all 79 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 88 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Do both. Vote and rebel. Hit all fronts.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Exactly! Why so many people seem to think you can't do both is bizarre to me. Makes you wonder if they're actually arguing in good faith or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I sometimes wonder if the majority on Lemmy are here solely for arguments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago

    This is the most sane answer here - fighting one war while letting them win the other isn't wise. Doing both and securing all the fronts is how we win.

    And we certainly dont win by calling each other dipshits - unless your mission is to dismantle the left.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 62 points 1 month ago

    You cant generally vote fascists out once they've sufficiently subverted or removed democratic processes, but they can be voted in especially if they're the ones motivated to actually do so, their efforts to subvert those processes take a variable amount of time to complete that sometimes means they're not totally done by the next election cycle, and even in the case of rigged/subverted elections, its not like they'll suddenly become more fascist if people vote against them but won't if people don't do that.

    It's also not like voting, when possible, takes away a person's ability to also try anything else. So, unless you have good reason to believe that a given election is actively dangerous, like that they're only holding it to learn who would vote against them given the option or something like that, it makes sense to participate if the option exists.

    Worst case, the election is meaningless and one wastes a small amount of time in trying it. Best case, you overestimated how much the process had already been subverted and the election system proves to be still functional. In neither case does casting a vote against someone that seems to be a fascist or similar make them more likely to succeed than if you'd simply stayed home.

    If people voting against them did benefit fascists, they wouldn't spend so much effort on undermining elections and voter intimidation, it would be counterproductive.

  • source
  • [–] 63 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Yeah, it sucked when they had to invade to get Orban out of office....

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 98 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I see we are ramping up the anti voting memes up ahead of the American election, comrades.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Democrats not turning out in 2024 IS what got trump and the GOP into majority power in all branches of government. Now they wanna make sure you don't come out so the dictatorship can finish its installation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    Correct. But I am pointing out the increase in "voting doesn't work" rhetoric, which only helps right wing extremists.

    There is no left wing extremist party but not voting doesn't make that happen.

    The right wing extremists have been compromising for decades by picking the furthest right candidate available but for whatever reason voices purported to be on the left keep demanding purity tests, which to me is antithetical to leftism but that's a whole different topic.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 43 points 1 month ago*

    Yup! just keep spreading anti-voting propaganda! THAT'LL DEFINITELY HELP

    Why vote for better leaders when you can just doomscroll and pretend you're daddy's special lil anarchist boy that understands everything so fucking perfectly!

    jog on, prick

  • source
  • [–] 43 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

    I'm seeing a weird amount of anti-voting posts 2 months before an extremely consequential midterm that's very likely to shift the balance in Congress unless an incredible amount of voter suppression occurs (and oh look, lots of sketchy voter suppression is going on, plus it would be very inexpensive to spin up some social media campaigns to try to discourage voting)

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    [After an election] "Voting won't fix things."

    "..."

    [7 months later] "Voting won't fix things."

    "..."

    [7 months later] "Voting won't fix things."

    "..."

    [7 months later] "Voting won't fix things."

    "Ever notice how you only ever see people saying this right before an election?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    After the NSDAP got a third of the seats in parliament in 1932.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

    True, but my point was that Hitler was not elected by any democratic process

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Wasn't it standard practice to appoint someone from the winning party?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    Perhaps it was. However, Hitler wasn’t a member of the opposition party in 1932/3

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Anarchist spreading shit to enable fascism and feel justified while everyone suffers.

    Fuck off.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    [image of billions of dead bodies of innocent people with dipshit 22 year olds cheering that they've solved everything]

    This is how tankies think socialism works.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    As opposed to fascism which doesn't kill anyone and is only supported by big brain academics

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    "it's only fascism when other people want to annihilate their political rivals. When I do it, it's the lord's work"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    "Everyone should have equal rights" and "all poor and black people deserve to be shot" are the same thing!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago

    Also nice fucking strawman. It's pretty obvious here that my critique is against tankies who unironically think a misguided/lacking leftist is the same thing as a Nazi despite the fact that tankies themselves condone mass murder and display a pathetic lack of actual principles, all while pretending that only they have morals and everyone who isn't a tankie is pure evil incarnate.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    "See, I want to line up people and execute them for their own good! LIbErAlS want to die!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    ??? I said nothing about lining up people nor liberals, even less it being for "their own good". Nice exercise of finding a way to feel attacked, but why?

    I'm not an authoritarian tankie that wants to never hear a dissenting opinion. If someone pretends like their race or nation is superior to others they deserve to be punched s'all I'm saying

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    You're finished Adolph...

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    How is the colour of the skin a political view? Racists are pretty confused people it seems.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    The voting is part of it yes?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    Hitler was voted into power.

    So he would never have been elected with enough counter votes.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    That's patently not true, he was actually appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg (a centrist who won because of "strategic voting" by the left) before actually winning any elections.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Germany was (and is) a parliamentary system. Hitler was the leader of the Nazi party, and the Nazis were elected to a plurality of the seats in the Reichstag.

    The standard practice at the time was that the leader of the plurality party got to be Chancellor. To not have done so would have been weird and undemocratic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago*

    The standard practice at the time was that the leader of the plurality party got to be Chancellor. To not have done so would have been weird and undemocratic.

    That's not remotely true and not how any parliamentary system works lmao.

    Say two parties get 30% of the vote and a third gets 40%. The two parties don't like the third one so they form a coalition with each other instead. That coalition is who 60% of the vote went to. They pick a chancellor who is amenable to both parties in the coalition. How on earth is that "undemocratic?"

    The "standard practice" of the party with a plurality getting the position of chancellor was simply because the party with a plurality had always been part of the governing coalition.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    To add to the other comment, it was also "weird and undemocratic" to grant the title of Chancellor to a dude who literally tried an undemocratic coup already and whose ideology was almost explicitly about dismantling democracy.

    We can't afford reverence to unspoken practices or customs or "good-faith" when dealing with fascists. Fascists are not dealing in good faith, they will use the system of laws and customs you created to get into power, cement themselves there by destroying parts of the system which oppose them, and finally get to enriching themselves as much as possible while sowing death and destruction and bigotry everywhere.

    There were strategic mistakes made by the communists which indirectly helped hitler to power (the same kind was ironically made by dems in 2010s). But it was Hindenburg who turned hitler from a wannabe dictator into an actual dictator in charge of a country.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Hindenburg, the 230 duly elected Nazis (with there 13 million voters), and the Nazi party apparatus that made Hitler leader.

    If you pull off a political miracle, you might be able to keep a 37℅ plurality (with significant electoral momentum) out of power for a cycle; maybe 2. But a democracy cannot keep such a popular movement out of power indefinitely.

    The time to keep the Nazis out of power was the 1932 election. Any move after that is just a Hail Mary gambit

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    It was still a choice made by hindenburg, even within the confines of the "democratic" system. He had the power to not buckle to nazism. He could, by law and by custom, create a coalition government with Centre, SPD and KPD (who together had more support than NSDAP) and yet he didn't, because he was part of the capitalist class and thought nazism would work out better for his class than socialism. It were not the voters who chose hitler, it was a bourgeois "lesser-evil" candidate.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    As far as I know, he was voted in. So get the fuck out with this bullshit of yours

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago*

    It does. Long before the need of having to get facists out arises there is an option to not get them in

    Edit: which is actually what democratic process should be about. Keep your society well-functioning constantly. Or you'll have a hell of a time bringing it back to normal out of insanity

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Not really, no. He was appointed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Wiki paints me a different picture: NSDAP did get actual support. Along with using a long list of very non-democratic ways to get more power, though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    Just a reminder that troll factories manipulate from both sides of the political spectrum: they try to play to disenfranchise effective opposition from the groups they know they won't convince while they promote support for their own candidates from the groups they know they have their support.

    Just because Lemmy is not mainstream does not mean it isn't replete with special interests. In a way it makes it more vulnerable to certain types of it.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    This Lemmy ad paid for republicans to support centrists so fewer people vote committee

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Umm this isnt limited to white people. Don’t be racist.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    It’s not limited to “facts“, either, so…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I don’t expect facts from people on Lemmy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    Well, kibblebits, I can't speak for everyone. But I will tell you that I am absolutely open to real conversation. It is not beyond me to say, "OK, you've shown real proof of what you're saying. I stand corrected".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    We have never gotten rights or rights back from voting for them. A lot of people died for our rights and I'm not talking about soldiers. Miners, farm workers, industrial workers, healthcare, etc. It required many deaths for change to be made and it was force. Remember Stone Wall was a riot!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago

    Most rights we got were from voting it is untrue to say we got them through violence. I don't think it is right to tell people to go die for change when non-violent options lead to solutions.

    Disability Act, Women's right to vote, removal of the poor tax on voting, Indian Citizenship Act.

    The Battle of Blair mountain for instance caused an immediate backlash that historians actually believe delayed worker's rights. Stonewall happened decades before any policy change. Making your voice heard and educating people to join up in collective action is what makes change, violence either causes backlash or completely collapses a government. The French Revolution for instance ended in military dictatorship. Violence will happen but it is absolutely not true to say it causes change, it often doesn't.

    And then there are the dozens of elections that resulted in positive policy change that required no violence, dozens of non-violent movements that did cause sweeping changes directly.

    If voting didn't matter, they would not put so much effort and money into denying people's vote.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Its worked for over 100 years though. It just doesn't work in all circumstances.

  • source
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Voting ended slavery, the Civil War was fought by the assholes who followed the instructions in this thread.

    Not everything needs to be solved with violence.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    Dululo Americans shitting with rage seeing stuff like this, they will do anything but acknowledge that Donald will just say it's rigged or rig it himself and get the courts to side with him, they'll do nothing once it happens and continuing to cry and point fingers like the do here.

    I know this is true because when ONE German state (not the country as a whole) picked a far right candidate, Soooo many of you losers here were Soooo quick to point the finger say your no better even though it was a far lower scale issue and far easier to containe but they were so happy to go haha, you should over throw your gov, like a Bunch of school children when it was only one province with low relevance.

    Your pathetic.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment