftists aren't saying you cannot vote for Biden, and that you should vote third party, but that ultimately change comes from outside the electoral system.
Unfortunately unless a revolution falls into our laps and magically solves all our problems, the modicum of control we have over the steering of this ship is limited to voting and advocating for others to vote
They’ll never accept that, because they fundamentally see nothing wrong with the system. They want to preserve the broken machine, even if it doesn’t work for them. They think changing the oil will repair it, when it was designed to break.
More like we don't want to crash our only car when we don't have another means of transportation, and oops, now we can't get to work.
It's great to say "the system is broken and must be replaced." I agree! But nobody who says that, me included, has ever had anything resembling an actual plan to replace the system or to prevent something even worse from taking over once the system is destroyed.
Everyone gave the GOP shit for screaming about how Obamacare needs to be "repealed and replaced" but never saying what it should be replaced with (though that was because the "replace" part was a lie and they just wanted to go back to the bad old days of people being trapped in a job or entirely unable to get insurance because of a preexisting condition). It's the same thing with people saying the entire system of government needs to be replaced.
It's all well and good to say "choose another system of governance" but how do we implement this change? What is the mechanism under which we can replace our current system of government with Swiss democracy, without the old government just saying "lolno" and bombing it to shit? The only method I can think of is a constitutional convention, and right now we're closer to the right wing being able to call one and rewrite it to take pur rights back 200 years than we are to leftists implementing Swiss democracy.
Like... I would be thrilled if that were within the realm of possibility, but as it stands any possible options for dramatically overhauling our system of governance is more likely to lurch us straight into permanent hard-right minority rule by a bunch of fascists. That's what I mean when I say I've never seen an actual plan by leftists to overhaul the system--it's all arguing about what the sexy end goal should be, without bothering to talk about the boring minutiae of how to actually get to it. So far as I can tell, the "plan" to make all these needed changes, so far as any thought is put into it at all, is just a silent assumption of either "we lobby our politicians and they do what we tell them and nobody opposes our ideas" or "we do a violent revolution and kill all the bad guys without harming the good guys and we definitely win and accomplish our goal without someone else taking advantage of the chaos to do a fascism instead," depending on how radical the change is.
without the old government just saying "lolno" and bombing it to shit?
Make sure the old government doesn't have enough votes.
options for dramatically overhauling our system of governance is more likely to lurch us straight into permanent hard-right minority rule by a bunch of fascists.
Not the point. Trump needs to be defeated, and the way we're going to do that is voting for Biden. There's no other way. It's not going to happen. You are absolutely deluded if you think there is another way.
After we fend off the Trump bullshit, then, yes, we have to make actual change to push us much further left. I don't get how all the ultra-leftists cannot fathom this simple fact.
Because Trump is still a fucking threat, you assclown. His cronies are still in office. We are going to have to keep fighting this fight where it needs to be fought, then when that fight is done, THEN we push to the actual left. Is this so goddamn fucking hard for you "LOL DONT VOTE BIDEN SO TRUMP CAN BE PRESIDENT AGAIN" fucktwaddlers to understand?
I dislike them both. I think they are both horribly corrupt with different ideologies. I won't support either of them. I'm voting for RFK jr. The only sane and reasonable choice in this election.
Right? "the only sane choice"? The antivaxxer? The "covid is a bioweapon" guy? The "I don't think we need a ceasefire in Gaza" guy. That guy? What a fucking joke.
I want to up vote you for the chuckle you gave me, but I did that once with Trump and too many people took it seriously, and he ended up being the president.
This precise sentiment has gotten me told off a few times now. Usually with someone yelling the word "Genocide" over and over so I can't get a word in. People are so fucking dumb it's actually unbelievable.
Whatever my frustration, I just want us all to work together even after we get Biden a second term. The only reason, ONLY REASON, the GOP have their power is honestly because we can't stop slap fighting long enough to plant a foot in their asses. This would also work for the Democrats. We do have two feet. Whatever our perspectives and opinions, there is a single neigh universal truth we can all accept:
Putlers troll farms are maximally amplifying the Gaza tragedy in order to divide the west. The tragedy that his Iranian friends probably started for him.
Or… hmm yes of course Putin trolls love the Palestinian genocide as it distracts from Ukraine but maybe just maybe tax payers are existentially fed up with the US committing a genocide with their money and lying straight faced to tax payers about the impossibility of doing anything about it?
If not voting helps Trump then it helps Biden too. Trying to paint people who don't like Biden as Trump supporters is a propaganda meme that's trying to gaslight us all.
Nah it's because there are people who actually believe that shit so it's hard to gauge sarcasm.
It's a lot like how people make jokes about landlords. A lot of the people are being sarcastic but there's enough of them that are serious that you can't really tell the difference.
The original intent of that metaphor is correct in your use, but it’s rarely recognized. It began as “a rotten apple quickly infects its neighbor.” Over time, it became “one bad apple ruins the bunch.” Now it’s used as just “one bad apple” to infer minimal or selective corruption, completely discrediting the point of the analogy.
It's also worth noting the implication of the full phrase. If you remove the bad apples quickly enough, then you can save the rest. If you can remove the corrupt elements, then you can protect the group overall. If you leave them to fester then you'll have a lot more cutting required to clean up.
I only know like 2 dozen cops. One's an absolute blowhard, but the rest are decent people. I don't expect them all to be nice, because I've seen reports on TV otherwise; it'd be foolish.
The cherry-picking starts with US newsmedia. I'm glad our cops are different, at least.
The problem that brings up the idea of no good cops is, if these 23 other cops are good, and this one is bad, why is there still the bad cop? Why do the other 23 not push that bad cop out?
Asserting this is obtusely ignoring the context that conservative voters have no qualms about voting for someone grossly immoral.
There aren't conservatives out there saying "Yeah well I was gonna vote for Trump but he supports genociding Palestinians".
The fact that conservatives don't have this problem and everyone else does means that, yes, you are enabling Trump by not voting Biden. The "logic" necessarily does not work the other way around, even if you say it like some sort of clever gotcha with a complex emoji.
so the so-called third party voters get to vote for their candidate and another candidate? why doesn't everyone vote for so-called third parties, then? twice as many votes!!
Why indeed? The fact is that not enough people vote for third parties for it to matter by an order of magnitude.
Conservatives don't vote third party. When we do, we split our own vote in the face of a party that has their base on lock.
Because that logic is abundantly obvious, people don't vote third party enough to make a difference. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. And it's so effective at actually splitting the vote that both parties have attempted running spoiler candidates in the past to do just that.
Why doesnt everyone just vote third party? Because enough people who could are afraid that it will mean degrading democracy by handing over the reigns if it doesn't work, thereby creating the very problem that they are afraid of.
Then how the hell did Trump win in 2016 and nearly win in 2020? He is literally antithetical to everything conservatives say they are, yet they still fucking turned out and voted for him instead of someone else.
Only one explicitly right wing 3rd party was even an option in 2020, and Jorgensen ran libertarian, which is an ideology conservatives as a whole tend to reject. As evidenced by the ~1% of the vote she got.
Gee thanks officer. I stated something that was correct to within 99% of my claim and cited a source. Good thing you were there to correct the remaining 1% for the poor readers out there who might have mistaken that error as significant
Vote splitting is not a myth. It's just math. Let me explain with an example:
1000 people at a conference are deciding where to order catering and hold a vote:
490 people want Mexican and do not want Asian
510 people want Asian:
480 people want Vietnamese, would be satisfied with Thai, and do not want Mexican
30 people want Thai, would be satisfied with Vietnamese, and do not want Mexican
The restaurants on the ballot are:
A Mexican restaurant,
A Vietnamese restaurant, and
A Thai restaurant.
If the people who want Asian recognize the strength of their combined numbers, then they can tip the scales by all voting for the favorite between Vietnamese and Thai. In this situation, we get 490 votes Mexican, 510 votes Vietnamese, and 0 votes Thai. This time Vietnamese wins and the majority of people, the 510 who prefer Asian, are either happy or satisfied with the result while only 490 are disappointed.
If everyone votes for their favorite, then we get 490 votes Mexican, 480 votes Vietnamese, and 30 votes Thai. In this case, Mexican wins and the majority of people, the 510 who prefer Asian, are left disappointed while only 490 people are happy with the result. The vote has been split and the result is that the entire conference is worse off for it.
By the way, the ratio of 480 Vietnamese to 30 Thai is irrelevant as long as neither value is 0. That ratio can be fixed to any positive value and a situation can be described in which vote splitting occurs with that specific ratio of Vietnamese supporters to Thai supporters. That's why vote splitting isn't too uncommon - any number of people voting Thai has the potential to split the vote. The one caveat is if literally every Vietnamese supporter decides to vote Thai as well; in that scenario, no vote splitting can occur. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen in practice because it's easier to convert the Thai supporters who are smaller in number than it is to convert the Vietnamese supporters who have greater numbers.
If you want examples from history, there are plenty. Our electoral college amplifies the effect since it breaks one federal election down into a large number of state elections, any of which can exhibit vote splitting. Other people have linked to them in this discussion and you can find more elsewhere online.
One day y'all will get the point that this entire ideology is in and of itself fascist.
"We aren't fascist we just stripped you of all other choices and move the goalposts anytime someone gets close to inclusion then blame you for wanting another option while shrieking that only WE can save the country but also we won't save it either cause we haven't had a platform other than 'slightly less right' for over a decade or two now."
One day you will get the point that the reality is that we as voters don't make the rules.
Yeah, you're right. We're boxed into this shitty ass system. Grandstanding about how shitty it is doesn't magically create a solution.
We vote for the least worst option and try to make progress towards a better situation in the future. It's either that or we fall to actual fascists who would rather take the vote away.
We already have "actual fascists." Reread your comment, even by YALLS OWN EXPLANATION, our vote was taken away long before we were born. Nothing but performative bullshit so you can claim to be the "good guy" as we're further and further clamped down on.
What you actually mean by "take the vote away" is "take your status quo" away. Biden and dems have been pushing legislation to take away all the hassle of nuking leftist organizations and to make ANY criticism of Israel something that let's them strip a school of funding and accreditation if they allow it - but y'all don't mind any of that "actual fascism" because it doesn't affect your personal day to day life.
You can fly your pride flags all you want but you're throwing Palestinians under the bus to protect your warmongering corporatist status quo, y'all are starting to throw trans people under the bus to protect it, and when the time comes you'll do the same to gays and POC all while screaming about the "lesser of two evils."
^ Someone who sees the problem and offers no solution, just like everyone else with their position
You can fly your pride flags all you want but you're throwing Palestinians under the bus to protect your warmongering corporatist status quo
There are no good guys. Only bad guys and much worse guys. Guess you want to virtue signal your way into the much worse guy so you can feel better? That's great, but maybe when we're lynching lgbtq folk as well as Palestinians you might consider looking in a mirror and wondering if your inaction made things worse.
Or, more likely, you'll complain about how doing something doesn't matter while the actual fascists you can't tell the difference between set their sights on another marginalized group.
There are solutions, you just don't like them and in proper faschie fashion you ignore them and claim that anyone left of biden is advocating for not voting (as you're doing RIGHT NOW. "Wondering if your inaction makes things worse." "You'll complain about how doing something doesn't matter")
That's literally fascist tactics but you also love the other fascist tactic of asserting that ONLY YOU can save the country so you have no choice but to spread disinformation swearing up and down that leftists do nothing but tell people not to vote (which I've literally NEVER seen, by the way, not that fascists care about reality.)
My food is done so I'm blocking you now. I don't owe my time to fascists or people who argue in bad faith, and your both (of course, they go hand in hand)
Ah yes, the old "my solutions are the only ones that work" Good luck with that.
By the way, deciding that everyone but you is a fascist is a great way to not have allies.
spread disinformation swearing up and down that leftists do nothing but tell people not to vote (which I've literally NEVER seen, by the way, not that fascists care about reality.)
Bro. Look around. There are people saying they won't vote democrat here in this comment section, much less the whole of leftist lemmy.
Block me, I don't care. There's no point in arguing with someone virtue signaling as hard as you are anyway.
Hope you don't mind being blocked back. I don't have time to argue with an idealist basement dweller about some imaginary solutions that make him feel better
"Nooo you don't understand I'm definitely going to defeat fascism by doing absolutely nothing ever. You just don't understand the benefits of political apathy"
so if you currently think "im not gonna vote", then you're giving trump a head start
A majority of the non-voters are more likely to vote for the democrats. thats also why the republicans are making it as difficult as possible to vote. coz they know, the more who vote, the less likely they are at winning
No one here WANTS to vote for Biden, but it's literally the only way to make sure Trump isn't president, unless you want to go ahead and change the national bipartisan system by November.
Lefty Memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.