top 74 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 165 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Had a discussion with my wife's parents the other day. They thought it was hilarious. They laughed, alternating between mockery of the poor and "nobody helped me so everybody should suffer!"

She said maybe it's time to go no-contact.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 79 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Going no contact is a lot easier than it sounds: the biggest issue is "them" not respecting your new boundaries.
    My biggest piece of advice is to never respond to them. The 'keeping silent and ghosting' part can be a challenge.
    Ultimately, though, you owe them nothing but your happiness.

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

    It's tough. Years of upbringing makes it hard for her to not respond, but even in the best of times they were conservative nuts. But sure, not everybody likes their family's political views, right? They went full Nazi during his first term. Now, they don't even try to hide it and openly admit that they agree with everything happening.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago*

    And delete your Facebook account. It’s just generally better for your mental health, it aids in stopping the cycle of billionaires feeding everyone information by whoever pays them. And then it stops unwanted contact from family. They can still post about you, but they’re screaming into an empty void of data centers at that point

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

    some in-laws are such terrible people once you get to know them. but the IL are the on the recieving ends of the cuts in the bbb, they are getting exactly what they wanted, they are just copium. i had cousins that after the astroworld crush, they were sitll "investing" in that venue, how immoral you have to be to do that, they would be the same people that would work for palintir because of money. asians are quite disconnected from politics/current events.

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

    I have a relative who has been on medicaid on and off who "doesn't pay attention to politics". I frequently explain current events to them- like efforts to cut medicaid that may cause them to lose their coverage.

    The obliviousness (or complacency, in many cases) of some people is unbelievable.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    TBH I don't want to talk to a bunch of libs who put me in a boiling pot. It's annoying, condescending, and it does absolutely nothing to change the water temperature.

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

    the "dont pay attention to politics" are the low information voters of trump, there are 2 types of conservatives: one watches fox news, or any right wing related media and consumes current events in a skewed way and somewhat up to date and the other are low info voters people who just take snippets and take the talking heads of (fox or right wing grifters like shapiro) out of the context because they dont understand the full story,

    i think most are the latter, i know 2 people that are like this(still supporting ye and believing hes not actually BIPOLAR AND JUST TROLLING)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    We need to be thinking about how 77 million Americans voted for Trump and thought that was a good idea.

    And we need to work out how to prevent it from happening again.

    One thing is clear, billionaires and politicians are unwilling to relinquish power or wealth, even when their holdings are obscene or they are incapable of governing.

    We will have to threaten either their lives or the structures on which their holdings depend, and can't bluff. And they will likely choose death over surrender.

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

    We won't prevent it until people learn to start talking to each other with compassion instead of hostility. As it stands, both sides think the other side is completely insane, and to some extent violent, and that they should not be associated with unless you are harassing them.

    We've already burned the whole bridge down, and now need to rebuild it somehow. If republicans and democrats were separated geographically they might just split the country in two, but as it stands nearly every state has a large population of both, so in my opinion the only way forward is reconciliation.

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

    I'm ex republican. Higher education and having my life ripped apart by our state's AG fixed me... barely. Compassion won't fix these people. They fucking suck to their core and would rather die than change their opinions. I don't have a good solution. Platforming the stupid in our country is a large part of the problem.

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

    I guess you make a good point that dire situations often change minds. That might be the more likely thing to happen than people having conversations again, unfortunately.

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

    It's such a hard topic to discuss because everyone has varying exposure to how much ground empathy can gain. After living it, I can say that they are more lost than most people think.

    So start treating them the way they will treat you. Personally I'll leave someone to die if they have a Trump sticker/flag/hat/etc, because they would do the same to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • We won't prevent it until people learn to start talking to each other with compassion instead of hostility.

    You can't empathize with literal fascist... For two parties to reach common ground there has to be an assumption of both parties bargaining in good faith. If you continue to do that with fascist, people end up in camps.

    As it stands, both sides think the other side is completely insane, and to some extent violent, and that they should not be associated with unless you are harassing them.

    Well.... In the last 30 years, how many mass casualties events have been perpetrated by liberal or leftist extremist? You can't falsely conflate "both sides" when only one has a well recorded history of violence.

    There is no common ground when the side you want people to compromise with wants to put me and my family in a prison camp.

    We've already burned the whole bridge down, and now need to rebuild it somehow. If republicans and democrats were separated geographically they might just split the country in two, but as it stands nearly every state has a large population of both, so in my opinion the only way forward is reconciliation.

    Conservatism isn't an ethnicity....... It's a dangerous ideology that should have been stamped out during reconstruction after the last civil war. But people like you had the great idea of compromising reconstruction with reconciliation, so now we have to stomp it to death once again.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    As it stands, both sides think the other side is completely insane, and to some extent violent

    Um, is it at all relevant that one side literally is insane, or that one side commits 99% of the violence? Where is the Democrats alligator Alcatraz for Christians? Where are the Democratic brown-shirt vigilantes running around with masks kidnapping people?

    I think Republicans are insane and violent because I see it with my own eyes. Are we supposed pretend their not? Screw that, I'd rather punch a Nazi.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 47 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Remember when Trump wiped women and people of color from DoD and other government documents in his DEI sweep? Fucking sucks man.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    It's not just Trump. It's the state that he operates just like his predecessor and current collaborators in both "parties".

    It's a big mistake to assume this is some kind of break rather than a smooth continuation.

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

    Biden did not use deportation as a weapon against legal permanent residents, green card holders, infants, and political opponents.

    I think you know what you're doing. You're all over this thread. I just realized that all of the bullshit here is you.

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

    Technocrit is all over every political thread, doing his best to spread apathy with the progressive voters, helping to keep the fascists in power.

    He's been slinging this same tired BS since the election, back when the Russian ops trying to get Trump elected would give him upvotes and keep him out of the red.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] 46 points 1 year ago* (10 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    What kind of genres do you read? If you dig speculative fiction I'm happy to share recommendations and am happy to talk books. It's not much, but just nerding out about stuff somtimes helps.

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

    I'm not op, but I like speculative fiction. I was really into Ministry For The Future. I also liked Termination Shock.

    What have you got?

    I think it's pretty rad that you offered to recommend books. You're alright.

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

    Two other favorites from last year. The Island of Dr. Moreau by H. G. Wells but you should follow it immediately with The Daughter of Dr. Moreau by S. Moreno-Garcia. It's sort of a companion piece written by a female, indigenous author. It bookends the sci-fi by a white guy nicely.

    Also, I'll always tell people they should check out the book that is credited with starting sci-fi as a genre. Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelly. It's horror, it's sci-fi, it's speculative, it's fucking awesome.

    And the Blue Ant trilogy by Wiliam Gibson. He's deff not for everyone. He can be really hard to get, and he just dumps you into his world and starts. There is no tutorial. But if he clicks for you, you'll love it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I'm not super versed in thriller but my friends have me dipping my feet into horror.

    Sister, Maiden, Monster by Lucy A Snider was a favorite last year. Creepy, timely, and let's say visceral.

    I'm in the first 3rd of Perdido Street Station now from China Mieville. He's credited with helping start the New Weird. Not horror as such but it's marvelous.

    And Light From Uncommon Stars by Ryka Aoki was just a rad read. It's roughly about donughts, violins, and selling souls.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -18 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    By all accounts I did everything right.

    Maybe the actual problem is your definition of "right".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_religion

    Every time I’ve voted, my candidate of choice loses. I’m powerless. I’m not well.

    Maybe you should start acting on your own instead of placing your life/future/trust in the hands of some sociopath.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 131 points 1 year ago* (37 children)

    Didn’t vote for it isn’t good enough. 90M people didn’t vote. We needed 2M more to vote against it. Remember this when the midterms come around next fall.

  • source
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 77 points 1 year ago (20 children)

    We also need a political party that also understands this. The entrenched democratic advisers lost 2 times to Trump and I havent seen any mass firing. If anything, the establishment dems are attacking anyone trying to change.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (19 children)

    It doesn’t work like that. I’ve been saying this for decades, but maybe this explanation from a political strategist will do a better job.

    Simply put, the donors want to win to influence the candidates. They base their data on past voters, not the entire electorate. If you don’t vote, you don’t influence. It’s really always been that simple.

    We need to stop rewarding those who have the financial means to reach us in our living rooms, and actively seek out the progressives in every primary. Vote in every election. Stop allowing retirees to pick our candidates and continue to push the Overton Window to the right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    But that video basically tells you straight-out… the usual campaign strategies are clearly wrong. You put out a campaign that gets people excited and suddenly way more people get out to vote. It's not a complicated theory. It clearly works in practice.

    All of this conversation though, just shows how fucking poor democracy based around voter turnout is. Put elections on a weekend or make it a public holiday, and make voting mandatory (with the option of a blank ballot for those who really object to voting). It doesn't solve all your problems. But it sure does help a lot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    Bruh. If you voted, they’d cater their advertising to you. The candidates are still there, you’re not voting for them, and blaming the lack of advertising. That’s like blaming lettuce for not advertising salads and complaining about always eating McDonald’s.

    Do you want to take control of your government or not?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I vote. I'm not American, in case my instance name didn't give it away. I'd vote even if I didn't want to, because it's mandatory to do so, one of several vast improvements my country has over yours in the quality of our democratic processes.

    But did you watch the video you linked in the last comment? Because it completely turns your argument on its head. You say "if you voted, they'd cater to you". But that video clearly demonstrates that the exact inverse is true. If you want to get out the vote in a large segment of the Zero Primes, all you have to do is run as exciting campaign with bold progressive policies. The evidence is all laid out there in front of you, even in common sense couldn't get you there.

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

    Both things can be true.

    A good campaign can get people into the voting booth.

    A demographic that fails to show up when you think you've done everything that makes sense to get them out can cause them to give up on the demographic. They may be woefully misinformed about what they should be doing, but since they don't know any better, they are likely to just give it up as a lost cause.

    Show up in the primaries for the candidate you want, it's the only realistic way to break the chicken and egg of the establishment ignoring the voters that don't show up and the voters not showing up for the establishment that ignores them. If the establishment is surprised by the primary outcome, that's the strongest wakeup call for them.

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

    Of course that’s all the donors have to do. That’s how we get a wolf in sheep’s clothing. We need grassroots primary candidates, and they run all the time. We just don’t do our civic duty and vote in every election.

    To give you an idea of how bad it’s gotten, the average turnout for congressional primaries is less than 15% for the last 30 years. That’s why we have this government. We’ve been letting retirees pick conservative centrist Democrats and push the Overton Window to the right for decades.

    Edit: You’re going to downvote my factual information in favor of your disenfranchising bullshit? Bruh. You don’t even go here.

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

    You’re going to downvote my factual information in favor of your disenfranchising bullshit? Bruh. You don’t even go here.

    Nope. I didn't even see your comment until after the edit. I am going to downvotes because of the edit, though. Probably woulda upvoted otherwise.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I definitely agree with your last paragraph here. Try to vote in progressives in every primary we have access to in order to use voting to make a difference, yes.

    However,

    the donors want to win

    You mean they want everything for themselves by buying politicians, right? Because often times Dem strategy is so incredibly tone deaf the only thing that’s clear about it is that they aren’t trying to win an election, they’re simply doing what the donors tell them to do. In this case, it’s the classic pretend fight, send strongly worded letters, and then let the republicans narrowly pass the massive tax break for the rich. Which is in fact a win for the donors, but nobody else.

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

    That’s not the case if we get behind candidates with good ethics in grassroots campaigns. They choose to accept donations, and can refuse contributions from unsavory donors. We have several clean donor Representatives in the house. It’s not impossible. It just takes our participation.

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

    I do this but we can go even further. If you are a US citizen looking to change the DNC please look into your local DNC delegation. Taking over the party at the local level is a part of how the mentally challenged were leveraged by the Koch network to effectively take over the GOP.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I saw a great quote somewhere that said something like, "You will understand modern American politics if you realize that GOP politicians fear their voters and Democratic politicians don't fear their voters."

    A lot of progressives and leftists use this as an excuse to not vote and act like withdrawing from politics means they're not complicit. What they don't realize is that is exactly what creates this atmosphere where the Dems cater more and more to the center and right to get votes.

    Not to mention the general atmosphere like we have on this very thread where the left eats itself alive and divides itself with purity tests that could never work in reality.

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

    If you don’t vote, you don’t influence.

    That's the stupidest strategy you could have when you know WHY a lot of people aren't voting at all. The only purpose of this strategy is to participate in the degradation of voting shares, and by extension, fascism. You want new votes, you get new people to vote, and you know how to do that. The GOP figured it out (I don't want to say Trump figured it out).

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

    How do you think the GOP got those candidates in the election? They enter through primaries. We don’t need to figure it out. We have the goddamn answer. We just need to vote in primaries and stop allowing retirees to pick corporate centrists for us.

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

    Look at the Cuomo / Mamdani primary for NY mayor, the DNC really tried to kill the socialist campaign. Most primaries like that don't get that much support against the "old guard" among Democrats, so most of the time, the actual good non-centrist option gets swept away like dust. The work that's needed to push a socialist through the primary is so much more than "you just need to get out and vote" because those like Cuomo have so much more weight to shut them down, it's so rare for that to fail like this.

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

    They didn’t try to kill anything. They just didn’t put support behind Mamdani. If we did our civic duty and voted in every primary, the candidates that represent us, like Mamdani, would always be in the general election.

    We can’t keep blaming big lettuce for not advertising salads while buying McDonald’s every day. We know it’s out there. Go get some lettuce.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    There's no way to vote against something that both candidates support (eg. genocide).

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

    If they cared about genocide so much, they should have voted to prevent the one they would trigger back home.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Your insistence on seeing black and white in a gray world will be your end.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -16 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    You're the one stuck in black and white thinking. Any Democrat is better than any Republican, by definition. You would canvass for Mussolini if his opponent was Hitler.

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

    That’s entirely false. Read my comment history. I spend most of my time on Lemmy trying to engage people in the primary process to unseat the corporate centrists.

    Regarding the 2024 election, the Palestinians had two options. Bad, and worse. By refusing to choose, they were going to get worse. People like you would rather not put their names on bad, and let the Palestinians get worse, so they’d have a clear conscience.

    I have no respect for the self-righteous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You still don't have any red lines though. There's nothing a candidate could do, no behavior so monstrous, no atrocities so grand that would ever make you not vote for the lesser of two evils. Again, you would vote for Mussolini if he was running against Hitler.

    If not, where is your red line? What would a Democrat have to do before you would refuse to vote for them, regardless of who they were running against?

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

    There's nothing a candidate could do, no behavior so monstrous, no atrocities so grand that would ever make you not vote for the lesser of two evils.

    Yeah that's basic moral judgement. You realize that the alternative to the lesser evil is the greater evil, yeah? For as grand and magnificent as the atrocities you're talking about are, the existence of a greater evil implies even grander and more magnificent atrocities. Given a choice between "grand and magnificent atrocities," and "grander and more magnificent atrocities," which would you choose?

    Is it worth allowing the grander and more magnificent atrocities to happen just to fool yourself into thinking you had no part in it?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    8 comments in c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world view that post