740
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2025
740 points (96.5% liked)
Political Memes
9059 readers
496 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
The other four didn't vote because there wasn't a party against genocide.
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
When your main issue isn't on the ballot, it doesn't matter in the election.
The other four didn't think this through because only one party had a subset of their coalition who opposed genocide, and also opposed 2 other genocides: the one Russia perpetrates against Ukraine, and climate change (leaving aside things like, you know, women's rights and LGBTQ+ rights... And not as a case-in-point the internal genocide of poor people when 50,000 Americans will now die from being dropped from Medicaid thanks to a bill that only ~~Republicans~~ the cliff-divers would have passed).
Single issue voter is still committed to being uncommitted.
An issue easily adressed but stubbornly dismissed for no reason
Electoral puritanism like this is a big part of why we now have concentration camps in America.
Thanks for that.
Funny how Democrats never used to have to complain about Purity Tests back when they were doing things like attempting to pass universal healthcare. In fact I’d literally never even heard the phrase (in that context) before last year and suddenly it’s everywhere.
The camps already existed with Biden, Trump is just putting more money into them
Yeah the downvotes you're getting really illustrate the three monkeys approach of centrists. Outright denial not only of opinions, but objective facts. Trump immigration policy is just Biden's turned up a notch, but with a lot of performative cruelty thrown in. Biden's immigration policy is just Trump's turned down a notch, with less performative cruelty. Trump vice signals, Biden virtue signaled. But their actual policies on immigration are very very similar.
JFC deporting people if their asylum claim fails isn't the same as what trump is doing. That you're trying to equate them is mind bogglingly bad. Anything to confuse the issue and say b b both sides same, huh. I recognize your name so I'm not going to reply further.
So what you're saying is it's not just Biden's turned up a notch, he's doing it differently and much, much worse. The idea that, because both of them are immigration policies that include deportation, they must be the same thing is infantile
One of them is in favor of deporting all of the Latinos, but really it's the same policy lmao
Biden ran concentration camps. I'm sorry to have to inform you of this.
I'm aware of this. Trump's are worse.
Your moral compass is broken.
"Less suffering is preferable to more suffering" indicates a functioning moral compass
You have no red lines. You would vote for Hitler if he was running against someone 1% worse. Again, your moral compass is broken.
Define "red line" for me. It really seems like you think that less suffering and more suffering are morally equivalent, which indicates a defective moral compass incapable of understanding magnitude. Either that, or you have a defective moral compass that allows you to extricate yourself from moral dilemmas by saying that, because you can't pick the option you wish you had, you're somehow justified in not picking the best available option.
In your little Hitler analogy, you think it's morally superior to let 60,000 more Jews die just to say "well, I'd prefer if we didn't kill any," and you're saying I have a broken moral compass. Please tell me if I'm wrong. I would genuinely prefer to know that you understand that it is a worse thing when more people die
You moral compass is so broken you don't even know what a "red line" is.
You will excuse any crime, no matter how abominable, as long as your monster is running against someone you can convince yourself is a tiny bit worse.
A red line is saying, "no, fuck this. There are some things you just can't excuse. Both of these people belong in jail. I will not vote for either of them, as neither of these people are going to help. I'm voting for someone else and looking towards the next election."
Your ethics are actually highly aligned with those of the Nazis. They had no red lines. Everything was utilitarianism to them. The disabled had to be killed off because they were drains on society, and on a whole the greater good demanded they be liquidated. The greater good required the Nazis to kill the Jews, as the Nazis had a theory of history centered around racial conflict. Killing off the entire population of Eastern Europe was "the lesser of two evils" in their eyes.
Your ethics would fit right in at Hitler's table. You both care only of the greater good. Individuals have no innate value as human beings. Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot all share your ethical reasoning. They just measure the "greater good" different than you do. And that is precisely what makes them, and you, so unforgivably evil. The greater good leads nations straight to Hell.
So it's the "extricating yourself from moral dilemmas" kind of broken. The option you wanted wasn't on the ballot, so the entire world can burn for all you care. I don't want more people dead, and that's EXACTLY THE SAME as wanting all the disabled people and jews dead. I'd call you a clown but you're not even funny
"They all thought they were being good people, and so do you, which makes you evil like them" is such a weird take
"But I don't understand, I voted for fascism lite the last 6 elections, why am I suddenly living under fascism?"
"Both options sell weapons to Israel so I'm not going to cast a vote for either of them. Oh no, why is abortion illegal? Why are trans people not allowed to legally update their gender? Why does ICE have a bigger budget than the Marines? Why are they deporting US citizens? Why did they cut the already barebones healthcare we have? Why are they bringing fucking asbestos back? Why is the Secretary of Health and Human Services in favor of spreading bird flu and against vaccines? Why are they actively deciding to give our kids cavities? Why has the Supreme Court decided that the president can violate the constitution? Why have they demolished every scientific institution in the country?"
Why? Because for decades Democrats have been ignoring all long term strategy and only voting for "the most important election ever." It's short term thinking that kills you in the long run. Republicans are much better at long term thinking than liberals like yourself.
I don't disagree. Unlike you though, I don't support the Republicans killing us in the short run
The puritanism is that both parties are fascist.
Both parties are equally bad, that's why we're letting 65 million Latinos get deported instead of not letting 65 million Latinos get deported. Less genocide is actually just as bad as more genocide
There's a genocide on the bus too?
Libs will tell the craziest stories just to avoid reality.
"Avoiding reality is when you use literary devices that are so complex literal children can parse them."
I'm sorry that you can't quite grasp what an analogy is yet. I hope you continue your education at some point.
I'm sorry you're unable to defend a single point without resorting to contrived scenarios where every option except the one you want is unbelievably stupid or cartoonishly evil
There were only two realistic options in the 2024 election.
Are you saying Trump et co wasn't unbelievably stupid and cartoonishly evil?
Otherwise, you're in agreement with me and throwing a fit over nothing.