top 95 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 162 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Early 20th century Italian fascists had a popular slogan "Me ne frego", meaning "I don't care".

People don't really change.

italian fascist with a "me ne frego" headband

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

    Hmmmmm

    What did Melania have on the back of her jacket that one time

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago*

    Not shown on the shore: hundreds of other frogs watching with full confidence that any scorpion they give a ride across the pond won't sting THEM.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago

    "lol", said the Scorpion, "lmao"

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    based on a true story

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    This is perfect

  • source
  • [–] 56 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The most accurate thing about this is the liberal allowing the fascist to get on its back in the first place.

    Because, you know, it would just be SO RUDE not to.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • This applies to maga as well. Trump doesn't give two shits about them.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Can't wait to laugh my ass off when washington DC is split into east and west.

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

    "Are you triggered yet, lib?"

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Trump himself used a similar story about a snake in his own speeches. He was telling us who he is.

  • source
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago* (25 children)

    And Leftists see the Liberals as the scorpion.

    Turns out when people stop benefiting from society, they don't care what happens to it.

    And no, an oppressive police state who kills anyone who gets too poor or upset is not a "benefit" of that society. And when that's all the system has left, you can't blame people for not giving a shit.

  • source
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    That's not really a universal truth, Leftists hold a wide range of views on liberalism.

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

    Not on here it doesn't seem. On here a liberal to them is chuck Schumer or other neoliberals(neo being the keyword here). They think liberalism is about protecting capital. I would argue that socialism can be very liberal if we're going with the traditional meaning of the word.

    But what really bothers me about it is it feels like a wedge issue created to drive the two groups apart, and it seems to work on people that I KNOW are smarter than that. But I guess we liberals thought that about Maga as well

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • I'd argue you don't know what Liberalism is.

    John Locke was all about private property and individual ownership of the means of production. Liberalism is tied to capitalism from it's origin.

    It's comparable to AnComs and being in favor of personal liberties, they're still right wingers at their core.

    The warped American notion of liberalism as an analogue for left or progressive is not the norm globally, and certainly not the origin of the word or how we all see it applied in the states.

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

    It is normally the fascists who claim that everyone they see not as one of them being a lefty, while the subgroups in the group of these "lefties” are more different to each other than they are to some fascist groups

    Well, I think, I worded that not so well, but hope you guys still understand.

    Tldr:
    The “right” wants us to believe, that there is only a single line from right to left through the middle in politics, while in reality it is a multidimensional vector space

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    The “right” wants us to believe, that there is only a single line from right to left through the middle in politics, while in reality it is a multidimensional vector space

    Conway's Law: The structure of a system reflects the structure of the organization that built it

    Have a two-party system, get a two-party model.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -17 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    More like Democrats see the progressives as the scorpion.
    If giving up means you then screw over everyone else that says more about you, than anyone else. It may be reality, but it's no justification.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    Yeah, you can try supporting leftists, or you can keep stinging.

    Neoliberalism isn't a popular ideology anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Neoliberalism isn’t a popular ideology anymore.

    And yet democrats refuse to abandon it.

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

    Neoliberalism is no where near as popular as it used to be. The neoliberal faction is about as weak as it has ever been since they came to dominate the party back in the 1990's. It's not really fair to say Democrats refuse to abandon neoliberalism when there's plenty of Democrats actively working to move the party away from neoliberalism for decades, and especially now when they are finally at a place where it looks like it could really happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    It’s not really fair to say Democrats refuse to abandon neoliberalism when there’s plenty of Democrats actively working to move the party away from neoliberalism for decades, and especially now when they are finally at a place where it looks like it could really happen.

    I've heard this too many times to ever believe mere words from democrats. I've seen their actions and those indicate that the party has only changed for the worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -11 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    But the democrats are the ones that have an organization in place in the U.S. that can affect change. Those with more progressive ideals keep stinging them and they sink. As a result we have right wing fascism. Congrats.

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

    What you're saying only makes sense if you think all leftists refuse to vote, or 100% vote for third parties. This is not even close to reality. Libs love to tell me I'm a Trump supporting liar, but I have voted Democrat my entire adult life, including for Harris and in local piddly elections. Not because I think centrist liberal policies are good but because our broken system forces me to, in the hopes that maybe their platform will grow a spine or a conscious and realize caring for your people is worth more than making a buck.

    Other nations with less power and resources than us have figured out how to be progressive, what is our problem? It sure as shit isn't the people calling for progress.

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

    Its not a matter of 100%. It's a matter of any. The critical votes have been very close. It's also if you convince others not to vote or vote 3rd party. So criticizing the democrats has to be done carefully in the right context.
    And the trick would be removing money from politics; and removing money controlled bias of mass media.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Oh no those mean leftists they hurt the DNC by... not giving them votes they think they were entitled to...

    You need to understand that the leftist protest voters did not meaningfully impact the election. That is a fact, and if you want to live in the same reality as the rest of us, you need to internalize that fact. This was DNC propaganda made to make you hate young people and leftist ideology. It's time to break that conditioning.

    If you would like to be upset about the votes Harris was "owed" then be mad at the white and hispanic boomers that stayed home for Harris after coming out to vote for Biden.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Let's all help the fascists and then pretend it's a moral imperative

    Edit: I love the block feature. Tankies can scream into the void all they want.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Let’s all help the fascists and then pretend it’s a moral imperative

    That's centrists' position on Palestine, yes.

    EDIT: democrats and ignoring the left. Name a more perfect tautology.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    I always dislike this story because of the biological essentialism it implies and that allows racists and sexists to use it.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago

    Do you also dislike stories with talking animals because animals can't talk?
    It's a parable, and you seem to be taking it too literally and simultaneously not literally enough.

    On the one hand, it's saying not to trust people who want to hurt you even if your interests are aligned. The soviets trusting the Nazis not to attack them just because they both gained by dividing eastern Europe and not fighting a war on multiple fronts. No amount of shared interest will keep a fascist from hating a communist.

    On the other hand, you actually really shouldn't put scorpions on your back. It's actually fine to reduce the agency of an insect to a stereotype of their biology.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Not sure why you'd getting downvoted here but it's absolutely been used (a lot) to push racist ideas. I first heard it from an antisemite.

    I think it's just a shit message - "people will betray you on surprising ways, trust no one"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Isn’t the message that people will betray you in _un_surprising ways?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I never took it as bleakly as don't trust anyone.

    Frog knows the scorpion is untrustworthy but ignores his intuition and gets burnt for it. I take it as don't get involved with someone that would drag you down with them.

    For anyone trying to prove anything with it, it's a parable, so it's advice, not a research paper! 🐸

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

    Speaking of frog parables pretending to be research papers: the whole “a scientist did an experiment and if you boil water slowly enough the frog won’t jump out and just sits there until it dies”. It turns out that’s bullshit. The scientist was trying to figure out brain stuff, so he removed the brains from the frogs and they didn’t jump out when he boiled them. The frogs that still had their brains jumped out of the water around the same temperature as a person would step out of a too-hot shower (25°C).

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Bold characterizing Trumptards as something fierce like a scorpion. I guess they are predators though....

  • source
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (31 children)

    But you know in this story, the frog was actually taking the scorpion to safety, not waging wars and funding a genocide. Maybe next time if there is no bureaucracy in the party, and you see Mamdani against Trump , you'll see actual support from the left.

  • source
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    lol "Just one more purity test bro, then I promise I won't support the fascist"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    People with no standards really hate people with standards.

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

    lol made up purity tests you use to justify supporting facism aren't standards.

    It doesn't really matter what excuse you use for suppressing leftist voter turn out, you're still doing work for the facists which makes you a fascist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    What's really baffling is that even the fascist is doing a better job in the context of wars. And if I'm not wrong, those lefties targeted in the meme are just choosing not to participate in the vote, not to support some one. Forcing someone to choose least of two evils might just not be liberty.

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

    lol

    It's refreshing to hear "leftists" just come right out and say they suport the fascist. Thanks for that.

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

    choosing not to participate in the vote, not to support some one.

    “leftists” just come right out and say they suport the fascist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    I was literally going to reply to this pointing out that "protest voters" fit better as the scorpion than MAGA people. The MAGA people didn't know that Trump was an objective disaster. They just thought he would make a disaster for their enemies and leave them alone. The "I'm too left for Kamala" people did know, and they still decided Trump wasn't worth resisting, because they wanted to make their point. Or, as the scorpion said, it's in their nature, and they just felt really strongly that that's what they wanted to do.

    And hey, now we're sinking! Thanks. Great.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    now we’re sinking!

    Always have been.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (12 children)

    No we haven't. FDR put in place universal healthcare, universal retirement, jobs for people that want to work so that they're not subject to whims of the economy as to whether they can feed themselves. Postwar Britain guaranteed housing at reasonable rates to its people. The EPA, the CDC, clean water in your house, all this stuff happens because somebody makes it happen.

    Democracy works, if you make it work. All that FDR stuff happened because people had spent decades fighting for their labor rights in the streets, harder than the wealthy were fighting to keep them down. That's it. That's how it functions. If instead of that, the labor movement had been filled with strategically incapable losers who said "MAN THE WHIGS DON'T FUCKING REPRESENT ME" and then fucked off to do something else, we'd still be working weekends and getting our arms pulled off in the factories.

    This is why people think the whole "protest voter" thing is a psyop: Because it makes so little sense as a strategy for producing positive change. As a way of making sure things get ten times worse and the worst people in the world get to profit, though, it's a fucking fantastic strategy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    umm, that's 40 years ago you're talking about, and it was Harry Truman who came after, so I say it was sinking gradually since then. In any case voting for warmongers is kind of an approval to them, people have every right to distinguish themselves from warmongers.

    I don't really care about labor rights that much in this discussion, but I strongly doubt that you can achieve any by "voting blue, no matter who", you're not really voting here imo, you're just showing the lobbyists that you're accepting anything blue they offer. The example of FDR only shows that your party has been infiltrated and needs a purge of some kind, instead of unconditional support.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    umm, that’s 40 years ago you’re talking about, and it was Harry Truman who came after, so I say it was sinking gradually since then.

    Yeah, pretty much. Because things got good and people stopped fighting.

    This whole model where "the assholes in power are doing corrupt things and don't look out for the people" is this shocking surprise, and leads to us needing to disengage from the whole system even more, is wrong. Fight for what you need. That is the way.

    I don’t really care about labor rights that much in this discussion, but I strongly doubt that you can achieve any by “voting blue, no matter who”

    Good thing I never said that. What I was saying is that "Vote no, no matter who" is a bunch of garbage probably equally unproductive to this elaborate strawman of "vote blue no matter who."

    The example of FDR only shows that your party has been infiltrated and needs a purge of some kind

    Yeah, pretty much. If we could start with Schumer and Pelosi that would be great.

    Tell me, does "the leftest end of the party refuses to vote anymore" leads to the party moving left? Or right? I can't remember. Is that a good way to purge the centrists, by withdrawing the leftist input? Maybe there is some kind of history from 1968 - 1992 that I can look to. Or maybe the history of the Democrats since 1992?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

    If you meant that you wanted people in US to vote for someone like Bernie Sanders then I'm not your opponent. I only discard the idea of "vote Biden to prevent Trump" which evolved to "vote Kamala Harris to prevent Trump" even when both are clearly not standing for you really, but "just do it cuz they're the candidates of the party".
    I'm pretty sure the meme is blaming those who didn't vote blue in the last American elections, "resulting in Trump winning".

    I'm not discarding the idea of practicing the democratic procedure in your country all together or participating in votes, but rather only the idea of "vote for the lesser of two evils", as it has only proved to sink the boat so far. I'm arguing against extreme loyalty for the party, for life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    I only discard the idea of “vote Biden to prevent Trump”

    Then you are... well, I won't say you're my "enemy" exactly. But I think you're making incredibly stupid decisions, and then being dishonest ("just do it cuz they’re the candidates of the party" when the logic was literally pretty much the opposite of that).

    If the house is on fire, then leaving the house is urgent. Preventing Trump was urgent. Saying it's not worth leaving the house because you don't like the weather outside is ridiculous, and framing this past election like preventing Trump was not urgent, even now with the benefit of hindsight, shows some really remarkably bad strategic ability, and I don't think I really want to listen to your political wisdom as to how to look at things or how we can get out of this mess now.

    only the idea of “vote for the lesser of two evils”, as it has only proved to sink the boat so far

    My point bringing up 1968 and 1992 was that refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils, thus opening the door for a much much greater evil to reset the bar downwards and also motivating the Democrats to move to the right since the left isn't voting for them anyway, is precisely and exactly what has been sinking the boat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    So the house wasn't burning down during Biden's administration ?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Absolutely it was. I can have some issues with people's general way of characterizing what Biden did, but I feel like you are still missing the point that I am making:

    It is the normal course of political leaders to become corrupted and start to do things like the DNC is currently doing. It happens in Communist systems, it happens to the Republicans, it happens to the Democrats, it happened to Labour in the UK, it happens to any political body just because of the nature of power and corruption, and the incentives at work. This whole idea "Well we have to get rid of the Democrats because they're bad, that'll solve it" is 1,000% missing that point (and, yes, if there were anyone who were saying "We have to keep voting for Democrats, that'll solve it," then I would equally tell them that they are living in a dream world.)

    My point is that getting ourselves out of the current crisis involves being engaged with the political system (both in and out of the "official" allowed channels), and that giving up one of the key tools of influence and letting the forces of evil gobble up a giant advantage for themselves in November 2024, which we will now have to work incredibly hard just to get back to even the pretty-bad state things were in before, was a massive mistake. Whether or not Biden was "good enough," or for that matter whether even his significant sins like genocide in Gaza needed to apply to Kamala Harris, has absolutely no bearing on that point.

    Again: People have been trying this strategy you're promoting since 1968. It definitely hasn't pulled the Democrats to the left. My feeling is, work to strengthen unions and civil institutions outside of Washington, support progressive candidates (the few of them that exist within the Democratic party), and try to avoid obvious disasters. That makes sense to me. The strategy that it sounds like you're talking about, withholding support until the Democrats get better on their own all of a sudden, has in my view proved itself to be an unmitigated disaster in the years from 1968 until now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    In my view your idea is consent to the two party system, which is not explicitly forced by the constitution, but is being enforced more and more over time by your own behavior. One needs to have limits at least on what they consent to, even when their choice is neglect afterwards. The fact that not even both parties offered a pro zionist candidate, but even inside the democrat party, both candidates (Biden then Harris) were explicitly pro Zionist, this shows where loyalty to an institution no matter what leads to.
    Christianity is often ridiculed for for being fanatic, but even though it is a religion, it had reforms (Martin Luther and the protestant denomination eventually) when the main Catholic church was corrupt (I'm sorry for the Christians reading this if I'm getting history wrong). My point is: this was a religion and accepted reforms, here we're merely talking about a political party, a progressive one if I'm not wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Why do you guys spend SO much time lecturing me on what I believe, making me go back and try to correct you on it.

    This is tiring

    In my view your idea is consent to the two party system

    Absolutely not. I think the US government would be vastly improved if political parties were done away with (let alone these two specific political parties). Unions as the basic unit of political power, instead of a class of specialist politicians, would be a big improvement.

    The issue is that "consent" or not is not really required. You can not consent to these two specific political parties, you can even choose not to vote as a way of expressing your lack of consent, and they can still tear-gas you or arrest you for refusing to go along with the laws they passed. My point is that refusing to vote, because you don't like these two specific political parties being in charge, will not produce any positive change, and will in fact distract from a lot of positive change because now we have to fight against urgent threats to our safety and play defense.

    If you were talking about ways to break the monopoly of these two political parties, and strategizing how to get that done, I would be completely in agreement with you. That's not what you came out advocating for (or not in any effective way), so I'm disagreeing. Not complicated really.

    One needs to have limits at least on what they consent to, even when their choice is neglect afterwards.

    Glad you got to make your performative stand. Voting is not consent. Whatever happens, due to anyone who gets into office, is going to happen regardless unless people stand up and resist it. Voting is a way of giving input to the process.

    Again: Going outside because the building is on fire is not consenting to the weather. It's just self preservation. In this case, there are a whole bunch of Palestinians, and a whole bunch of Venezuelan fishermen, and a whole bunch of Hispanic people of all kinds, who could have been saved from some very severe consequences if you and others like you didn't feel like making your stand.

    If you want change, work for change. Stop yelling about how important it is not to vote. You're taking out the smoke detectors saying that you don't consent to the fire. You're yelling "I do not consent! I do not consent!" while the cop is breaking your window anyway to pull you out. Most importantly, stop accusing me of claiming things that are not what I am claiming. Please and thank you.

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

    Voting is not consent.

    That's where we disagree. And just to make it clear, I'm not from USA, I'm just offering a critic. You might as well recall that I said I'm not your opponent :).

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

    Sure

    Why are there so many people with super-strong opinions about internal US politics, who are not from the US

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    hmm, it seems to me that I didn't write long paragraphs. I just said that I see "voting for lesser of two evils is consenting for evil". And USA ran a 2 years long genocide in Gaza recently, they're actually running a war close to my country periodically. It makes sense that I don't distinguish much between the politicians who make decisions, and the population that is voting them in repeatedly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    The “I’m too left for Kamala” people did know, and they still decided Trump wasn’t worth resisting...

    Citation needed. I saw them actually resisting, unlike the liberals who paved the way for Trump's facism. But they claimed it was OK this time, but cause it was the "good guys" doing it.

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

    I'm mostly talking about the people on Lemmy. This kind of stuff is what I'm talking about:

    https://lemmy.world/search?q=kamala&type=All&listingType=All&creatorId=5466182&page=1&sort=TopAll

    https://lemmy.world/search?q=biden&type=All&listingType=All&creatorId=5466182&page=1&sort=TopAll

    Compare to:

    https://lemmy.world/search?q=mamdani&type=All&listingType=All&creatorId=5466182&page=1&sort=TopAll

    Mamdani had to kiss the police boots but he gets a useless endorsement in its place.

    He has started compromising with Democrats and abandoning his principles. We are halfway Bernie Mamdani already.

    https://lemmy.world/search?q=no+kings&type=All&listingType=All&creatorId=5466182&page=1&sort=New

    When it's time to not vote for Democrats, they're all yelling and super vigorous, activists with all kinds of passion. When a pro-Palestine, pro-worker candidate comes along, they start shitting on him. When it's time to get in the streets, it's fucking crickets.

    That's why I don't like them. Surely that makes sense. If I saw them actually "resisting" or at least encouraging other people to resist, I'd be a lot less contemptuous of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›