655
Just vote to change things.
(lemmy.nz)
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 02 Dec 2025
655 points (87.3% liked)
Memes
57431 readers
353 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
This line is smoking gun proof that everyone in this thread trying to engage with you is talking exclusively over your head.
I take it that means you disagree. Well congratulations, your orange man won. Was it worth it?
Bro you've been reduced to yelling "This is what you wanted!!!" at the people telling you none of this was necessary, it's pathetic. Every day liberals prove there is no bottom to how low they will go to drown out their conscience and prject their guilt
Well, you got your "pragmatic" genocide and then some. You got your guy in to stop Trump, and he immediately shit the bed. Hindenburg preceeds Hitler. Here we are again. You've learned nothing.
Is it not what you wanted? It's what you're advocating for.
Wholeheartedly agree, but necessary or not, it is inevitable as long as we allow evil people to run the world. Yes that includes Biden and Harris. It also includes Trump.
The "pragmatic" genocide didn't include the "and then some". That second bit is the one you asked for.
My guy got primaried. No one's guy got in to stop Trump: that orange traitor still hasn't been stopped.
Ah, you must be talking about Biden. Yeah fuck that guy.
Here we are. And no, so far I haven't learned shit. Are you the teacher in this scenario? Cuz so far you've taught nothing. My proposal was to utilize your vote - literally that's it - and so far that's only attracted propaganda about how doing so won't get us systemic change. ...but like... no shit? You gotta do bigger things than just voting to get that. But still do vote. You know you can do that, right? Voting, and other things? The ballot box doesn't lock you out of other actions.
Please let the previous election go. It’s over. Nobody here is advocating for or against what’s already in the rear view mirror. And anyway, what we said on Lemmy last year had fuck-all effect on the election. Let’s “optimistically” say we affected 1,000 votes. Trump didn’t win by a hair’s breadth. What we said didn’t materially matter w/r/t/ the election. And that’s not even what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to agitate & educate people to think beyond/outside of the election cycle, and to break people out of myopic electoralism.
All the people advocating for "less evil" always end up destroying their own argument by immediately descending into apologism and denial to defend that evil. I'm not going to "vote for the lesser evil" if doing so turns me into a genocide denying ghoul, which it certainly has for everyone I've seen advocating it.
Yeah, that's the problem with Trump: he's not loyal enough to the nation that you yourself have admitted has a bipartisan commitment to genocide. This is like condemning Himmler for being a traitor to Nazi Germany. Seriously, you just can't stop yourself from giving up the game: you don't actually think the Democrats are "lesser evil", you don't think they're evil at all.
He’s not our man. Previously:
The game is rigged. The election cycle’s pomp and circumstance is to divert your energy and attention from the fact that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.
No, he's not. Despite that, there sure are a lot of folks here who were eager to hand him the keys of the country, and continue to to defend their choice.
Mostly agree, with the caveat that it's not all pomp and circumstance, only mostly pomp and circumstance. Take genocide for example, which seems to be the theme of the thread: we didn't get the choice of no genocide, our only options were more vs less. Those are shitty options, but if we have that wiggle room, it's worth voting for less in order to prevent more. Damage mitigation. Still genocide, still shitty options, but tangibly distinct options.
We're given a crumb of freedom - use it. It's the only official voice we've got.
Fortunately there lots of other options too - everything from shouting into the void like I'm doing here in this thread, to throwing molotovs at Nazis: each tool comes with its own risk-to-impact ratio. Voting is low impact, but it's safe and (for most people) accessible. It's the bare minimum.
There's a lot of strawman in this thread against the non-existent argument of voting and only voting. I'm with you on that one: that would be fucking stupid. But that's not what I'm advocating for.
Trump already has the keys. That ship has sailed. If he has a third term it will be through extralegal measures, not the ballot box.
Correct. That's what I'm bitching about.
Whether it would have been a “lesser” genocide is unfalsifiable. We’ll never really know. But I don’t have the faith in it that you have. I’m not sure what a more competent genocidal administration would have done.
Consider what many US Palestinians did: threaten to withhold their votes if Harris didn’t say there was at least some daylight between herself and Biden regarding Gazans. And she wouldn’t even do that much.
But that’s how you use the vote, if you use it at all. You use it as leverage. If the Democrats know you’ll “vote Blue no matter who” or “vote Blue no matter what,” then they’ll ignore you altogether, because you’re already in their pocket. You’ve made yourself irrelevant.
Correct. But I'm confident the Harris administration wouldn't have taking the swan-dive that Trump's did. Same with all the other evils he's committed outside the scope of genocide: bad under Harris, worse under Trump. Given what we know about the two, that assumption seems pretty reasonable. If you disagree, well like you said, that comes to which candidate we have less faith in. For me, Trump is the obvious rock-bottom worst outcome, but I can't compare to an administration that never happened, so speculate as you will.
Half correct. Withholding votes won't get their attention - we've seen that play out again and again. Democrats would rather lose than change. If you want their attention and real change, you'll need to do things other than vote.
If neither withholding nor not withholding will get their attention, then you’re making an even stronger case against voting’s worth than I am.
Can we please ban this genocide denier?
You genocide denying scum. The genocide was just as bad under Biden, who Harris promised to emulate. Your lie that there was some kind of "swandive" is genocide denying bullshit
Flagrantly false. Gaza has been leveled since Biden left. Not leveled vs leveled =/= just as bad.
Gaza was leveled while Biden was in office you genocide denying scum
Guy got totally lost in their argument.
I don't know but I think at least 90% of the thread is exactly that, vote alone can't solve shit
Mate, everyone told you people that Democrats would lose if they didn't change tact, but you refused. You were the ones who eagerly handed Trump the keys to the country!
No, you were just a genocide denier when it was your team doing it. It took Trump winning for you to actually admit the extent of the genocide.
Mate, I was one of the people saying Democrats would lose if they didn't change tact. But I still advocated against Trump. The Democrats handed the election to him on a silver platter. Fucking twice. But I still advocated against Trump.
Also incorrect. I bit my tongue during the election (did I mention the bit about advocating against Trump?) but was and remain opposed to genocide regardless of who's in power.
Oh, I thought leftists on Lemmy handed him the election. And hear you are now, doing the thing that BlueMAGA keeps telling me made Trump win.
100% correct. You're up and down this thread making the false claim that Democrats were less supportive of the Palestinian genocide.
Except for the part where you will engage in genocide minimisation to defend the Democrats.