345
Reminder...
(lemmy.world)
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 24 May 2024
345 points (80.4% liked)
Political Memes
5404 readers
3416 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes 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 misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The part where the reality is we have a plurality voting system ("First past the post") in place today.
We do.
You are.
I'm not saying the rule of law should prevent you from doing what you're doing (I'm not a fan of fascism). However, you're being willfully ignorant if you acknowledge our plurality voting system, but claim your work convincing people not to vote for Biden doesn't also helps Trump become president again.
Vote for whoever you want. Biden, Trump, third party, write in, don't vote, your choice. Democracy at work.
You asked how you're helping Trump. I answered. Once again you ignore the reality of the plurality voting system and refuse to acknowledge the consequences of your actions in helping Trump become president.
I guess every NBC News, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, news orgs that dare criticize Biden are all "helping Trump" too then, right?
Sorry, I'm not taking your distraction bait.
If you are so strong in your convictions, so honest in your statements, and so solid in your belief of what you're doing is right, why is it so difficult for you to admit the reality of what you're doing? Even if I don't agree with what you're doing and why, I don't see why you dance so hard around the fact that plurality voting, with your actions to convince people not to vote for Biden, are helping Trump?
Why is that so hard for you to admit?
only votes for trump help trump.
That is factually untrue in the plurality voting system we have.
asserting it doesn't make it so.
That's true. Asserting doesn't make it so, its actual definition makes it so:
"In single-winner plurality voting (first-past-the-post), each voter is allowed to vote for only one candidate, and the winner of the election is the candidate who represents a plurality of voters or, in other words, received more votes than any other candidate. In an election for a single seat, such as for president in a presidential system, voters may vote for one candidate from a list of the candidates who are competing, and the winner is whichever candidate receives the highest number of votes. " source
this is just storytelling. it's not a natural law.
Now you're denying what the laws regarding the voting system is the USA?
Its state law in 48 out of the 50 states.
"48 out of the 50 States award Electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (as does the District of Columbia). For example, all 54 of California’s electoral votes go to the winner of the state election, even if the margin of victory is only 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent." source
the existence of a winner-take-all system does not entail that a non-vote or even a vote for some candidate besides trump or biden helps trump. only a vote for trump helps trump.
You're moving the goalposts. What was being discussed is if a vote would have gone to Biden, but becomes a non-vote, then that absolutely helps Trump under plurality voting.
Check their comment history, I'm not convinced they're even a real person.
I wasn't sure either. I was curious how far the script would go. I think I finally go to the end of it with its ad hominem attacks finally arriving.
it's unprovable what might happen if a vote, known to have been cast one way, were cast some other way. this is known as a "counterfactual" and they are, tautologically, unprovable.
Oh really?
Scenario 1: Baseline
Scenario 2: Two voters for Candidate A are convinced not to vote (non-vote) or vote for a candidate other than A or B
Proof enough?
no, and the quixotic attempt at proving a counterfactual indicates to me that you are detached from reality.
And finally, after exhausting any logical defense, you arrive at ad hominem attacks! Thanks for playing have a good day!
it is not ad hominem to insist that someone who refuses basic tenets of reasoning is not dealing with reality.
under what circumstances can you claim that two voters would vote differently, but nothing else would change? given that the circumstances changed enough for them to make a different decision, we must conclude that we don't know enough about the fictional alternate reality to guess at the outcome.
"oh no! Biden lost the whole election because of a meme on something called Lemmy!" Really?
If you base your vote or non-vote off of memes on a social media site...
"if I just litter a little bit, it doesn't really matter"
This is a discussion forum on a meta meme about online discourse about voting choices.
You are in a discussion with someone about your choice, but the point of the thread is for readers as well.
K
Again, you dance away and refuse to admit. I will say this is helpful though. Any post in the future only needs to be pointed to this flow of conversation and see where you stand. Every refusal you remove any ambiguity of miscommunication. Your willful ignorance is on full display. Thank you.
Gurl I been saying the same shit for months. Ain't nothing changed. Are you new here? Just ask @mozz@mbin.grits.dev
Oh cool then it should be nothing for you to say it right now, right?
What you're doing is helping Trump win by helping convince people not to vote for Biden under our plurality voting system, right? Just say yes that you understand that.
I can't make people do anything. That's on them. I'll continue to post informative news articles and political memes well past the election.
I'm posting political news articles from mostly liberal media sources... in a politics channel. Am I breaking the channel rules?
I'm not even asking them to stop, just admit what their efforts can accomplish. They can't even do that!
You're unable to admit it even when you asked specifically to be called out on it.
Do your feet get tired from all that dancing to avoid being honest?
Yeah, and people have been pointing it out for months.
In a way, yes. The mainstream media has consistently failed the electorate for years and years. They don't get a pass.
It sounds like you want to get rid of journalists unless they make the candidate you want look good. Slippery slope.
Mainstream media has failed to provide equal and equitable coverage on the candidates. Often highlighting minor flaws of one while completely ignoring major flaws of another.
Is that what it sounds like? Wow, dam.
I don't get it, what you detail is democracy, and these people are being hideous about it, if someone wants to vote third party then that's they're democratic right and to nag and ostracise someone for they're democratic right is manipulative.
Oh, right, only the people you agree with have the right to freedom of speech.
No I am glad to look through the comments and see everyone use they're freedom in a dignified and informative way, when freedom of speech turns to calling someone a slur *(used as a slur perhaps) like fascist or form a fictitious narrative meant to repress and shame is when I take issue.
It's nothing new. They scream and voter shame every election year. Been dealing with this for awhile now.
Its reductive and sickening.
Keep doing you mate.