this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2025
931 points (98.0% liked)
Flippanarchy
599 readers
1089 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to [email protected]
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If more people voted, this would not happen right now :) but both sides the same and voting doesnt matter.
Acting as if fascists did not nearly successfully couped the last time they lost the election is so much denial.
The people that voted last time got a goverment that could not stop a convicted felon, certified rapist, enemy goverment asset and obvious fascist from running again. They would not have been able to stop a fast nor a slow coup.
You're right.
Why slow down the coup when you can just give up and let them announce a concentration camp for undesirable immigrants without any pushback?
Step 1: should have voted to stop the coup Step 2: should have voted for a slow coup Step 3: should have voted for a less fascist coup
We recreate the structures we seek to dismantle...
Don't @ me I voted but the Democratic playbook has been to cede ground and take only clout back my whole life.
Like corporations and consumers the fault isn't with the voter when the system is stacked against them and the options are two evils with one the lesser.
No what I mean is that everyone who want to stop facism should stop relying on groups and organisations that have a record of being ineffective when it comes to opposing and stopping the fascists.
Check out [email protected], [email protected] and other Lemmy communities to find out about ways to oppose fascism without relying on the DNC.
Literally the outcome of this election was guaranteed back in August. The second the Harris/Walz started polling at 50/50 was when a contested election became the best possible outcome, and a contested election was always going to be awarded to Trump through the captured Supreme Court.
I get that libs are disappointed that the country just gave him the keys without a fight, but Trump was prepared for that fight. It's why they kept shouting that our election was a sham and already decided; they knew they would steal the election if necessary. Dems were never going to do anything to stop it, same as they did nothing for Gore vs Bush.
Their loss wasn't nearly so catastrophic as to make it clear they're in the minority. The issue with democratic legitimacy is that it's mostly about impression of consensus rather than pure numbers because humans suck at processing numbers. Sure, neither government might have the actual endorsement of the constituency, but it doesn't matter if the voting portion of it is split closely enough that it seems like they do.
If, say, the Reps hat lost 30:70, they possibly wouldn't have been quite so bold, and on the other hand, the Dem leadership might have felt more confident in opposing them. Moreover, reducing Rep significance to a footnote could create space for progressive movements to be more than a spoiler, which could give them more weight in the internal party politics.
Note, however, the abundance of "could" and "possibly" and "might". The difficulty with counter-factuals is that you can't really compare them to facts. It's just as possible that nothing would have been different at all. Much of predicting politics and public opinion is guesswork based on incomplete information, and putting it to a representative test would probably be impossible and possibly dangerous.
As it stands, you're unfortunately right.
But the people who stayed home because the democrats didn't offer them a pony are noble and should be regarded with the utmost respect!
But you haven't thought of how clean their hands are.
"Didn't offer them a pony" doesn't equate to "stop funding a genocide in Israel". This level of callousness is exactly why people stayed home
If they thought genocide in Israel was bad, why did they make it worse and global?
If they cared about human rights, they'd be defending human rights. People who make matters worse out of spite are not the good guys. I wish they at least owned their awfulness instead of crying all over social media how people blame them for the things they actually did, when they themselves happily boasted about it just a month ago.
People didn't abstain from spite, they abstained from a correct belief that the system doesn't work for them, or they couldn't vote against their conscience. Your own framing of lesser evilism and weighting voting more than other kinds of political activity inevitably creates the situation where people can't just cast a vote strategically. You dismiss 3/4 of the picture in order to make a point based on only 1/4 of the information, in other words, you are distorting the truth to fit your narrative.
Politics often comes down to a struggle between two views, but your attempt to shunt anyone who didn't vote the way you did into some enemy category is, predictably, no strategy at all. Unless your strategy is to divide the electorate, which sort of defeats your entire premise.
Actually try to understand other people as having minds and wills of their own, rather than narcissistically making your own view the objective one (like a religion might) and then condemning others (like a religion might) for their sins.
Their not voting created this situation in the first place. They wanted this situation. People who are hurt by this situation are rather justified in hating the people who put them into it. You say it's because these people choose to do this on their own, because of their own free will. I agree with you on this. But THEIR justification in creating this situation does not fucking matter to others. It does not matter if somebody stabs you in the back because they hate you or because they are trying to make a point or out of boredom or out of some philosophical whatnot, what matters to you is that you have a knife sticking out of your back and bleeding to death. And when you turn around, what you see is your attacker crying a river about their right to stab you and why are you blaming them? It's not like THEY hate you like THOSE other guys!
Fact is that if they voted for the other side, they would have a perfectly stable democracy (lol, not really) where they could then campaign for stuff they want without the world being on fire around them. Which btw, they aren't doing with the word being on fire around them either, but if they did it now, they'd be wiped off it by the powers they put into place.
Your "leaders" created this situation in the first place by refusing to even acknowledge the concerns of those voters, much less address them.
It would be far more reasonable for a handful of Democrat Party leaders to move their position in a handful of subjects to address grave moral concerns of millions of their natural voters than for them to expect than they could get the votes of all the millions for whom those things were important without conceding an inch on those subjects.
Want to see who gave the election to Trump on a platter: look inside the Democrat Party.
I'm getting so tired of liberals who spend all their time complaining about people not supporting their preferred genocidaire instead of demanding candidates that aren't aspiring genocidaires.
It is the candidate's job to win the election, not the electorate's. If the anti-genocide voting bloc was enough to swing the election (it wasn't) then maybe your candidate shouldn't have supported a fucking genocide in spite of that.
The US style "Liberals" seem to be incredibly subservient, prefering to blame millions of people for not chosing their "boss" rather than the "boss" for not even trying to appeal to those people.
All the talk of the supposedly Go Getter and Independent spirit in America and yet around here we are faced with an overwhelming amount of American arse-kissers who are seemingly unable to even conceive that maybe, just maybe, "the boss" was the one who did things the wrong way, causing millions to refuse to chose them and hence has most of the blame for the outcome.
On the upside, watching this is a wonderful opportunity to learn a lot about the evils of people being mindless unchallenging followers of "Leaders" in Politics.