this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
472 points (78.0% liked)
Memes
45899 readers
1350 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ok, so why not vote for the lesser evil then? It would increase the amount of time we have to organize without fascists cracking down on us.
The fascists have already been cracking down on people trying to organize.
So your solution is defeatism?
A bold strategy, let's see how it pays off. /s
Yes! Why not vote for the lesser evil to prevent harsher crackdowns than you would otherwise get?
Because it doesn't prevent anything.
At the end, yes, both outcomes are the same unless organization is successful. Why make organizing any harder than it needs to be?
I think I have a rock that keeps tigers away to sell you
I am confused by your reply. What is the "rock" I am buying?
Did you watch the video? The rock that keeps tigers away is like voting that makes organizing easier.
Politicians react to organized mass movements, rather than elections. You got it backwards.
I did watch the video. I agree that mass movements are what is required for change. I don't understand, what am I buying?
You're "buying" that elections make organizing easier. Just like Homer is buying that a rock can keep tigers away.
How would having a more evil leader, one who hypothetically locks down freedom of speech and starts arresting people, make organizing easier?
Seems like that would make it harder to do.
I don't know how to explain to you that the issues we're facing are systemic and don't depend on the "right" individual being a leader.
How did we get here? I never said we needed to have a "right" specific individual being a leader.
All I'm saying is that I believe that if I have a choice to organize a progressive movement under either 100% Hitler or 90% Hitler. I would choose 90% Hitler. I feel like I'm not alone in that.
As I said: it's a systemic issue. I don't know how to explain that to you.
Which specific issue is systemic?
I'm confused because you keep on jumping around to different points, you argue against positions that I don't have, and you don't directly answer any of my follow-up questions.
If I wasn't sure that you honestly believe what you are saying, I would accuse you of intentionally muddying the water. This looks a lot like psyop stuff.
The issue the meme is decrying: that the political landscape and discourse is shifting to the right.
How often do I need to repeat that I don't know how to explain it to you?
I agree with that. I never disagreed with the meme.
It has never been my position that voting for the lesser evil will solve all of our problems or bring about a progressive government.
I have only ever argued that voting for the lesser evil will give the people who are trying to organize (us) a better environment for doing so. Voting for the lesser evil helps with the organization. It's weird to me that people are against voting for the lesser evil. I don't get it, I hope someone can explain it to me.
Can you please stop assuming what positions I have?
I'm not arguing against voting. I'm claiming that it's not a valid strategy. You can partake, if you really want to.
Ok, this could just be me getting lost in the comment chain. To be clear you don't think voting for the lesser evil is harmful, but you also don't think it is a valid strategy. If that is true, I see no inconstancies in your arguments.
Pretty much. Since electoralism is inconsequential for progressive change: vote if you want.
Advocating voting for a lesser evil could be considered harmful, though.
Why?
Because it suggests that it's sufficient for progressive change.
I don't think it does.
Don't get me wrong. I know people who want to believe voting is all that is necessary for progressive change, but they are wrong.
Edit: How does voting for the lesser evil suggest that it's sufficient for progressive change?
I said advocatingy for voting...
Ok how does advocating for voting for the lesser evil suggest that voting for the lesser evil is sufficient for progressive change? Is that better?
It suggests that people need to vote for progressive change and that congludes their options to enact power on the system.
Yeah, that makes some sense. But you could just tell people that voting for the lesser evil alone is not enough, you also need to organize. I feel like that is pretty clear. That way you can have your cake and eat it too.