this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2024
875 points (96.0% liked)
Political Memes
5541 readers
3135 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but donât intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Donât post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sorry, here I thought self-proclaimed leftists might have some interest in preventing fascism, but as many leftists on here have repeatedly and joyfully assured me, they don't give a single solitary fuck about the oppressed or the working class if Their Guy(tm) isn't the one preventing fascism. Not unlike the Thalmann bootlicking that goes on on some corners about Lemmy about how right he was to hand the country over to Hitler, rather than risk cooperating with the dreaded SHITLIBS.
Red fascists have nothing to distinguish them but a coat of paint.
EDIT: They go on for a half-a-dozen comments or so denying that they're saying that leftists didn't turn out because they weren't enthused, and then go right back around and admit that leftists didn't turn out against fascism because they weren't enthused, but that's just life and we should deal with it.
Apparently, expecting antifascism out of leftists is above pjwestin's standards for us.
Cool story, bro. Do you think that the twelve million fewer people who voted for Harris were all Lemmy Marxist? Or maybe they were just people who didn't like her total lack of a working class message, endorsement of the Gaza genocide, or attempts to woo, "moderate," conservatives instead of her base.
The Democrats thought that they could ignore leftists and focus on moderates, gambling on the looming fascism being enough to get the left to show up anyway to bail them out. Turns out that was a bad fucking bet, and they created a huge enthusiasm gap that cost them the election. Maybe try blaming the party that spent $1.6 billion on this shit strategy than a handful of protest votes.
Edit: For the record, Pug's edit is a lie. Pug's argument is, "You're saying progressives let fascism win because they didnât like Harris, and she wouldn't pander to them." To which I keep replying, "No, I'm saying campaigns don't have good turnout with groups they don't campaign for, and Harris chose to campaign for moderates, not progressives." To which Pug keeps replying, "So you agree with me!" Also, he calls me an apologist for fascist enablers a few times.
Obviously, we're not saying the same thing. His framing is an attempt to blame leftist groups for the Harris loss, while mine places the blame squarely on the decisions of the Harris campaign (since getting votes was literally their whole job). You're welcome to go through the thread and make up your own minds, but it's probably not worth your time to read the whole thing. It certainly wasn't worth mine to write it.
"12 million fewer people who voted for Harris"?!?
Um, no... Trump won by (vote counts as of today Dec 3) 2,424,153 votes. I don't know where you get the idea that Harris lost by 12 million! At first I thought maybe it was a typo but you've repeated that number in other posts. Don't just make shit up if you want your arguments to be taken seriously.
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/RESULTS/zjpqnemxwvx/president/
Harris got 12 million votes less than Biden got in the previous election. I guess that wasn't clear given the context.
OK, so if you are comparing those numbers, the answer is 81.2m for Biden in 2020 - 74.7m for Harris in 2024, which is 6.5 million votes fewer, not 12 million.
You were citing only her votes counted in the first 24 hours or so compared to Biden's total after all votes counted.
Oh, well, that's completely different then. Did she win?
If you looked at the argument they're having, it's about how much of a difference leftists made in the election by refusing to vote for her, so the number is relevant for the points they were making. OTOH my point was that, it doesn't matter how many votes each candidate got in 2020 compared to 2024. What mattered was how many votes each one got in 2024, where the difference was 2.4 million (1.6%).
This you?
God, it's so predictable that you lot invariably engage in kettle logic on the subject.
Which is it? Was the leftist vote insignificant and cannot possibly be blamed for letting the country fall into fascism; or was the lack of the left vote what crashed the Dem candidate and thus why all policy decisions should be handed over to ~~the morons who preferred fascism to liberals~~ the all-important voting bloc?
Any other fascist apologia you feel the urge to engage in here, or are we done?
Oh wow, great point!, Pug! What a brilliant fucking comment! Except I'm talking about progressives in general, while you're bitching about a few hundred, "red facists," on an obscure website.
Most of those ~~12 million~~ (apparently 6.5 million less than Biden, when the counting was done) were working class folks that wanted to hear a progressive message about how the government was actually gonna do something to help them, and everytime I see your account, you're bitching about a handful of obstinate communists. After seeing you do it so many times, it really just seems like you're looking for an excuse to punch left.
So your argument is, then, that progressives decided that fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal? As a progressive, I doubt that.
What a convenient and totally unsupported claim.
"Why is PugJesus complaining about people on Lemmy while he's on Lemmy??? Especially here, under a post about the kind of idiots who blame liberals for everything even as they hand them loss after loss???? I just don't understand"
Keep mulling over it, maybe you'll figure it out. Eventually.
No, it's that centrists decided that losing to facism was preferable to winning with progressivism.
As a progressive, I doubt that.
Your argument is that progressives chose to sit out and not vote over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism, because the Dem wasn't progressive enough for them.
Please, inform me as to how that argument implies something other than "progressives decided that fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal"
Of course, no one who is threatened by the approach of literal fucking fascism in this country is a TRUE progressive.
No, it's that it created an insurmountable enthusiasm gap. I thought that was clear because those were the words I used, but I guess not. Democrats thought they could just keep talking about project 2025 and it would be motivating enough for people to go out and vote for a candidate and platform they didn't care about. As I said, that was a bad fucking bet.
No, but someone who exclusively punches left doesn't strike me as being particularly left.
Yes, you're saying progressives stayed home because voting for a moderate Dem against fascism wasn't EXCITING enough for them.
So literally what I accused you of saying, thanks for agreeing with me.
I'm sorry, I'll stop attacking the people who, like you, are making apologia for letting fascism take over one of the most powerful countries in the world because they weren't 'enthused' enough.
I'll be sure to be properly contrite for shaming you when I'm in line for the death camps.
I'm saying that candidates that don't generate enthusiasm don't win. For someone who's constantly pontificating like they're the only one in the world that understands realpolitik, that seems to be a real blind spot for you.
Buddy, that's you. You're the one looking for anyone to blame other than the party that blew $1.6 billion on their worst defeat since 2004.
Yes, you're saying that, according to you, the loss was caused by progressives not being enthused enough because they weren't pandered to. Exactly what I said you were saying. You continually reaffirm this and then act like you're contradicting me, and I can't tell if you genuinely don't understand, or if you're just afraid to confront the fact that your own argument places the blame for fascism on the people you were just trying to defend.
How? I'm not the one saying progressives caused this loss.
I blame the Dem party, absolutely. It's just that the Dem elite being guilty as fuck doesn't fucking absolve all the fascist cunts who voted for fascism or stood by as fascism swept into power.
Wear your brownshirt proudly. You earned it.
I don't know what to tell you, dude. You don't turn out groups you don't campaign for. Harris didn't campaign for progressives and the working class, she didn't turn out progressives or the working class. Hillary didn't visit Michigan or Wisconsin, she didn't win Michigan or Wisconsin. It's just reality, I'm sorry you don't like it.
Citation needed.
I voted for her you chud.
So you agree with my characterization of your argument, and you've spent the past five comments or so flailing around because... it sounds bad when it's said by someone else? Fuck's sake.
Is that supposed to make your argument less absurd? I assure you, it doesn't.
...no, dude, we're not saying the same thing. You really need this explained? You're saying, "pRoGrEsSiVeS DiDn'T sToP fAsCiSm BeCaUsE tHeY'Re eNtiTlEd," and I'm saying no one, in the history of elections, turned out groups they didn't campaign for or motivate. The Harris campaign thought they could get around a complete lack of a progressive message by saying, "Project 2025," and scaring progressive groups into voting for them, and it didn't work.
No, it's supposed to point out that it's fucking stupid it is to call someone a Nazi because they didn't vote for your candidate, especially when they voted for your terrible fucking candidate.
By YOUR argument, not mine, progressives refused to turn out because they weren't motivated enough by the Dem candidate to oppose literal fucking fascism. Not sure why you're bending over backwards not only to keep this argument, but absolve the people you claim to be responsible for ushering in fascism, but I've never claimed to have exceptional insight into fascist apologists.
Your only response is to repeatedly claim that it's a fact of life that not pandering to people means you don't get their votes, which, regardless of whether that's true or not, does not in the least contradict the interpretation of your argument I've repeatedly highlighted.
It's absurd to call someone a Nazi for deliberately choosing to let Nazis take over the country.
Okay. You have fun with that.
Buddy, you can keep bitching and moaning all you want, but it's just how fucking elections work. You want high turnout from gun control advocates? You can't campaign on a Second Amendment message. You want high progressive turnout? You can't campaign with Liz Cheney. If calling it, "pandering," makes you feel better about it, you do you, but to people who aren't entitled to other people's votes, it's called, "campaigning."
And by the way, if stopping, "literal fucking fascism" was so important to the Harris campaign, maybe Harris shouldn't have waited until two weeks before election day to actually use the word, "fascism." Seems like, if the entire pitch to progressive groups was going to be, "my policy's don't matter, you have to vote for me to stop fascism," they probably should have spent some time talking about fascism!
So yes, then I was correct, you are saying that progressives didn't turn out because they didn't find a moderate Dem exciting enough to oppose literal fucking fascism with. Like, not even any ambiguity in your claim, that's literally and exactly what you're saying, and what I've been accusing you of since the start and you've been denying in the weirdest fucking way.
That's an awfully low opinion of progressives.
I don't know what to tell you, man. Maybe if you keep saying it enough times, it'll come true, but it doesn't seem to be working so far.
You: "Leftists didn't turn out because they didn't like Harris, even though the opposition was literal fascism."
Me: "You're saying leftists didn't turn out because they didn't like Harris, even though the opposition was literal fascism."
You: "WOAH, WHY ARE YOU TWISTING MY WORDS!?"
đ¤ˇââď¸
You: "How are these two things different?"
Me: "This is exactly how they are different!"
You: "What if I conflate what your saying so it sounds like you're agreeing with me?"
Me: "That's not what I'm saying. That is clearly oversimplification that misrepresents my point in order to validate your own worldview."
You: "So you agree with me?"
Me: "No."
You: "Then I was correct."
Anyway, with an attitude like this, you've got a future as a Democratic strategist!
Your only point of how my explanation and your's is different is that you preface it with "This is how the world WORKS, you have to DEAL WITH IT", which has no relevance to what's being argued here.
Your entire point has been, "Progressives let fascism win because they didnât like Harris." Mine is, "You can't expect demographic groups to show up for you at the ballot box when you don't campaign for them." We're not saying the same thing, but if you can convince yourself that we are, then you'll feel justified in blaming leftists instead of Democrats. Now, please, stop wasting my time.
Yes, you're saying progressives didn't show up at the ballot box because they weren't campaigned for, right?
I'm saying that having depressed turnout with a group that you didn't campaign for, and adopted policies that are antithetical towards their value, is a completely predictable outcome. Are you going to pretend you were saying the same thing when you said:
or:
or:
You're going to pretend that we were saying the same thing? And that what you were saying wasn't entirely framed around blaming leftists for the campaign's actions? You're honestly going to pretend that you're not assigning motivation and intent in your statements that I'm not making when you say progressives, "chose to sit out and not vote over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism," and that "fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal," you absolute joke?
So yes, you are saying that progressives didn't turn out because they weren't campaigned for, correct?
You're really desperate to avoid stating your position in plain terms.
LOL, nice sidestep on the second half of that comment. Anyway, sorry if my language hasn't been plain enough for you, but I really can't simplify it any further. Maybe you could have a friend explain it to you, 'cause I really can't waste anymore time on this.
It's hilarious.
You say that progressives didn't turn out because they weren't campaigned for.
The opposition is literal fascism.
Yet, according to you, that DOESN'T mean that progressives didn't turn out against literal fascism because they weren't campaigned for.
It's like magnets repulsing each other, as soon as the two parts come near, the doublethink forces the two conclusions apart in your mind, even as you hold both of them to be true simultaneously. Fascinating.
At this point, writing is a waste of my time, so I'll just copy-and-paste the parts of the my comments that you're avoiding in order to maintain your narrative:
I didn't realize the campaign's actions were "Failing to cast the votes for the progressives who stayed home", fascinating how voters have no agency.
That's literally what you're claiming.
You're claiming progressives chose not to vote for Harris because Harris didn't appeal to them, as a corporate Dem.
The opposition was literal fascism.
Thus, progressives who chose not to vote for Harris preferred not voting over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism.
Like, this isn't complex. It's actually incredibly simple. There are only two pieces to this, and you accept both of them. It's really astounding that you're continually insisting otherwise just because it hurts your feelings to think about.
Oh, okay, so because Harris waited too long to say the word 'fascism', THAT'S why the progressives chose, in your worldview, to let fascism win. Makes perfect sense.
The campaigns actions were, "Failing to motivate progressives who stayed home." That's how campaigns work. Candidates go out and get people to vote for them. It's the most fundamental aspect of an election. If you fail to get people to vote for you, ya did a bad job.
I'm claiming unenthusiastic people don't vote. Your assigning the intent on what they preferred. Maybe some of them chose to stay home in protest. Maybe some of them wanted to vote for Harris, but low motivation and poor access to polling made them decide one vote didn't matter. That's why getting your base excited is so important, and why I'm calling bullshit when you call it, "pandering," and assigning them motivations. Do you get the difference yet? Do you see how you're reframing what I'm saying to absolve the Democrats of blame and places it on voters? Is that clear yet? Cause there's no other possible way I can say it.
(And don't think I missed that little goal post move from, "that progressives decided that fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal," to "preferred not voting over voting for a corporate Dem." Real cute.)
You're entire fucking argument is, "progressives decided that fascism was better than voting for Harris." If that's the case, shouldn't someone have told the voters that was the case? Everyone knew they were choosing between a centrist and a fascist, even though the centrist didn't tell anybody that was the case?
Okay?
At no point did I say the campaign did a good job? In fact, I'm pretty sure I explicitly lambasted them.
Yes, in this case, your argument centered around progressives. So your argument was that progressives, not being enthused enough by Harris, decided not to vote, even though the opposition was literal fascism.
This isn't complex.
Oh, so if it was a PROTEST abstain in favor of fascism, that makes it... okay in your eyes?
That still doesn't actually contradict what I've been characterizing your argument as, by the way.
So they wanted to vote for Harris, but decided that the threat of fascism wasn't motivating enough.
Literally what it is, whether you like it or not. My argument isn't that campaigns shouldn't pander to voters; it's the idea that not being pandered to justifies whatever they do, up to and including welcoming literal fucking fascism into the country.
You were the one who assigned them motivations; namely, that they were unexcited for Harris et co. All I did was point out that that argument would mean that they necessarily considered their lack of excitement sufficient to stand by and allow fascism to win.
"Acknowledging that people are responsible for how they vote or not vote is absolving Democrats of blame"
Okay.
Citation needed.
What? No. How did you read those words and come to that conclusion?
No, I'm saying low enthusiasm leads to low turnout, and as I've pointed out twice, the Harris campaign didn't make this a referendum in fascism, and very distinctly avoided the word fascism for most of the campaign. You want to say, "well, they should have been motivated to vote for Harris to defeat fascism," when that wasn't what even Harris's pitch to voters.
You are right about one thing, though; this isn't complex. In fact, I nailed it in the first comment:
No matter how many times you try to put this on the voters, it was Harris job to get voters out. She picked moderates over progressives, and that's on her, not the progressives that didn't come out. Accept it or keep blaming progressives and lose in 2028, it's not my problem anymore. You can have the last word, since you're clearly going outlast the heat death of the universe trying to get it, and just don't care anymore.
God, reading comprehension has really gone downhill in the schools.
If them staying at home in protest isn't meant as some kind of justification, then what is its relevance? The answer would be that it has fucking none. So are you backtracking, throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks, or deliberately making shite arguments to gum up the conversation?
Ah, so we're back to "Harris didn't say fascism, therefore, it can't possibly be the fault of voters who stayed home!" What an utterly servile position on civic participation. Nothing exists except what the elite put forward, huh?
Here I thought self-proclaimed leftists might recognize fascism when it clearly and loudly presents itself, but apparently you think that progressives have the approximate political understanding of a toddler.
Again, you just clearly state the argument I've been REPEATEDLY assigning to you. Your argument is that Harris not being sufficiently appealing to progressives was justification for them supposedly sitting out the election and handing the victory over to fascists. My response is that that in no way absolves them of their duty to oppose fascism, and any so-called progressive who refuses to oppose fascism because the milquetoast Dem doesn't appeal to them enough is a fucking fascist enabler.
But hey, play apologist for enabling fascists all night long if you like. Clearly I can't stop you.
You know people can just read the comments themselves right. Dont need your edit biasing things.
Have you considered that the vote between democrats and republicans is really about whether we will abuse foreigners for our wealth or abuse our own people? Which one is the noble one to vote for again? The one that won't harm you right?
Noble?
Why are you making this about what's noble?
And are you really suggesting that, if given the choice between their own survival and the survival of people on the other side of the planet, rational voters should pick the latter?
Of course not.
They're suggesting that between the choices of
Americans minorities not being killed + the death of people on the other side of the planet
American minorities being killed + the death of people on the other side of the planet
The only noble thing to do is ensure that the second choice is chosen. As many innocent people, and especially minorities, should die as possible - that's the only moral choice, after all!
No, they really are picking the latter. They just responded to me. They think self-preservation is not the rational choice for someone to make.
Yes, you are responsible for your own nation at least. Shouldnt be messing with other countries people to begin with. Ideally America would stop being so fucking greedy altogether.
Jumping in front of the trolley does not solve the trolley problem.
it does, actually.
Funny enough, I predicted that the point du jour would change from "Genocide is bad!" to "It's only fair that Americans get genocided too"
My point is America currently and historically does not care about people, it cares about money and power. Where you take it from is the choice.
If the democrats won we would still be an awful country just in a slightly different way.
Not really, since Republicans are still killing people overseas. But you don't care about that - you just want as many minorities to be killed as possible.
Maybe, they did claim they would back out of all that stuff. Probably not true because noone gives away power, but the democrats weren't going to either.
What stuff did they say they were going to back out of? The genocide they explicitly said they want to intensify?