this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
700 points (96.8% liked)

Asklemmy

44152 readers
709 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] s20@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I agree with everything but voting. Not because we ever have great options, but because sometimes there are terrifyingly bad ones, and while option A might not be at all good, option B is so much worse.

That's why it's called "the lesser of two evils."

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The problem is that they aren't two evils, they're two parts of the same evil machine whose functions are mutually dependent and mutally reinforcing

"The United States is also a one-party state, but in typical American extravagance, they have two of them." -Julius Nyerere, first president of Tanzania

[–] s20@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don't seem to know what "lesser of two evils" means.

It doesn't mean "that guy's bad, so the less evil guy is good, actually, and totally deserves our support!"

It means "no matter which one of these assholes wins, I'm fucked, but if I'm lucky the one guy will use lube."

I can't do a damn thing about the two party system. That ship sailed before I was born, and nothing I do as an individual can change it. In fact, I can't see a solution short of possibly violent revolution. If that happens before I'm to old and feeble to help, great. Other wise, I'm fucked no matter who I pick, so I'm sure as shit going to pick the one who just wants to fuck me and not fuck me plus kill my trans neighbor.

I'm sick and tired of being called stupid, gullible, or uninformed just because I can actually see how completely fucked we are. Your shit is great for people who still have hope. My shit is just trying to survive without the Gestapo coming for my neighbors.

So come get me for the revolution. In the meantime, stop calling me stupid for being depressed and practical.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to copy and paste this in reply to some other lemming that thinks I'm a gullible moron instead.

[–] nat_turner_overdrive@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago (16 children)

You don't seem to know what "lesser of two evils" means.

Yes, they do, they were trying to explain to you that it's a scam and only serves to move the nation to the right. Everybody understands "lesser of two evils" we're all browbeaten with it our entire lives.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] barrbaric@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago (23 children)

Under the policies of the greater evil, billions will die due to climate change because corporate profits are more important than human lives to them. Under the policies of the lesser evil, billions will die due to climate change because corporate profits are more important than human lives to them.

It makes no difference, both parties should be opposed and true change can only come through revolution and the abolition of the capitalist class.

[–] s20@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Under the policies of the lesser evil, billions will die as you say.

Under the policies and rhetoric of the greater evil, a woman just got brutally murdered in California for the crime of hanging a fucking flag outside her shop.

My point, as I have been trying in vain to make this whole time (but apparently don't have the writing ability to convey) is that if you're fucked no matter what you do, then do the thing that hurts your friends less.

If you have some other course of action that can lead to actual change, then tell me. If you have some other course of action that will help my trans friends today, then tell me. Because billions dying over the next century doesn't mean much to people who get shot, stabbed, or beaten to death today.

I want to believe there's a better way, though, so explain it to me.

[–] barrbaric@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

The action that leads to security and a better life for yourself and those around you is to organize your community along whatever lines are possible. Unionize with your coworkers, form a tenant's union with your neighbors, physically get out in the street and provide security for LGBT+ events and spaces. Build up parallel structures so that when the government fails, you and those you care about will still have access to food and water, a place to live, and security. Join a political organization that's active and actually does things in your area (one of the communist parties, DSA, or even just Food not Bombs) and do all you can to prepare for a revolution that might never come.

I'll close this by saying that I've been harsh on voting and the electoral system in general during this conversation, and probably too hostile in tone towards you. I apologize for that, because it's sometimes hard to tell when someone is actually acting in good faith, this being the internet and all. Voting isn't something I think is particularly useful, but if you vote for the democrats because they're less openly fascistic, that's up to you. The key is to not let your political activity start and end at voting, because direct action in the real world is by far the best way to achieve positive change. I wish you and yours the best in surviving the collapsing fascist hellhole we find ourselves in.

spoilered giant emojirat-salute

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] BilboBallbins@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If we want better options we can vote for third party candidates. I have no faith in the system, and a third party candidate will almost never win. But if enough people vote for them it gets them more recognition, which could eventually shift the narrative. Gary Johnson got over 3% of the vote in 2016, and Ross Perot got as high as 19% in the 90s.

[–] s20@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay. But if the people you vote for can only muster 3% of the vote, how does that help?

I get it in local elections, up to and including State legislature, gubernatorial races, and maybe Congress if they can get a good campaign going. That all makes sense because even if they don't win they get enough attention to attract local media and push discussion among others.

But Senators? The President? Ross Perot was an extreme outlier. The last time a 3rd party presidential candidate got more than 50 electoral votes was 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Progressive. In the last century, the highest total electoral votes for a 3rd part went to George Wallace in 1968 running as an American Independent. He got 46 out of 538. Rounding up, that's 9%.

Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968.

So I'm asking: how does it help. If it helps, I'll try. But from where I'm sitting, it's all hopeless. I don't want to feel this way. So please, for the love of sanity, convince me.

[–] BilboBallbins@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

But from where I’m sitting, it’s all hopeless. I don’t want to feel this way.

I feel this way too. But if we as individuals recognize that the system is going to screw us no matter who is elected, then if we vote it might as well be out of principle. Have you ever shared a fact or opinion or taught someone something, and later noticed that it changed their behavior in some small way? Someone on the internet might see Perot's (or more relevant, Gary Johnson's since it happened only a few years ago) vote count on Wikipedia and it could lead them down a rabbit hole that ultimately gets them motivated to take initiative in the local community. So yeah, I feel you, at the federal level it's hopeless. I think the real change will happen within families, friends, and local communities.

Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968.

I'll guess ending the Vietnam war...

[–] s20@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Based on the year, that was a good guess. But nope. It was pro segregation.

Which brings me back to my point. If:

  • My vote isn't going to help further discourse, and …
  • Odds are good that even a popular 3rd party option isn't going to be remembered all that well, and…
  • If nobody represents my ideas all that well anyway, then…

what's my choice from a moral standpoint? You mentioned Gary Johnson. You couldn't have paid me to vote for him. The Green Party is closer to my value set, but their idiot said anti-vaxxers might have a point (among other takes, not least of which was a seemingly complete misunderstanding of how economics work), so that would have been a no-go too.

And nobody was talking about ending the punative justice system, federal bans on cash bail, demilitarization of the police and radical law enforcement reform, legal protection for LGBTQIA+, ending first past the poll elections, massive education reform, or (outside of the Green party) anywhere near the investment we need in green tech and fighting global climate change.

So I voted for the one that a.) had a chance of winning, b.) wasn't specifically speaking out against most of that stuff and was at least paying lip service to some, and c.) wasn't a cretinous rapist; she was just married to one.

That was voting my conscience. The cretinous rapist won, but that's not on me.

So when you say to vote on principal, okay. I'll do that. I will do my best to vote for people I agree with or, at least, against people who spout shit that makes me want to vomit.

But that's what I was already doing.

Edit: changed out a word for clarity and to reduce repetition.

[–] BilboBallbins@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you feel like you vote consistent with your principles that's respectable. Since we can't do anything about the shitshow that is the federal government, other than voting I try not to stress out or think about it otherwise. It's a waste of the energy that we can direct to our local communities, which we can do something to improve.

The libertarian party aligns closer to my values, but if the Green party candidate was the only other option I would pick them without hesitation. Regardless of what any politician says, they are self serving and will change their stance when it benefits them. If the green candidate sounded like an idiot with bad policies it wouldn't give her less credibility from the other idiots who wouldn't follow through on their policies anyway. So at least supporting third party candidates changes it from impossible for them to win to incredibly incredibly unlikely, but possible to influence others to open their mind to the idea of something other than the official media narrative.

Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process.

[–] s20@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy?

I don't think it's at all unrelated.

Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed.

It is. That's why I used to be a (literally) card carrying member. But at the end of the day, the party has too many places where we differ (gun control, health care, and education are three places where I just can't support the party's platform anymore, for instance). Also, it's got way too many creepy members calling for the abolishment of age of consent laws. I know it's just a vocal few, but it skeeves me.

Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process

I'm not confident either, but the free market hasn't done a great job, and other countries have had a great deal of success with regulation. Heck, we've had success with regulation.

[–] AOCapitulator@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

The way we got to that situation you describe is through 3 generations of “the lesser evil” over and over and over

Turns out that made everything get more evil, who’d have thought!