180
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/9388376
Tweto by https://x.com/gaijingirl2026/status/2092235861265924137
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 27 Aug 2026
180 points (69.5% liked)
Memes
57431 readers
322 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
The meme didn't say they were the same, they said they both crush children. People gotta come with a list before it's okay? Not great for memes.
(It's not just Palestinian children either btw)
The meme heavily implies that the only difference is that one is polite and one is rude, which is not the only difference.
They both operate the exact same Palestinian child crushing machine, but one also operates a number of additional child crushing machines. People didn't support the lesser evil because they're more polite, they do it to keep those additional child crushing machines from operating.
You think Palestine is the only Bi-partisan machine? You really need to open a history book. Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria and all the rest are all bi-partisan.
Eh, the degree varies greatly. And ultimately, bi-partisan machines are irrelevant to the choice. Look at the partisan ones. Which side is operating more partisan machines?
The difference in both parties is of 100% hitler and 99.5% hitler. Not much
Off the top of my head I can't think of a single non bi-partisan one.
Do you read the news?
Iran is bi-partisan as is Gaza same as Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq
Check the recent House votes on the iran war
Yes they're against Trumps manor of going about it and are all about virtue signaling when they have no power. Just like how Obama "was going to close Guantanamo". In reality it was their nominee for president who called Iran the biggest threat to America and continued to position for intervention.
Yeah and it was actually Tim and the parliamentarians fault that we didnt get what we wanted. Oh shucks! We'll get them next time!
Why? Are you looking for someone to read it for you?
Props for the good comeback. Still doesn't make you correct.
I understand why people do it but what I don't understand is why they are content to continue supporting any child crushing and discourage people from discussing it.
Discussing it is fine, I think people only get touchy about it right before an election because they don't want other people to lose sight of the utility of voting lesser evil. I think the ones who actually think about it don't support any child crushing, they just recognize that the election has a binary outcome, and they'd rather fight the lesser evil than the greater one.
At the end of the day, voting in bourgeoisie elections is just choosing the enemy you'll be fighting, and choosing the lesser child crushing gives you a fight you're more likely to win.
Maybe if your only options are evil, after decades and centuries, it's time to stop being evil and start over.
That's a nice thought, but totally impotent without some actionable plan.
Good News!
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/
Bad news, I said actionable.
Sanction America and Israel out of existence. Balkanize the states.
There it is, your excuse to continue impotently engaging in the work of empire
When else can people put pressure on the lesser evil to "tone down" the evil? Or take the opportunity to ensure folks know about the evil? Isn't it when things look their worst they say "well actually we need to be slightly more evil to get those swing voters"?
Maybe I don't understand the US system but I believe platforms are individual to candidates and that there are no overall party platforms that the candidates are expected to adhere to. How is there no shift to less evil under these conditions? So many individual elections for individual people and a whole lot of wack people getting elected.
I think this is my point: when do they fight the lesser evil?
While the platforms are technically individual, they aren't really. They have to get approval from their bosses (donors) on what they get to run on. And the few actual good things that they run on has to be just empty rhetoric. If they get elected, they are expected to immediately forget those things.
Thats the neat part, they don't. The cycle goes like this:
Rinse, repeat
Holy shit I thought this was a serious reply for the first few lines and I was AGHAST
?
When I initially read this I thought the reply was describing the system and saying it's normal and good actually rather than comedically pointing out the flaws.
Ahh
Sincerely don't mean to be rude, but the first 7 words provide the answer. Even when there are no official overall party platforms, the eyebrows waggle in a certain direction. Especially where campaign funding is concerned.
I do my part. Many others do too. The fighters are in the minority, which is why it's so important that the bystanders at least make our work easier.
Primaries mostly
I decided against continuing the convo you are replying to because it felt like the other person and I had both explained our points of view and anything further might feel like trying to convince them to adopt mine but I had wanted to bring up primaries.
Doesn't this same thing play out in the primaries? Otherwise how could the lesser evil stay evil?
It can happen in primaries too, yes. But if your preferred candidate loses the primary, you can still vote for the candidate who does win the primary in the general election, so it is generally safer to voice your real opinion in the primaries rather than vote strategically.
I guess what I don't understand is how the candidates in the general election can be so unpalatable if the primaries are the place where people can ask for what they really want.
Because the Democrats spend more time fighting leftists, then they do fighting the Republicans. Check out the recent DSA elections: Democrats spent a bunch of time and energy fighting against them.
Additionally, the Democrats fight tooth and nail to keep third parties off of the ballots. They also spend a bunch of effort saying that things like "not bombing kids" or "medicare for all" are unreasonable, or unrealistic, to keep people from thinking that 3rd parties are viable.
I can see why my wording was confusing when taken out of context. If you go up a few levels you can see that we are saying the same thing. Or at least I think?
I asked when do people get to push back against the lesser evil, and someone said the primaries. What you were responding to here was me saying I don't see how that's possibly true if the primaries keep spitting out people who have no interest in being even slightly less evil.
Totally. I was just expanding on what you were pointing out. We are in agreement :)
A lot of people like liberal candidates over leftist ones, and some vote for liberals in the primaries because they think a leftist would lose the general (voicing your true opinions is safer in the primary, but is only truly safe if your party's voters would vote for any candidate who wins your primary).
I'm sorry, do you think, for example, AFRICOM just shuts down during democratic presidencies?
Idk, it's kinda the same to me. It's just that one doesn't care about also harming white people for profit. Both candidates are always ass.
They’re literally drawn as the same person with different colors.
Do you not understand meme comics either? Jesus Christ..
They are also drawn with speech bubbles demonstrating their differences.
Which does not include any concrete difference in policy
How detailed does a meme have to be?
The entire point of the meme is that both options do the same exact thing while acting differently to the public eye. If the meme intended to show a difference in policy or behavior it would have. That is the core of the argument being made, not an irrelevant detail.
I disagree but I don't think anyone will accept that my interpretation of the meme is correct because I didn't make it. So I made a different one where I can say with authority what the intent is.
Does this avoid the flaws you see here?
LGTM
Yeah funny, i wonder why that is
Right, that's what I'm saying. The point the meme is making is that there is no policy difference. You're disagreeing with the other guy's interpretation here, not mine.