this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2025
1548 points (95.4% liked)
Political Memes
8957 readers
2452 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t 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
Don’t 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.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
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
And those four are functionally equivalent to people who didn't vote because they're okay with either option
Genocide is much more like driving off a cliff than having ice cream or not voting.
It's kind of sad that I even have to say this.
I mean if we want a better analogy, Harris represented the "crash the bus into a building" party, and Trump represented the "crash the bus into a building and explode" party. 3 people are voting for building, 4 people are voting for building and explode, and 4 people are saying "I don't care whether we explode."
One of those 4 thinks they're making some kind of statement by saying "I don't want to crash at all, so I won't be voting." He is indistinguishable from the 3 that just don't care
Maybe stop with the dumb fucking analogies and talk about the real situation for a change. It's not too complex to talk about (and if it is to you, holy fuck, maybe shut up and do some reading first?) and you're fooling nobody with your deflections.
I have no problem talking about the real situation. One of the parties is in favor of less genocide, one of the parties is in favor of more genocide, and non voters don't care whether we get less or more genocide.
Of course it would be better for everyone we could have elected a third party, but the choice was between Harris (sells weapons to Israel) and Trump (sells more weapons to Israel and also starts a genocide here in America), and non voters didn't care which side won. In the absence of the option you want, you have to make the best available choice.
Less genocide, but not the stopping of genocide? Man, do I not feel sorry for gringos when they act like this is a moral choice.
How would you know, anyway? They refused to acknowledge there was a genocide in the first place while they sent a record amount of money and weapons. Oh wow, such harm reduction.
No genocide > less genocide > more genocide. No genocide was not on the ballot; the choices were less and more. Reread the last sentence of the comment you replied to. I guess you're right though, the Democrats could have started a genocide against the American Latino population. I guess there's no way to know which option was less harmful
Analogies are useful, not just for understanding a difficult subject, but for seeing a familiar subject in a new perspective. When your audience is eschewing logic due to compartmentalized thinking, analogies can help break them free.