1129
Two things can be true at the same time
(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 12 Oct 2024
1129 points (94.1% liked)
Political Memes
5579 readers
1652 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I am a third party voter. I am critical of both the Democrats and Republicans from the left, because they are both right wing parties.
Of course I'm not going to make the case to someone that Democrats are a good choice, because I don't believe they are. Basically you're claiming that I'm operating in bad faith solely on the basis that I disagree with your position. It's completely ridiculous.
If I were actually an accelerationist, I'd be spoiled for choice and perfectly happy with either candidate.
Good old both sides.
There are differences, but conditions will continue to decline regardless of who gets elected.
Biden managed to push Russia and China together while increasing military spending to an all time high. The old Sino-Soviet split was the greatest geopolitical blessing the US ever got, then the US defeated the USSR and installed a new government just how they liked, and yet, now the geopolitical situation is worse than ever. If I were an accelerationist, I'd be completely satisfied with Biden and happy to support his successor. Liberal idealists have absolutely no restraint or concern about what is and isn't viable, as long as they believe they're in the right they'll stretch us too thin and hasten collapse.
On the other hand, Trump also played a role in pushing China and Russia together, plus he prolonged the war in Afghanistan, further draining blood and treasure (while Biden bears some responsibility for supporting it, I also give him credit for ending it, no matter how much liberals criticize him for it). He completely botched the handling of the pandemic while undermining public trust in institutions to cover his own ass for selling off emergency supplies for quick cash.
It's legitimately a tough choice from an accelerationist perspective. Either would be fine. But I'm not an accelerationist. I want to actually address the conditions that created Trump in the first place, and to focus on addressing the myriad of domestic crises that are destabilizing the country. Only third party candidates are interested in doing that. The last three elections have been between Trump and the people who created the conditions for Trump. If we just get more of the same, then continued decline is inevitable.
Accelerationism is stupid, because it's far more likely that the US is going to go haywire and start nuking everyone or starting major wars if shit starts to hit the fan. Both parties want to rile people up to hate other countries in order to justify military spending, which they profit greatly off of, and while they don't actually want a hot war, there's always a risk of someone who believes their own propaganda getting into a position they shouldn't. The situation is a powder keg and will keep getting worse no matter who wins.
You: both sides are the same from a leftist point of view.
Me: obviously not.
Meanwhile trump:
Trump announces that it's a good idea to shoot down leftists and you're still struggling to see any difference between him and Harris?!?!
Did you read the first three words of my comment?
Yes, but your overall message is still both sides, and you've given no indication that you might be prepared to vote democratic to avert the oncoming fascist takeover of America.
What effect do you think sending the military after people who disagree with Trump will have on the Overton window?
Of course I'm not going to vote democrat, that's not the same as saying that both sides are the same. There are differences, but that's not the question, the question is whether either of them is acceptable, to which my answer is no.
So we're back to you agreeing with the the guy proposing that leftists be shot in the street if he becomes president that leftists should abstain from choosing the president.
I can't even
I've explained my reasoning in the other thread that we're talking in. I believe that voting third party is the most effective way for leftists to exert influence to get the kinds of policies we need. If someone on the right agrees with me for completely opposite reasons, that's not really relevant, I'm not going to abandon my reasoned positions just because someone shitty agrees with me. I could just as easily say, "So you agree with Dick Cheney on who should be the next president. I can't even." That's not really a rational line of argument.
You don't think shooting leftists is worth avoiding at all?
The only way to prevent leftists getting shot is to address the root issues that gave rise to Trump. Yes, it's worth avoiding that, which is why I want to. Is it worth accepting that that's definitely going to happen, in exchange for kicking the can down the road a bit? No, I don't think so.
No, the only way to prevent leftists getting shot is to elect Kamala Harris so that trump isn't in charge of the military a couple of months after the supreme court ruled that he can't break the law with an official act and a couple of weeks after promising to shoot leftists.
I'm not going to support the mass murder of innocent people over fears about what might, potentially happen. The US is already involved in killing leftists, and rightists, and centrists, and queer people, and cishet people, and everyone else.
If Trump wins and your worst alarmist fears come true, then I'll go to the grave knowing that I did what I could to stop it. Supporting genocide is not something I could do, as I'm not interested in tearing down other innocent people for my own preservation, like crabs in a bucket.
The only real chance of safety is through solidarity, including international solidarity. That solidarity is destroyed by selling out individual minority groups. What you're saying about Palestinians today, you could just as easily be saying about trans people tomorrow. If democrats decide that not killing trans people is too much of an electoral liability, but the republicans want to kill trans people AND other people, then you'll repeat the same lesser-evilist ideological nonsense to justify and make peace with it, and it will become an inevitably. No one is safe if anyone can be sold out.
By voting third party, allowing him to win?
Yeah, right.
That's the opposite of stopping it.
That's enabling it.
Trump warned you he would be a dictator on day one. His co-planners wrote down the agenda in project 2025. The supreme court ruled that he cannot face consequences. He warned you he would start shooting leftists. One thing can stop it: Kamala Harris winning.
Then there's nothing I can do to stop it, period. Supporting genocide is completely off the table, not even considerable.
You're only pretending to care about Gaza, just like you're pretending to be a leftist. If you really were a leftist you would care about the oncoming fascism, you would care about replacing McCarthyism with military execution of leftists. You claim to care so much about pushing the democratic party left, but everything you advocate encourages them to move right.
If supporting genocide is a prerequisite of being a leftist, then I guess I'm not a leftist and we'll have to come up with a new name for supporting a bunch of leftist policies but also opposing genocide. But I'm pretty sure it would be more accurate to say that opposition to genocide is leftist and being willing to support genocide means you're only pretending to be on the left.
Leftism doesn't just mean you want the spoils of imperialism to be more equally divided, it means opposition to imperialism altogether. The former is just nationalism. We have more in common with ordinary people of other countries around the world (including the ones our politicians and media tell us to hate) than we do with the ruling class. People like Trump and Harris are the enemy, and if the enemy won't come to the negotiating table, then the only thing to do is to oppose them by whatever limited means are available.
You liberals will write off the task of opposing them and treat the current way of doing things as eternal and unchangeable. If you were born under an absolute monarchy, where there were no rules at all to allow changes to the system, would you just give up and say that nothing can be done except to appease the king and hope he's nice? Ridiculous. Things have changed before, even when they seemed impossible, and they can change again - so long as there's a will, there's a way. The problem is just that people like you don't have the will to change it and so aren't interested in looking for a way.
You think voting third party and allowing the fascists to take over America is leftist?!
Actually, no, you know it isn't, because you're just lying to win the election for your guy trump who promised to send the military on leftists. You never address that, somehow the topic always turns to your favourite topic: why leftists should abstain from choosing the president.
Your voter purity argument is a sham. You think that indirectly causing the fascists to win absolves you of responsibly for them winning. It doesn't.