522
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 30 Oct 2024
522 points (94.7% liked)
politics
19145 readers
2288 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Generally speaking, people AREN'T saying "vote with us or else you're a piece of shit" to anyone who is (good faith) complaining about Biden's horrendous record on genocide and Kamala being unlikely to be much better. We almost always point out "Yeah... it sucks. But do you think trump will be any better? and get responses along the lines of "WELL I WON'T VOTE FOR GENOCIDE!! THAT IS MY LINE!!!"
It has nothing to do with the way the message was said and pretending otherwise is an active insult to everyone who gives a shit.
The only reason this MIGHT make a dent is because it is Bernie Sanders. The guy who opened a lot of people's minds to the reality that there is something better than late stage capitalism and beltway liberals.
Lemmy is doing precisely this, in this very thread, and has been doing this in literally every thread where this comes up since 2023. The issue that needs to be addressed is whether or not "Trump worse" is working as a strategy. What Bernie is saying here isn't new, and maybe he's saying it better, or its better coming from him than other surrogates. ymmv. I would argue you've already captured all the votes you can get using this approach. Now what about the votes you aren't getting with the argument "Trump worse"?
I think without a pivot on this Harris is leaving the easiest 1-3% of voters to get on the table. And they've been there since the last day of the convention, where Harris conveniently showed Arab-americans the exit rather than the podium. Its a small group, but its more than sufficient to be a deal breaker in this election. You can't force them to go for Harris, and no amount of telling them they have to has changed their minds.
Going forwards, how do you get these voters to vote for Harris?
I am an AAPI. I already know no candidate gives a shit about me. Hell, it says something when frigging Yang seemed palatable for like... five minutes. And with the way geopolitics is shaking up? If you thought the anti-asian hate was bad during the lockdown parts of COVID, just wait until we are in a cold war gone lukewarm against china like we are with russia.
And that is why a lot of AAPI folk kind of go right wing. They, like their parents, decide it is easier to try to ingratiate themselves wit hteh white supremacists than to show solidarity. But the rest of us? We rapidly learn that there IS no solidarity with us because we are "model minorities" and get told to shut the fuck up when more important minorities are being discriminated against.
But also? That isn't the only issue. There are AAPI women and AAPI lgbtq+ folk and so forth. And thus, you actually look at the issues and vote in your interests even if neither party really gives a shit. Because you have more than one issue (and, even that, one party is still a lot less shitty)
So if "Well... neither is great but one is a whole lot worse in these very concrete ways" isn't working?
You get a celebrity influencer to say it. Like Sanders.
Its like the trolley problem exemplified. Blue-dog democrats be like "well someone needs to get crushed under the weight of this thing".
Yes...that's the point of the trolley problem. Someone does get crushed.
The crushing is the point, yes.
And you get to pick how much crushing happens.
Which sounds like gloating from people who saw all the people tied to one set of tracks and used it as an excuse to tie that one guy to the other track.
And that is NOT how the trolley problem works. None of us tied anyone to the tracks. There's no one else. There's just people on the tracks, and a trolley, and a lever, and you. All of the set-up happened before you got there. You are only able to make a decision about the lever.
That's because it's an abstract thought experiment. Here in concrete reality, Democratic politicians are willingly selling weapons to a genocidal apartheid regime, and refuse to stop. They could untie the guy any time they want, but are super worried that the guys who tied everyone else to the other set of tracks might not like them if they do.
Doesn't matter. All YOU can do is pull the lever, or not. You can't change who's on the track. You can't remove the trolley. You can't untie the people or lift up the tracks. In this sense, the trolley problem is almost a 1-for-1 representation of voting (in a swing state, at least). You can pull the lever, or not. Those are your options.
To people who get what they want no matter the state of the lever.
I voted for Harris. I'm not going to proclaim that your genocide is the moral genocide just because you demand that I do.
So you pulled the lever. End of thought experiment.
Yay! You made it!
I'd tell you to not be condescending but you will never be anything else.
In your case, it's because you often pretend to be dumber than you actually are, so I'm just playing along.
Condescending and abusive. Guess you can be something in addition to condescending after all.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
Edit: I'm adjusting my stance because while I can find abuse in many threads most of the time it WASN'T in the top comments. Seeing what actually makes it to the top proves I was wrong and I won't cherry-pick comments further down to argue I'm "right". "Vote bullying" exists so I'm not deleting, but when I looked for other examples I found that most of the time upvotes are for reasonable folks.
I'll give one high-ish profile example that illustrates what I'm talking about: /c/politicalmemes has nearly 6k users, which is fairly big for Lemmy. In the last 6 months, the #3 top post with 1.91k upvotes is about how not voting because you feel there's no good choice means Republicans win and not seeing that means "you have a problem". The top comment in that post is about how people saying Biden isn't doing enough are propagandists. The #3 top comment literally tells dissenters to "do a lot more shutting the fuck up".
As I've said from the beginning: it's not universal, but it shows up regularly enough to make me appreciate Bernie's approach.
The meme sub. Where people intentionally try to make jokes and antagonize each other?
Edit: While I stand by what I say below about the sentiments being genuine, when actually reading top comments across boards - in most threads the top comments are pretty civil and reasonable. I was wrong.
I believe the meme and comments actually reflect the views of the people posting them. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the sentiments come across as very genuine and so I don't think it's accurate to dismiss them as "just joking". I also picked it because I remembered it and so it was faster than trawling through other threads for examples.
"I've never seen liberals act like assholes, so it must actually be the leftists who are assholes"