820
Well, we have the fucking camps opening. Luckily, plenty of terminally online leftists are ready to tell us how noble and moral not voting was! (europe.pub)
submitted 1 year ago* by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
935 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] [S] -6 points 1 year ago (8 children)

The leadership of the Dem party is absolutely guilty, and most people here, on Lemmy, recognize that.

The problem is that voters (and, especially, non voters) are also guilty, and many on Lemmy refuse to recognize that.

Man, in a just world, probably almost every high-ranking member of the DNC would deserve a noose. But we also fight with the tools we have, and we elected the tools (ha) in the DNC. Have a problem with those tools? I do too. Let's get rid of them next primary (please, for fuck's sake, please). But when it's them or the literal Nazis, you gotta go with the tools.

Idiotic tools who do the bare minimum are preferable to literal Nazi genocide, man.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

    I mostly agree. Fight with the tools you have but this now, as I told you back then, isn't the tool you're looking for. Sowing devision keeps us divided.

    On this occasion the 'no genocide' people happen to be right. Imagine an animal rights group that constantly and perpetually hate-posted about vegans.

    Punching DOWN isn't the correct tool. Punching UP might be.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    But is it sowing division to point out that dividing the vote is, itself, divisive, and has very real and serious consequences?

    Is it not divisive to encourage and normalize non-voting even when faced with literal Nazis running because of insufficient policy on the part of the only serious opposition candidate?

    Imagine an animal rights group who campaigned against a ballot initiative to stop puppy farms - because it didn't also stop factory farms, ultimately failing by a measly 1% of the vote? Would it not be realistic and reasonable for people in that animal rights group to be pissed that puppy farms were perpetuated, at no gain to any animals, because a section of the animal rights group wanted a more radical option - a legitimate desire, but one which led to actions which worsened the situation instead of helping it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    Not really. In this analogy I know this group exists and plan for, with, or around them. If vegans found an activist group that better aligned with their goals why would I be surprised or upset they went to that one?

    None of this is surprising, or at least it shouldn't be. We know how people actually behave.

    Furthermore in this analogy the animal rights group isn't campaigning to stop puppy farms, they're campaigning for puppy farms. Of course people that care about animal rights didn't support them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Not really. In this analogy I know this group exists and plan for, with, or around them. If vegans found an activist group that better aligned with their goals why would I be surprised or upset they went to that one?

    If that activist group then campaigns against the "imperfect" initiative, sinking it by 1% point, why wouldn't you be upset at them? "It's just politics, it's just their point of view" isn't a particularly left outlook, it's... well, very 'moderate suburban liberal'. Politics are often a matter of life and death - in the most literal sense. Being upset is pretty low on the totem poll for intensity-of-reaction with that in mind.

    None of this is surprising, or at least it shouldn’t be. We know how people actually behave.

    Not being surprised that some people are self-defeating and being upset that people are self-defeating and that other, ostensible allies are defending them for being self-defeating and encouraging them to continue being so are two different things.

    I'm not surprised, for example, that bootlickers vote for Trump, or that there are millions of bootlickers in this fucking country. But I am upset about it. I'm not surprised that there are a significant minority of leftists who prefer purity politics to averting and reducing genocide. But I am upset - and I don't think that normalizing it in the communities I frequent is something that I should stand by and be quiet about.

    Further more in this analogy the animal rights group isn’t campaigning to stop puppy farms, they’re campaigning for puppy farms. Of course people that care about animal rights didn’t support them.

    Campaigning for regulation of puppy farms, let's say, since the Dems were quite clearly not anti-Israel, but had clearly shifted to a less pro-Israel position, especially after Biden dropped out.

    In that view - when faced between making puppy farms less horrific or letting them continue as usual - or even making them worse - why should I not be upset that an ostensibly anti animal suffering group opted to let suffering continue or intensify instead of stopping it out of some bizarre sense of purity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Again the anger is misplaced.

    Why would you, a hypothetical animal rights activist, blame vegans and not the animal rights group for being shit.

    "It's just politics" is literally the argument of vote blue no matter who:that's just what you have to do in politics. Sure they're imperfect, technically true but not how I'd describe someone pro genocide, but you gotta vote for them.

    "Don't look at me, I'm pure, I voted democrat in the general" Purity politics is a meaningless term, vegans aren't purity politicking (politicing sp?)any more or less than you are, they have a moral outlook and they act on it same as you. Voting republican is abhorrent, voting dem is self defeating (I hope we agree voting pro-genocide is self defeating to an anti-genocise outlook) so what's a sucker left to do? Not vote, vote something else, bring out the guillotines... It's all a bit shit, and to get angry at them for it is ludicrous.

    Dem leadership made the vote what it was. Dem leadership ignored how people actually play the "ultimatum game". Dem leadership is who you should be hate posting about.

    I, an omnivore, don't get annoyed at vegans posting about how cruel the meat industry is, because they're right. I do get annoyed at how cruel the meat industry is as I'm supporting them though. I punch up at those in power, not down.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Why would you, a hypothetical animal rights activist, blame vegans and not the animal rights group for being shit.

    Why would I not blame both? The animal rights group for not putting forward a radical enough solution, and the vegans in question for perpetuating animal suffering out of some bizarre sense of spiritualist purity.

    “It’s just politics” is literally the argument of vote blue no matter who:that’s just what you have to do in politics. Sure they’re imperfect, technically true but not how I’d describe someone pro genocide, but you gotta vote for them.

    No, the argument of "Vote Blue no matter who" is that the Republicans have degenerated into an openly fascist party and it is necessary to oppose them for the health and safety of minority groups.

    If your choice is a shit sandwich or getting your head pulped by a steamroller, choose the sandwich.

    “Don’t look at me, I’m pure, I voted democrat in the general”

    Fuck man, where do you get that idea? I've openly stated before that by voting for Harris, the burden of accepting insufficient opposition to Palestinian genocide, at minimum, is on my soul. The issue is that had I chose to NOT vote for Harris, the burden of accepting indifference to the intensification of the Palestinian genocide would have been on me.

    I'm not pure. I made the least-bad decision. It's all we fucking can do in this life.

    ” Purity politics is a meaningless term, vegans aren’t purity politicking (politicing sp?)any more or less than you are, they have a moral outlook and they act on it same as you.

    Bruh, purity politics is a term which means preferring a deonotological or virtue ethics approach to voting over a utilitarian one - ie saying that some internal sense of values is preferable to the actual lives of human beings in voting, an action which is, itself, a strategic choice, not a fucking love letter.

    You can say "They just morally disagree with you!" and that's true in a sense - but Trump voters also just 'morally disagree with me', and I'm no less pissed at them for that.

    . Voting republican is abhorrent, voting dem is self defeating (I hope we agree voting pro-genocide is self defeating to an anti-genocise outlook) so what’s a sucker left to do? Not vote, vote something else, bring out the guillotines…

    Vote Dem, then work on bringing out the guillotines. That's what Harm Reduction means.

    Voting Dem takes, at most, two days a year, depending on how often you have municipal elections. You have 363 days a year for other organizing - and if you live in a state with unfucked polling places, or even better, mail-in ballots, it doesn't even take a whole day.

    "Stop the immediately promised genocide and the worsening of literally every issue I give a shit about AND damaging leftist organizing" is worth two days a year, I think.

    It’s all a bit shit, and to get angry at them for it is ludicrous.

    It's all a bit shit. Every option we have in life is a bit shit. Even if the leftists got their way, even if this was a left country (God, if only), we would STILL be dealing with shit options, and we would STILL be obligated to work towards the LESS shit of them. And getting angry at people who voted - or sat on their asses - for fascists to send me to a death camp is a pretty mild reaction, all things considered.

    Dem leadership made the vote what it was. Dem leadership ignored how people actually play the “ultimatum game”. Dem leadership is who you should be hate posting about.

    Bruh, everyone on Lemmy already fucking hates the DNC. Except for the kicks I'd get out of photoshopping Pelosi's head into a guillotine, it wouldn't do much. Reminding people that the less vile option is mandatory when going up against literal Nazis has a chance of shifting or maintaining the narrative, currently contentious, that purity-politics voting is not kosher.

    I, an omnivore, don’t get annoyed at vegans posting about how cruel the meat industry is, because they’re right. I do get annoyed at how cruel the meat industry is as I’m supporting them though. I punch up at those in power, not down.

    But what if vegans posting about how cruel the meat industry is campaigned against, and ultimately sank by a measly 1% of the vote, your initiative to reduce the cruelty of the meat industry?

    Would that not be a reason to be upset? They had a chance to reduce suffering, and they chose to sink it - not for some alternative, but just because it was not pure enough. Why would that be good or acceptable to you? Would you not be upset that more animals would suffer needlessly and pointlessly for this? If you would not be upset, how much do you really care about the issue to begin with?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    No, the argument of "Vote Blue no matter who" is that the Republicans have degenerated into an openly fascist party and it is necessary to oppose them for the health and safety of minority groups.

    Why do you have to specifically vote Blue though? Is it just politics that it has to be blue. That's the political landscape.

    You absolutely used your moral judgement and made the best possible choice you could. I don't disagree, I see how you saw it as the best possible choice. The situation was shit, you did the best you could to at least not support it getting worse.

    Can you not see why someone would see not voting for genocide as the best possible choice they could make? Not that you agree with them, you don't, I get that. But for them, with their moral outlook the situation was shit and they did the best they could to at least not support it getting worse.

    The meat industry is inherently cruel. Again, why would I be annoyed that I said I am an animal cruelty activist and someone pointed out I support an industry that's inherently cruel.

    I could see it sparking a cognitive dissonance "but I'm not pro-animal cruelty" then I'd listen to 'em. They're right, acceptable levels of animal cruelty laws are just there to make me feel better. They're not really there for the animals.

    Don't get me wrong, I'd still support more animal cruelty laws. I wouldn't stand in the way of a total ban on meat as I continued to buy it up to the day it's outlawed. I'm not blaming vegans for anything, I'm self reflecting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] -2 points 1 year ago

    Why do you have to specifically vote Blue though? Is it just politics that it has to be blue. That’s the political landscape.

    The only reason it's "Vote Blue no matter who" is because right now, in America's FPTP system, the Dems are the only real alternative in most areas to the GOP. It's a pithy saying, not a political essay. The lesson is not "LOYALTY TO COMRADE BIDEN", but "Don't throw your vote away on a symbolic action; preventing fascism is more important than virtue signaling to no one, especially since ballots are secret"

    Can you not see why someone would see not voting for genocide as the best possible choice they could make? Not that you agree with them, you don’t, I get that. But for them, with their moral outlook the situation was shit and they did the best they could to at least not support it getting worse.

    The problem is that every view I can think of for 'not voting for genocide' is extremely flawed from either a logical or moral perspective. We live in a FPTP system with two parties/candidates with near-majority support. Practically speaking, one of them was always going to win when no dark horses emerged by, say, September. Realistically speaking, 'not voting for genocide' actually meant "Letting everyone else choose for me", and considering that "More genocide" was chosen, everyone who protest voted or abstained has to fucking reckon with the fact that they enabled the "More genocide" candidate, for no gain to anyone.

    The only 'real' arguments against voting I've seen are likewise ridiculous - accelerationism or delegitimization of the results.

    The issue with those is that accelerationism goes against everything we know about revolutions and building revolutionary apparati, while the argument of delegitimization of the results would require a massive boycott - and, as 'elections' in Iran have shown, still not accomplished much. Delegitimization of the results might have been more 'legitimate' a strategy if the two candidates were closer (ie one was not a literal fucking Nazi - maybe try this in 2012?), but considering that they decided that they preferred to try to make a symbolic victory against the system over preventing literal Nazis, I find it very hard to accept as any kind of moral or 'best' possible action. If you (generic you, not you personally) think symbolism is preferable to the literal lives of millions, you put too much value on symbolism.

    The meat industry is inherently cruel. Again, why would I be annoyed that I said I am an animal cruelty activist and someone pointed out I support an industry that’s inherently cruel.

    But again, the question is not of you being angry that YOU'RE being called out. The question is being angry that the animal cruelty activists worked against the reduction of animal cruelty.

    Man, people can call me a shitlib all day, if they voted for Harris, they've a right to their further-left opinions as far as I'm concerned. But don't tell me you're a very serious leftist who hates fascism and then refuse to try to prevent fascism - at minimal cost and effort to your own views.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’d still support more animal cruelty laws. I wouldn’t stand in the way of a total ban on meat as I continued to buy it up to the day it’s outlawed. I’m not blaming vegans for anything, I’m self reflecting.

    But in this case, the vegans didn't support more animal cruelty laws. They prevented animal cruelty laws - not to put an alternative in place, but simply because they don't believe in reducing harm, no matter how many millions or even billions it effects. If they don't believe in reducing harm, what is their 'ideology', but a game or a sports team?

    Most vegans might grouse, but would still vote for animal cruelty laws that REDUCE animal cruelty even if they don't ELIMINATE it for that very reason - that's precisely why so many animal cruelty laws have been proposed and passed - because vegans are willing to support harm reduction.

    So why do these leftists we're talking about care less about people than vegans care about animals?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent