If the āonline leftiesā were so powerful a block perhaps Demās leadership should have courted their vote. If they were so minor a block that āonline leftiesā should be ignored then youāre targeting the wrong people.
But you know this already, I told you before the election that way to win the āno genocideā vote isnāt to try convince them to vote āyes genocideā. Itās to try convince the leaders to stop supporting genocide.
This post is the same punching down shit you were doing before the election.
Yep. And if both the moral abstainers and the third party protest voters all would have voted for Kamala, we would still have Trump as President because the numbers of those people are so small.
Yāall are blaming the people who care the most, when you should be blaming the billionaires.
thatās a stretch. Trump will deport people who disagree with him about fucking kids so you should be driving a stake through his heart by now instead of some random person you decided to hate because democrats are fascists too.
Because for a large number of people, they effectively do not live in a democracy. Weāve known for a long time that the opinions of the poorest 90% of the US population are completely irrelevant to national politics. Millions donāt vote because they rationally realize that their votes are meaningless.
Youāll find trans people in the post. What are THEY saying.
I donāt know how to get comment links, else I would do the work for you.
But to answer your question. I donāt think Pug is punching at me at all, Iām not American. I also donāt think trans people are punching at me much either, Iāve read their comments.
It appears you misunderstood my comment. Punching down was referring to people not in power to change the dem platform. Punchin up was referring to people in power to change the dem platform. Which way is Pug punching in this post?
I answered the question posed to me. In order to make this a DIscourse and not the morally superior MONOlogue it always seems to be please answer mine.
I couldnāt get through to you last time. Perhaps we can have a more productive discussion this time.
In the vain of good faith though: how is centrist democrat policy changed? A mega donor asks Kamala to support fracking and she does.
In the vain of good faith though: how is centrist democrat policy changed? A mega donor asks Kamala to support fracking and she does.
First, the Dem platform in 2024 was still the most left platform in my lifetime. Is that damnation by faint praise? ā¦ yeah. But we also work with what weāve got, and acknowledging that the Dems have become more left since the Clinton years, and even since the Obama years, is an important note to make.
Second, Harris was, unfortunately, always an opportunist ghoul. A lot of fuckery led up to her nomination, most of it the fault of Joe Biden running despite decreasing medical fitness for office (while accusations of dementia were passed around, the simple, natural slowing of the mind with age is more likely - and not really less damning, considering a president must be at the top of their fucking game considering theyāre the top official of an entire nation of hundreds of millions of people) and then dropping out (the correct choice, but again, only necessary because of the unwise decision to run again in the first place, while an incumbent).
Third, the way you change centrist Dem policy is by showing up to primaries, nominating progressive candidates and then getting them elected in the general. The DNC is made up of former and current party officials, not randos picked from the Country Club. They are there because theyāve demonstrated an ability to get elected and re-elected at some point in their careers - they are there because we, the voters, put them there. And while you can talk a lot about how moderates and conservative Dems shape the narrative, ultimately, the fault is on us, the voters, or at least the ones voting for centrist ghouls every fucking primary, for not kicking their wretched asses out.
You want Dem policy to change? So do fucking I. Elect, and convince others to elect, progressives in the primaries, and then back them to hilt in the general regardless of whether thereās a sudden change of heart regarding the āpurityā of the candidate by some of your radical circles. We need to move the country left, and āItās not left enough!ā may be a legitimate concern, but not when the alternative is āSo letās move it rightā.
When Republicans are elected every fucking general election, the message overwhelmingly given to the Dems is either āGo rightā or āFuck, the country isnāt ready for more progressive policyā, depending on whether theyāre (respectively) centrist ghouls or left-leaning.
Helping this matter would be ranked-choice voting. If there are any measures in your area, please, support them - thereās been limited success in this country for ranked-choice as interest in the idea has increased - including the Dem primary that saw Mamdani (MAY HIS ENEMIES BE DESTROYED) nominated. It will help many on the fence in primaries make a more progressive choice by reducing the fear of right-wing candidates eking out over moderate candidates.
Ok, again, I mostly agree. Except Dems did go right this election. They had Republicans advocating for them. They lost. The most damning thing an election campaign can experience is losing. Dems may learn from that courting republican votes lose them elections. Their bank accounts will suggest they do the same thing again.
Secondly, I donāt see the āno genocideā vote being a left Vs right issue. Thereās plenty of genocides to go around lefties like myself can āno true Scotsmanā but history is riddled with genocides.
I donāt know how much I can tell you this, or how I can get it through to you. Blame the Leaders. We donāt blame Steve from the factory floor for Boeingās doors falling off.
We know how people actually play the āultimatum gameā and it isnāt how game theory says they should. You have to give them enough for them to accept your offer. Offering a penny out of Ā£100 makes them reject your offer even though youād both be the better for it. Thatās the world we live in.
Except Dems did go right this election. They had Republicans advocating for them.
Other than on trans issues, which they became suddenly very quiet about, and much more muted language on police brutality, which polls, unfortunately, turned largely against even from African-Americans after 2020 (copaganda runs strong in this fucking country), Dems largely did not move right from 2020 - the 2024 party platform includes stronger positions on climate change, environmental issues, and wealth redistribution.
Now, courting the right by trying to go for the whole āCountry over partyā aesthetic was absolutely idiotic and alienating - but it was largely not coupled with major policy changes.
Secondly, I donāt see the āno genocideā vote being a left Vs right issue. Thereās plenty of genocides to go around lefties like myself can āno true Scotsmanā but history is riddled with genocides.
In the US, the right-wing is overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian genocide, and centrists are overwhelmingly neutral on the matter of Palestinian genocide due to the massive and effective propaganda campaigns run by Israel and Israeli proxies to portray it as some, deep, complex issue and the IDF as āThe most moral army in the worldā (blech).
The no-Gaza-genocide vote was overwhelmingly left-wing. Or, rather, liberal and left. The point is that it was not evenly distributed across the political spectrum on the justification that genocide is generally viewed as bad; it was overwhelmingly concentrated on the more left leaning end of the spectrum on the justification that right-wing and centrist types tend to be sympathetic to Israel or hostile to Palestine.
I donāt know how much I can tell you this, or how I can get it through to you. Blame the Leaders. We donāt blame Steve from the factory floor for Boeingās doors falling off.
Steve isnāt voting for safety and QA reductions in this scenario, though. We live (or lived) in a democracy, however flawed it may have been. We, the voters, were voting for safety and QA reductions.
The leaders are absolutely to blame. Every individual member of the DNC bears significantly more blame than any individual voter.
But that still doesnāt absolve voters of responsibility.
When the Nazis invaded Poland, the chief culprits were the ones giving the orders and making the plans - but the rank-and-file soldiers were also still guilty - and so were those who had quietly went along with the Nazi regime because opposing the Nazis was too much trouble.
That there are different levels of guilt does not absolve the least guilty of still being guilty.
We know how people actually play the āultimatum gameā and it isnāt how game theory says they should. You have to give them enough for them to accept your offer. Offering a penny out of Ā£100 makes them reject your offer even though youād both be the better for it. Thatās the world we live in.
āDems need to give more than an ultimatumā and āWhen push comes to shove, you have to make the less-bad choiceā are not mutually exclusive options. At the infinite encouragement of purity politics, only an exact match with the voterās desires would be āearningā their vote - all else would be, legitimately, an āultimatumā forcing the voter to choose between compromise or giving up entirely. While āThey disagree with one issue of mine, I canāt vote!ā is a extreme example (though, unfortunately, one that does crop up), the principle that disagreement with the less-bad option should be grounds for rejection when the opposition is something as serious as literal fucking Nazis should be emphasized to be insufficient in scale of offense to be a moral reaction.
The abstainers were offered 10$ out of a million - a legitimate travesty and ghoulish behavior from the Dem party - and the abstainers chose to murder minorities instead - a much worse travesty. Itās not even something as āmildā as āWe both fail to gainā - my life may very well be forfeit these coming years - and the issue that many of these voters abstained on - Gaza - is set to become, and the opposition openly campaigned on making, significant worse and more murderous. And thatās anā¦ already gruesome scenario. Thatās not even getting into all the other factors that we will be suffering from under a Nazi regime.
As for blame. I agree that all involved share blame. And you, what culpabilty do you accept? (Iāve tried to word this civilly, it just doesnāt read as anything other than hostile, it isnāt meant as such, take the following as the bad orator that I am). Someone deriding purity politics wouldnāt suggest theyāre pure in the situation. (Again, not intending to be a dickā¦ I just canāt figure out a better way, seems like something to put into an llm and get it rewordedā¦ I dunno)
Iām suggesting the culpabilty you accept (I suggested at the time and now) was getting angry at the vegans, constantly hate posting against them instead of pushing leadership to plan with, for, or around them. In effect, Iām pointing out you punched down, not up. The vegans have less power than the animal rights group leaders, if you canāt make the leaders close the puppy farms, at least make them stop supporting puppy farms.
You canāt force voters to take blame for something they donāt want to (look what a bear of a time Iām having with you). Certainly not with memes. It takes an involved, and I hope like this one, empathetic conversation to do that. Thatās just peopleā¦ They donāt play the ultimatum game the way the game theorists said they should, thatās just people. some people have hard lines and genocide isnāt an unreasonable one, thatās just people.
Iām a trans person. Do not use my peopleās name to justify genocide. All the trans people I know were extremely wary of supporting Harris. Palestinians are an unpopular minority group, just like trans people are. If corporate Democrats are willing to throw Palestinians onto the pyre, they would be willing to do so for trans people as well. This was obvious to every trans person I know who was politically active. And now, as anyone with two brain cells to rub together could have predicted, corporate Dems like Newsom are throwing trans people onto the pyre right on schedule.
Again, those willing to let one minority group burn are extremely likely to do so to another group. Thatās the whole fucking point of the āfirst they came forā¦ā poem.
If the āonline leftiesā were so powerful a block perhaps Demās leadership should have courted their vote. If they were so minor a block that āonline leftiesā should be ignored then youāre targeting the wrong people.
God, if I hear this mathematically illiterate argument one more fucking time, Iām going to fucking blow.
Elections in the US are won and lost on 1 or 2 percentage points.
Tell me this - if leftists make up, say, 3% of the Dem vote, and anti-leftists make up 10% of the Dem vote, is it viable to court leftists at the expense of losing anti-leftists?
If leftists are willing to let literal fucking Nazis win because they havenāt been courted, instead of putting the groundwork in to change the demographic leanings of the Dem party, they can go fuck themselves, because that makes them fucking Nazi enablers, and not much better than the Nazis themselves.
Dems were willing to let Nazis in. Dems wernāt willing to deal with the Nazis when they had the chance. Now Dems are willing to vote with the nazis. Punch UP not DOWN. We blame leadership in all things except politics it seems.
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. Letās get rid of them next primary (please, for fuckās sake, please). But when itās 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.
I mostly agree. Fight with the tools you have but this now, as I told you back then, isnāt the tool youāre looking for. Sowing devision keeps us divided.
On this occasion the āno genocideā people happen to be right. Imagine an animal rights group that constantly and perpetually hate-posted about vegans.
Punching DOWN isnāt the correct tool. Punching UP might be.
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 didnāt 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?
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 shouldnāt be. We know how people actually behave.
Furthermore in this analogy the animal rights group isnāt campaigning to stop puppy farms, theyāre campaigning for puppy farms. Of course people that care about animal rights didnāt support them.
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 āimperfectā initiative, sinking it by 1% point, why wouldnāt you be upset at them? āItās just politics, itās just their point of viewā isnāt a particularly left outlook, itāsā¦ well, very āmoderate suburban liberalā. 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 shouldnāt 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.
Iām 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. Iām 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 donāt 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 isnāt campaigning to stop puppy farms, theyāre campaigning for puppy farms. Of course people that care about animal rights didnāt support them.
Campaigning for regulation of puppy farms, letās 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.
Why would you, a hypothetical animal rights activist, blame vegans and not the animal rights group for being shit.
āItās just politicsā is literally the argument of vote blue no matter who:thatās just what you have to do in politics. Sure theyāre imperfect, technically true but not how Iād describe someone pro genocide, but you gotta vote for them.
āDonāt look at me, Iām pure, I voted democrat in the generalā Purity politics is a meaningless term, vegans arenāt 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 whatās a sucker left to do? Not vote, vote something else, bring out the guillotinesā¦ Itās 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 āultimatum gameā. Dem leadership is who you should be hate posting about.
I, an omnivore, donāt get annoyed at vegans posting about how cruel the meat industry is, because theyāre right. I do get annoyed at how cruel the meat industry is as Iām supporting them though. I punch up at those in power, not down.
If the āonline leftiesā were so powerful a block perhaps Demās leadership should have courted their vote. If they were so minor a block that āonline leftiesā should be ignored then youāre targeting the wrong people.
But you know this already, I told you before the election that way to win the āno genocideā vote isnāt to try convince them to vote āyes genocideā. Itās to try convince the leaders to stop supporting genocide.
This post is the same punching down shit you were doing before the election.
Yep. And if both the moral abstainers and the third party protest voters all would have voted for Kamala, we would still have Trump as President because the numbers of those people are so small.
Yāall are blaming the people who care the most, when you should be blaming the billionaires.
Non voting has been the largest group for several cycles now.
Thatās why I differentiated moral abstainers from apathetics who arenāt going to vote no matter what.
Iām becoming more apathetic. Youāre choosing between two evils. The lesser evil lives in the realm of myth these days.
Become a socialist instead, and work to remove systemic evil entirely.
you say, in your couch, while people are being deported because of YOU.
you, and many of your buddies have done a full 360 and went full Nazi.
Ok bud, time to take a nap.
thatās a stretch. Trump will deport people who disagree with him about fucking kids so you should be driving a stake through his heart by now instead of some random person you decided to hate because democrats are fascists too.
The margins are close and we need to be able to reach people. Local, state, and federal elections.
Because for a large number of people, they effectively do not live in a democracy. Weāve known for a long time that the opinions of the poorest 90% of the US population are completely irrelevant to national politics. Millions donāt vote because they rationally realize that their votes are meaningless.
You really think trans people are punching down at you for wanting to evade their own genocide?
Youāll find trans people in the post. What are THEY saying.
I donāt know how to get comment links, else I would do the work for you.
But to answer your question. I donāt think Pug is punching at me at all, Iām not American. I also donāt think trans people are punching at me much either, Iāve read their comments.
It appears you misunderstood my comment. Punching down was referring to people not in power to change the dem platform. Punchin up was referring to people in power to change the dem platform. Which way is Pug punching in this post?
How do you think the Dem platform changes
PROTIP: Itās not by voters abstaining
I answered the question posed to me. In order to make this a DIscourse and not the morally superior MONOlogue it always seems to be please answer mine.
I couldnāt get through to you last time. Perhaps we can have a more productive discussion this time.
In the vain of good faith though: how is centrist democrat policy changed? A mega donor asks Kamala to support fracking and she does.
First, the Dem platform in 2024 was still the most left platform in my lifetime. Is that damnation by faint praise? ā¦ yeah. But we also work with what weāve got, and acknowledging that the Dems have become more left since the Clinton years, and even since the Obama years, is an important note to make.
Second, Harris was, unfortunately, always an opportunist ghoul. A lot of fuckery led up to her nomination, most of it the fault of Joe Biden running despite decreasing medical fitness for office (while accusations of dementia were passed around, the simple, natural slowing of the mind with age is more likely - and not really less damning, considering a president must be at the top of their fucking game considering theyāre the top official of an entire nation of hundreds of millions of people) and then dropping out (the correct choice, but again, only necessary because of the unwise decision to run again in the first place, while an incumbent).
Third, the way you change centrist Dem policy is by showing up to primaries, nominating progressive candidates and then getting them elected in the general. The DNC is made up of former and current party officials, not randos picked from the Country Club. They are there because theyāve demonstrated an ability to get elected and re-elected at some point in their careers - they are there because we, the voters, put them there. And while you can talk a lot about how moderates and conservative Dems shape the narrative, ultimately, the fault is on us, the voters, or at least the ones voting for centrist ghouls every fucking primary, for not kicking their wretched asses out.
You want Dem policy to change? So do fucking I. Elect, and convince others to elect, progressives in the primaries, and then back them to hilt in the general regardless of whether thereās a sudden change of heart regarding the āpurityā of the candidate by some of your radical circles. We need to move the country left, and āItās not left enough!ā may be a legitimate concern, but not when the alternative is āSo letās move it rightā.
When Republicans are elected every fucking general election, the message overwhelmingly given to the Dems is either āGo rightā or āFuck, the country isnāt ready for more progressive policyā, depending on whether theyāre (respectively) centrist ghouls or left-leaning.
Helping this matter would be ranked-choice voting. If there are any measures in your area, please, support them - thereās been limited success in this country for ranked-choice as interest in the idea has increased - including the Dem primary that saw Mamdani (MAY HIS ENEMIES BE DESTROYED) nominated. It will help many on the fence in primaries make a more progressive choice by reducing the fear of right-wing candidates eking out over moderate candidates.
Ok, again, I mostly agree. Except Dems did go right this election. They had Republicans advocating for them. They lost. The most damning thing an election campaign can experience is losing. Dems may learn from that courting republican votes lose them elections. Their bank accounts will suggest they do the same thing again.
Secondly, I donāt see the āno genocideā vote being a left Vs right issue. Thereās plenty of genocides to go around lefties like myself can āno true Scotsmanā but history is riddled with genocides.
I donāt know how much I can tell you this, or how I can get it through to you. Blame the Leaders. We donāt blame Steve from the factory floor for Boeingās doors falling off.
We know how people actually play the āultimatum gameā and it isnāt how game theory says they should. You have to give them enough for them to accept your offer. Offering a penny out of Ā£100 makes them reject your offer even though youād both be the better for it. Thatās the world we live in.
Other than on trans issues, which they became suddenly very quiet about, and much more muted language on police brutality, which polls, unfortunately, turned largely against even from African-Americans after 2020 (copaganda runs strong in this fucking country), Dems largely did not move right from 2020 - the 2024 party platform includes stronger positions on climate change, environmental issues, and wealth redistribution.
Now, courting the right by trying to go for the whole āCountry over partyā aesthetic was absolutely idiotic and alienating - but it was largely not coupled with major policy changes.
In the US, the right-wing is overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian genocide, and centrists are overwhelmingly neutral on the matter of Palestinian genocide due to the massive and effective propaganda campaigns run by Israel and Israeli proxies to portray it as some, deep, complex issue and the IDF as āThe most moral army in the worldā (blech).
The no-Gaza-genocide vote was overwhelmingly left-wing. Or, rather, liberal and left. The point is that it was not evenly distributed across the political spectrum on the justification that genocide is generally viewed as bad; it was overwhelmingly concentrated on the more left leaning end of the spectrum on the justification that right-wing and centrist types tend to be sympathetic to Israel or hostile to Palestine.
Steve isnāt voting for safety and QA reductions in this scenario, though. We live (or lived) in a democracy, however flawed it may have been. We, the voters, were voting for safety and QA reductions.
The leaders are absolutely to blame. Every individual member of the DNC bears significantly more blame than any individual voter.
But that still doesnāt absolve voters of responsibility.
When the Nazis invaded Poland, the chief culprits were the ones giving the orders and making the plans - but the rank-and-file soldiers were also still guilty - and so were those who had quietly went along with the Nazi regime because opposing the Nazis was too much trouble.
That there are different levels of guilt does not absolve the least guilty of still being guilty.
āDems need to give more than an ultimatumā and āWhen push comes to shove, you have to make the less-bad choiceā are not mutually exclusive options. At the infinite encouragement of purity politics, only an exact match with the voterās desires would be āearningā their vote - all else would be, legitimately, an āultimatumā forcing the voter to choose between compromise or giving up entirely. While āThey disagree with one issue of mine, I canāt vote!ā is a extreme example (though, unfortunately, one that does crop up), the principle that disagreement with the less-bad option should be grounds for rejection when the opposition is something as serious as literal fucking Nazis should be emphasized to be insufficient in scale of offense to be a moral reaction.
The abstainers were offered 10$ out of a million - a legitimate travesty and ghoulish behavior from the Dem party - and the abstainers chose to murder minorities instead - a much worse travesty. Itās not even something as āmildā as āWe both fail to gainā - my life may very well be forfeit these coming years - and the issue that many of these voters abstained on - Gaza - is set to become, and the opposition openly campaigned on making, significant worse and more murderous. And thatās anā¦ already gruesome scenario. Thatās not even getting into all the other factors that we will be suffering from under a Nazi regime.
As for blame. I agree that all involved share blame. And you, what culpabilty do you accept? (Iāve tried to word this civilly, it just doesnāt read as anything other than hostile, it isnāt meant as such, take the following as the bad orator that I am). Someone deriding purity politics wouldnāt suggest theyāre pure in the situation. (Again, not intending to be a dickā¦ I just canāt figure out a better way, seems like something to put into an llm and get it rewordedā¦ I dunno)
Iām suggesting the culpabilty you accept (I suggested at the time and now) was getting angry at the vegans, constantly hate posting against them instead of pushing leadership to plan with, for, or around them. In effect, Iām pointing out you punched down, not up. The vegans have less power than the animal rights group leaders, if you canāt make the leaders close the puppy farms, at least make them stop supporting puppy farms.
You canāt force voters to take blame for something they donāt want to (look what a bear of a time Iām having with you). Certainly not with memes. It takes an involved, and I hope like this one, empathetic conversation to do that. Thatās just peopleā¦ They donāt play the ultimatum game the way the game theorists said they should, thatās just people. some people have hard lines and genocide isnāt an unreasonable one, thatās just people.
voting for Democrats doesnāt prevent fascism
Iām a trans person. Do not use my peopleās name to justify genocide. All the trans people I know were extremely wary of supporting Harris. Palestinians are an unpopular minority group, just like trans people are. If corporate Democrats are willing to throw Palestinians onto the pyre, they would be willing to do so for trans people as well. This was obvious to every trans person I know who was politically active. And now, as anyone with two brain cells to rub together could have predicted, corporate Dems like Newsom are throwing trans people onto the pyre right on schedule.
Again, those willing to let one minority group burn are extremely likely to do so to another group. Thatās the whole fucking point of the āfirst they came forā¦ā poem.
God, if I hear this mathematically illiterate argument one more fucking time, Iām going to fucking blow.
Elections in the US are won and lost on 1 or 2 percentage points.
Tell me this - if leftists make up, say, 3% of the Dem vote, and anti-leftists make up 10% of the Dem vote, is it viable to court leftists at the expense of losing anti-leftists?
If leftists are willing to let literal fucking Nazis win because they havenāt been courted, instead of putting the groundwork in to change the demographic leanings of the Dem party, they can go fuck themselves, because that makes them fucking Nazi enablers, and not much better than the Nazis themselves.
Dems were willing to let Nazis in. Dems wernāt willing to deal with the Nazis when they had the chance. Now Dems are willing to vote with the nazis. Punch UP not DOWN. We blame leadership in all things except politics it seems.
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. Letās get rid of them next primary (please, for fuckās sake, please). But when itās 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.
I mostly agree. Fight with the tools you have but this now, as I told you back then, isnāt the tool youāre looking for. Sowing devision keeps us divided.
On this occasion the āno genocideā people happen to be right. Imagine an animal rights group that constantly and perpetually hate-posted about vegans.
Punching DOWN isnāt the correct tool. Punching UP might be.
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 didnāt 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?
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 shouldnāt be. We know how people actually behave.
Furthermore in this analogy the animal rights group isnāt campaigning to stop puppy farms, theyāre campaigning for puppy farms. Of course people that care about animal rights didnāt support them.
If that activist group then campaigns against the āimperfectā initiative, sinking it by 1% point, why wouldnāt you be upset at them? āItās just politics, itās just their point of viewā isnāt a particularly left outlook, itāsā¦ well, very āmoderate suburban liberalā. 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.
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.
Iām 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. Iām 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 donāt think that normalizing it in the communities I frequent is something that I should stand by and be quiet about.
Campaigning for regulation of puppy farms, letās 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.
Again the anger is misplaced.
Why would you, a hypothetical animal rights activist, blame vegans and not the animal rights group for being shit.
āItās just politicsā is literally the argument of vote blue no matter who:thatās just what you have to do in politics. Sure theyāre imperfect, technically true but not how Iād describe someone pro genocide, but you gotta vote for them.
āDonāt look at me, Iām pure, I voted democrat in the generalā Purity politics is a meaningless term, vegans arenāt 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 whatās a sucker left to do? Not vote, vote something else, bring out the guillotinesā¦ Itās 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 āultimatum gameā. Dem leadership is who you should be hate posting about.
I, an omnivore, donāt get annoyed at vegans posting about how cruel the meat industry is, because theyāre right. I do get annoyed at how cruel the meat industry is as Iām supporting them though. I punch up at those in power, not down.