this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
79 points (64.4% liked)

Political Memes

5598 readers
3429 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes 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 misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://feddit.uk/post/21429342

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Darorad@lemmy.world 30 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (3 children)

No, you should vote for a different lesser evil that they prefer even though it will be even less effective

[–] TwiddleTwaddle@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (2 children)

No, you should band together and grind the system that only presents evil options to a halt.

[–] recreationalcatheter@lemm.ee 2 points 5 hours ago

Very altruistic and yet completely unrealistic.

Be real.

[–] Darorad@lemmy.world 11 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

That is something you do outside of electoral politics. You will not achieve that by not voting for the lesser evil.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 10 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Voting for the lesser evil can enable this strategy to be more effective. Is it easier to organize against the system in the streets today or in a future where the military enforces the president's whims via emergency powers? I think the answer is fairly obvious.

Lesser evil voting is a rational response to a broken system, but it also isn't mutually exclusive with fighting against that system in other ways. And I believe it's even synergistic in many cases.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 4 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Fuck no. You don't get to pull out "less effective" within a day of Pelosi shuffling a 74 year old cancer patient into the most critical committee position for fighting Trump. That's exactly the effectiveness you get with Democratic establishment habitual losers.

It would be a 'critical position for fighting Trump' if you hadn't voted Trump in.

The "habitual losers" won last time around.

[–] Darorad@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

The Democrats having practically negative effectiveness is still infinitely more effective.

Obviously voting for dems isn't going to produce the fundamental changes we need, neither is voting third party or not voting.

Dems will at best slightly slow our descent into fascism. That gives us slightly more time to build dual power and engage in direct action.

We're far behind, and need every second of time we can squeeze in.

[–] limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

When people have limited choices to vote on, voting for a or b does not make them like a or b.

It just means it’s a “boiling the frog situation” when gradually changing the goalposts makes people not notice the real issues.

The average American really has not changed that much from the past generations, but the candidates that are allowed to run in either party have drifted rightward.

If I want to vote for green, and I can choose only on a greyscale, my interpretation of which shade of gray might be closest to green might be a personal choice, highly disputed.

[–] Darorad@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago

Yes, what shade of grey is closest to green is unclear, but there are only two shades of grey that can win. I'd be ecstatic about dumping my shade of grey if anybody could explain how it would bring us closer to green.