Firmly against, because even discussing how its perceived by others has been called "shaming" before. Even this posts conflates (reductive versions of) simple statements of fact alongside ones clearly meant as more of the attack that this sort of rule should be for, which I find to be a bad approach to even kick this off with.
So I'm against this rule. Really, really firmly against.
The timing of this post, honestly, bothers me so much more.
Nope.
We all need more civil discourse.
Ignoring it doesn't mean it won't go away or not impact you.
Edit. Just don't be a dick because you don't agree with the other person's views.
So... "We already do it but now we want to ask you if you're on board with this"?
Does that mean that if the vote result is negative, will you stop "taking mod action" about it? If the answer is no that's PTB behaviour IMHO.
I think that democrats criticism is valid, your system is shit and both options are bad don't get me wrong, but at this rate you won't even get the right to protest, which is your only tool as a leftist in a system as authoritative, control obsessed and abusive as yours.
I don't want to convince you to vote, but their criticism is valid and shouldn't be suppressed or censored in any way. Reducing republicans power through the midterms is, sadly, the best thing that you can do right now for the leftists communities in America.
While people should be free to comment in support of whichever candidate(s) they feel represent their interests best, I don't think limiting debate by those who may disagree is the right solution; it would only serve to make the instance more of an echo chamber.
Given that the average Threadiverse user is already politically to the left of the average, I don't think there's a significant risk of McCarthyists flooding discussions on here with anti-leftist rhetoric without being met with downvotes.
I'm in favor of discouraging this behavior broadly but I think codifying it as a rule is unnecessary and possibly intentionally abrasive. If we already take mod action against behavior like this that edges on harassment, then i see no reason to codify it - especially now
Nay
I'm not sure, is anti-electorism, as an idea, something that needs explicit protection? I can empathise if someone is staunch anti-electoralist and it's election season again - it probably leads to a lot of unpleasant conversations everywhere. However I don't think it's worth controlling someone's free expression. People are going to be passionate on the internet. Shaming is a legitimate social tool, it's upto you reject it.
While defending anti-electoralism might be a tough job, I think the idea needs to be defended on its own merit instead of a thumb on the scale. I don't think anti-electorism as an idea is at par with other ideas (e.g. anti-capitalism) that require explicit, instance-wide protection.
Saying that not voting is a vote for trump (well, half a vote) isn't wrong IMO, But be civil and accept criticism, that's the only way we all learn and move forward.
So personally I'm against the blanket rule.
Nay.
No opinion should be above reproach and shaming people for bad opinions is foundational to open discourse. You should be ashamed of your bad opinions and so should I. We all need thicker skin.
Nay, it would be censoring of opinions plus what is considered shaming feels very subjective (and is also often dictated by your views which mean that an admin that is pro-voting and one that is against voting will behave very differently)
Though
Lastly, assuming someone doesn't vote, or votes against the Democrats just because they are critical of Democrat policies and politicians is just bad-faith bullshit. Please don't make bad-faith assumptions. Though we are critical of the Democrats I think the vast majority of our US members still hold their noses and throw them a vote, despite everything.
Assuming is generally bad so this could at least be added as a guideline
We can’t have good takes without having bad takes.
Trying to censor the collective editorial mechanisms against one particular topic feels like a bad idea to me.
Sometimes opinions are just unpopular, even our own strongly held ones. It’s okay to be against the grain sometimes because the alternative of groupthink is so much worse in my opinion.
No thank you to this change.
Nay
I mostly agree with you, but I think making it an instance rule is a bit too much when communities can already moderate themselves however they see fit.
Every bullet point you listed are great examples, but limiting how things are discussed and determining whether it's "shaming" is subjective and a slippery slope.
This is a big NO from me.
"A vote for third party/Jill Stein is a vote for Trump."❌ is literally a harm-reduction argument ️✅. Anti-electoralism is being against the institutional power that vesting everything on elections creates and the spectacle to maintain it that critically diverts from mutual aid, not censoring those against supporting specific candidates (and using arguments logically proven from agreeable FPTP assumptions). (In fact, I would say that level of participation is electoralist.) I do not want us to become bureaucratic "alongside your other activism" boilerplaters.
Of the examples, only #4 seems like it should be removed for anti-electoralism. Of the rest, #2, #3, and #6 should be removed, but because they are already removeable as shitty bad-jacketing.
Nay
Nah, let people to publicly embarrass themselves
I'm personally against this.
Until people start organizing and getting to the streets pushing for change, voting for a "third party" will not move the needle. People won't just "come to the realization" that they need to vote outside of the 2 parties.
This isn't me personally saying there are only 2 choices. This is me saying the media has convinced everybody that they only have 2 choices. What power do I have as an individual compared to billionare media giants who can make bold claims to an audience of thousands/millions? I can put all my energy into trying to convince my friends, family & neighbors what is right... until they see a new tiktok video that tells them everything I said is wrong. This has been my personal experience over the last few years.
I would absolutely love to push for 3rd parties. I fucking hate the 2 party system. But when it comes down to it, the media is not talking about them. Shorts are focused on engagement, and everybody LOVES to be engaged with BS political Republican vs Democrat stuff. Classic red vs blue, good vs evil, boys vs girls style drama they can feel like they're a part of. Unfortunately, the average person follows the tide of media, and until something can be done about that, I believe we're kind of stuck.
What the
Nay
Nay as an instance rule. Like I get it, electoralists are so fucking obnoxious and disruptive, but an instance rule is a bit much. But I absolutely support this as a community rule in our specifically anarchism oriented communities.
Nay
While these types of statements are generally juvenile and obnoxious, they do not rise to the level of requiring official rules or moderation.
*... and it is not even close. Frankly, some of the proposals here are borderline fasccurious. It confuses the shit out of me because it is the opposite of why I chose db0.
Acknowledged governance topic opened by https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/u/flatworm7591 
This is a simple majority vote. The current tally is as follows:
This vote will complete in 6 days Reminder: Simply use the up/down votes on this topic to cast your vote.
all 42 comments