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.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
Yeah.... But also, Carlin was right saying this shit is all a stage. We've got groups of bullies picking on us, and I'd rather throw bricks than help them decide who to pick on next.
If "harm" and "less harm" are the only two options, then the only question is how quickly you die. There's the argument that we have to do "harm reduction" in order to buy time to organize for something better, but we've been procrastinating for decades apparently. Since all of history informs us that humans act only when inaction is no longer tenable (and sometimes not even then), really the only material difference between "harm reduction" and accelerationism is, again, the timeline.
The harm or less harm are thanks to Ordinal voting.
First Past the Post is the absolute worst offender, but every single Ordinal voting system will eventually devolve into a forced choice between this or that.
Thankfully there are Cardinal voting systems. Those always boil down to the word and. For example, I can say that I support getting ice cream, and sandwiches, and a slushy, and even just finishing the route, but not going over that cliff.
My support for any given item is counted independently of my support for any other option.
To see what option wins, you just look at total support.
Different Cardinal systems have their own little quirks, but the key in all of them is that ability to give multiple items identical levels of support.
Not necessary in actual democracies where you have 10+ different parties.
There, abstaining is just an other party. One with a powerful voice telling the politicians that if enough people not vote, it is a big sign that something is wrong with the system and things will need to change to prevent riots.
It is not the same as voting blank, which is also possible. Then your vote gets added to the most popular vote. In a way of saying that you are content with any.
The "drive off the cliff" party vs the "drive off the cliff, but ever so slightly slower and also we'll wave some rainbow flags I guess" party. I know who I'm voting for!
i mean i've had some ice cream, i contest the validity of the last position
You would eventually "drive off a cliff" with either party, as they will softlock you into never having better choices, and the overton window will keep moving to the right. The only possibility out is to vote third party.
Is voting for controlled opposition harm reduction?
Like I agree that Kamala was the correct choice, but her inevitably milquetoast liberal policies would keep us stagnant until people voted in the next Republican out of boredom
The people who don't vote don't care when it comes down to it. its like when people call Nazis Nazis as if offends them. Or when someone calls a gay person gay... It's just like... Oh okay.
Pugjesus doesnt seem to understand that you can elect people with a D by their name who will vote with republicans on critical votes. But hey as long as the D team wins on election day, thats all that matters I guess, right Pug?
Reminds me of this really annoying "I don't do politics" advert that was airing on British TV two decades ago. Like, I'm surprised the ad didn't end with a punch to the face.
I love how everyone in this thread agreed to move forward and support the Dems