this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
924 points (84.7% liked)

Political Memes

5507 readers
2074 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dreizehn@kbin.social 83 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I’m voting for the lesser of the two evils, which is Blue, in yet another fucked up election. Read your damn history, the US politicians, Blue and Red, always give Israel a blank check for weapons to continue the family blood feud over lots of dried up rocks. Do your civil duty and vote.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 54 points 6 months ago (2 children)

If everyone who says that gets more active at the local level, we have four years to make the choices different next time around.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 47 points 6 months ago (3 children)

People generally don't like actually participating in democracy. And fuck, who can blame them? The essential feature of changing policy in a democratic polity is the hard, arduous, thankless fucking task of fighting an apathetic or actively hostile majority. You don't get to be a hero. You don't get recognition. You may not even see any change at all from your own, personal efforts, sometimes not even locally. Success is measured on the scale of decades. It's fucking miserable. There's no sudden wave of support to ride to victory, there's no cheering crowds showing your opposition how utterly defeated and isolated they are, like you once were; there's no moment of vindication. It's nothing but struggle, toil, and tedium.

Yet, that is how societies change.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The essential feature of changing policy in a democratic polity is the hard, arduous, thankless fucking task of fighting an apathetic or actively hostile majority.

The TikTok ban flew through. The '08 bank bailouts passed practically overnight. War bills for rammed through in a matter of months. Weapons deals are routine and tax cuts happen under every presidency.

The corrupt legislation doesn't need to walk this arduous road. And corporate lobbyists regularly tout their jetset cocaine and hooker lifestyle.

This is the real face of American democracy. Not an army of petitioners fighting bad weather and apathetic crowds to scrap out civil rights from a clumsy bureaucracy. It's dudes in $10k suits wooing senators in wine caves and beach resorts. And those same senators denouncing their constituents as greedy, lazy, ignorant slobs when a protest over the latest turd of a legislative package comes through.

[–] beardown@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Success is measured on the scale of decades. It's fucking miserable. There's no sudden wave of support to ride to victory, there's no cheering crowds showing your opposition how utterly defeated and isolated they are, like you once were; there's no moment of vindication. It's nothing but struggle, toil, and tedium.

Yet, that is how societies change.

Interesting.

Is this how the United States was created?

I thought that the Fourth of July was celebrating some other type of event

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

Ah yes, that act of violent revolution that inexorably sent the US down a path to manifest destiny and the civil war

Definitely a perfect model for a modern movement for significant political change!

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The American Revolution was the result of some 40 years of agitating and politiking to change popular opinion, and ended with a ramshackle government where everyone hated one another and was entirely dysfunctional for half a decade, at which point a series of compromises no one was happy with and the only unambiguously popular figure in the nation came together to make the US Constitution, which everyone at the time hated. At which point we struggled for the next 20 years with lingering monarchist and loyalist sentiment, and then for the next 50 with anti-democratic and secessionist sentiment.

The change from a British colony to an independent country was (largely) not guns and fireworks. It was comprised of convincing people on the ground to take a different view than the one they grew up with; a slow, miserable, thankless process. And the part of it that was guns and fireworks was not nearly so glorious and momentous, nor spontaneous, as it is often pretended.

[–] beardown@lemm.ee -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I did not suggest that there is anything glorious about violent revolution wherein untold numbers of human beings are murdered.

However, barring that violent revolution, the most powerful and wealthy country in the history of the world would not currently exist.

My point is that it is inaccurate to act like the slow progress of incrementalist democratic reforms is the only way for societal conditions to progress. If anything, those sorts of nonrevolutionary improvements, such as with Mandela in SA, are historical aberrations rather than norms.

The current global superpowers of the United States, China, and Russia were all formed by violent revolution. Secondary powers, such as Australia, Canada, Israel, etc, were formed through violent settler colonialism. And yet, despite this lack of democratic negotiation and mediation, these are the states that largely control the world.

Peaceful adherence to norms and consensus may have arguably established the Nordic model of social democracy and high living standards. However, in terms of global power politics, it seems to leave something to be desired. Violence has consistently led to a change in conditions, and oftentimes, an improvement in those conditions. If we disagree with that then we disagree with the essence of the United States itself - in which case, voting for neoliberal moderation with the Democrats seems to be missing the point entirely

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

The US has a representative democracy. We elect people by voting so that those people can represent our beliefs in the action of government without us being there to make sure our voice is heard and considered.

While I agree that everyone should be more involved in civics, especially at a local level, it's not really efficient for a society to implement a vanilla democracy. There are lots of other jobs like generating food/removing waste, generating energy/removing pollution, constructing/maintaining housing, transporting people including democratic representatives to and fro based on their obligations and desires, entertaining people so they can offset the pain in their lives and continue on with the struggle that is life, defend citizens from others or ourselves, etc.

Having a group of people act out government on our behalf is a good thing because we can specialize in other things to allow them to do so.

This all being said, there has been a disconnect with our representatives and with reality in general, so there is a giant need to reconnect with civic life in the US at all ages and at all levels for that matter.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, but that requires doing more than just doom posting, and we can't have that now can we? /s

So many of the things people bitch about could be lessened (not necessarily resolved, but ffs, perfect is the enemy of good) by getting involved locally and trying to make things better for themselves and their neighbors. Fuck, even working on 3rd party support locally while stemming the bleeding nationally until there's real ground level support would be better, but I guess we gotta tilt at windmills nationally and ignore the local level to get shut done......

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

I hate the fucking puritanical autocorrect. You're a computer! Your people didn't travel on the mayflower! You can say shit!

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

always give Israel a blank check for weapons

This is not necessarily true right now. Biden has put conditions on arms use, he has been slow walking arms shipments and now has placed a pause on them, however Israel needs to be supported to avoid major wars breaking out in the Mideast. Unfortunately Biden cannot control Netanyahu any more than he can control the orange mobster - both are dangerously deranged.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

however Israel needs to be supported to avoid major wars breaking out in the Mideast.

I don't think this is true, except insofar as "Waving a stick at Iran every now and again" is concerned. And honestly, we do that bare minimum of discouraging aggression for a lot of countries, not all of whom we would consider allies or countries we support.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don't think this is true, except insofar as "Waving a stick at Iran every now and again" is concerned.

You're almost in danger of deviating from neoliberal orthodoxy here.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's almost like I'm not a neoliberal.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

If you say so.

[–] loobkoob@kbin.social 0 points 6 months ago

I think @rayyy is right, unfortunately. If the West severs ties with Israel overnight (and suddenly stopping arms shipments would essentially be the same thing as severing ties), it'll just create a power vacuum where Russia or China will cosy up to Israel instead. Israel has a lot of influence in the region - partially because it's been propped up by US support, of course - and other countries would absolutely try to prop up Israel and capitalise on their influence in the US' place if they had the opportunity. Which would perhaps slow down the genocide for a little while, but it would inevitably pick back up, but this time without the US/West having any influence at all.

Not to mention the fact that the US losing its influence over Israel would almost certainly destabilise the region. Iran would be emboldened, as you alluded to. Hamas would be emboldened, and while I take the side of the Palestinian people in this whole ordeal, I don't think Hamas being emboldened would be a good idea - it would likely lead to further conflict and even worse suffering for the Palestinian people. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey would all likely try to expand their influences, too.

Biden is trying to slowly reel Israel in while still maintaining US influence there. Partially because the US just wants to keep its power, of course, but also because it's perhaps the best way to have some control over the genocide and over the region rather than just being an observer. I don't like all the blood on our collective hands but I think that, at this point, the genocide would continue without us.

I absolutely think the fact that Israel has been put in the position it's in represents decades of shortsightedness and foreign policy failure, though. Israel should never have been in the position to do this.