1940
Always remember, both sides are just as bad!
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
1940 points (93.7% liked)
Political Memes
4602 readers
3506 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
and people like OP think everyone fits neatly into either group.
You can't support the right without supporting their fascism, regardless of how you try to qualify it
That's not what he said...
Oh yes you "can!" Just you try voting third party (i.e not actually supporting the republicans) and telling anyone about it, dems will say you supported the right, reps will say you supported the left, all the while you supported neither, and somehow simultaneously supported both from the POV of the "you have to do what I want" people.
Edit: See?
The fundamental core of the GOP strategy is to disenfranchise voters. When you vote for a hopeless third-party candidate you are disenfranchising yourself - i.e. doing the GOP's work for them.
Aren't people tired of voting for a party because they dislike the other one though? You're disenfranchising yourself by doing that. I just want to vote for a party because I actually like them.
Voting 3rd party is only a worthwhile attempt if you were planning on voting Republican. If you are even slightly leaning towards voting Democrat, then removing that possible vote for Democrats would only empower the Republicans.
So only vote third party if it helps the Democrats? That's what you're saying?
I'm not the other guy but that does seem like the optimal strategy
Haha, okay.
It's mathematically impossible for a third party to win because they split the vote with whichever of the major parties they are most like. Since this is so you are in effect voting for whomever they are most unalike. EG greens are voting for Republicans Libertarians might as well be voting for Democrats.
You would do better to stand better folks in the primary of the party that is closest to the third party or move for something like approval voting that would make it possible to vote for them in good conscience instead of pretending like you don't know how our electoral system works.
Voting for a third party is a vote for apathy. No matter which side you lean towards voting for a third party shows that you don't actually care about the outcome. It feels nice, and I'm sure you proudly proclaim that you're the only one trying to do anything, but it's a vote for apathy.
This is the same argument that led to the red scare in the 50s. Want to unionize your workplace? That's not the only union you want! Want to bring an anti consumerism message? Literally communism! It's much easier to group undesirables together so you can marginalize the libertarians, evangelicals and business class in one fell swoop by labeling them Fascist
It's not really the same argument at all.
Please elaborate
If you vote for a Republican, you’re effectively supporting fascism. That’s what American politics has turned into.
That argument holds ground in some European countries where left and right parties are actually left and right. In a country like the US where the left is right and the right is fascism, they did the grouping themselves.
I'd like to point out that the political compass is a really bad construct for understanding politics. Ideology is made from smaller factors such as economics, tradition, religion, intellectualism, and other institutions. Fascism came out of socialist circles, as did Nazism. The modern political compass came out of the cold war and helped both sides justify themselves: the communists who wanted to be as far from the Nazis as possible and the Americans who wanted to be seen as the voice of the moderates. (Don't look at the Molotov-Ribbontrop pact or Jim Crow)
The Republican party promotes Right wing populism. Elements of that include autarky, isolationism and conservatism.
Fascism is a very specific ideology, and while the leader of the Republican party Trump has some things in common with it, he is not on the war path like a true fascist would be. He is less imperialist than previous presidents. He wants to pull out from NATO and abandon the Kurdish people in Syria. Again, Trump is a populist. He did not come out of socialist circles preaching an anti-elitist message.
Depends on what you mean by “being on a war path”. Imperialism isn’t a strict requirement for fascism, and he’s very much on a national war path. Wikipedia describes it like this:
I think the only part he might not fit is “strong regimentation of economy”.
But Trump lacks rebirth rhetoric outside of 'MAGA' He isn't seeking to subjugate the other nations of the world for the spirit of America. He didn't really support the US military, and doesn't employ brown shirts to silence opposition. That may be because our institutions are durable enough to resist him now though.
I do see the argument though. I however oppose reductionism. It's dehumanizing and anti-democratic. Problem comes when one has to fight populism with intellectualism. It doesn't work because it's not snappy
Again, going outside your country’s border isn’t really required for fascism.
About silencing opposition… he’s getting real close with stuff like Jan 6 or the doxxing in his trial. He just doesn’t employ people but counts on fanatics to do the job for free.
On reductionism, yeah, it’s usually not the most honest of tactics, but as you said we can’t fight populism with intellectualism. I’m annoyed at people saying Trump is “Literally Hitler”, but calling him Fascist is honestly so close that I don’t really see it as that unfair.
oh no no no. don't you see? they are right, they don't HAVE to elaborate. But in turn if YOU don't explain your point of view, you're a fascist in hiding. IN fact, even if you DO lay out your argument, it's wrong just because they say so. Is this your first day on the internet? heavy on the /s
You're 100% right. You'll still get downvoted and so will I for saying this, because people vote with their emotions here.
I don't think downvotes should be a thing at all tbh. Just silences discussion.
If a comment is actively hateful and/or breaks rules you'd report it instead, as is the case in alot of Lemmy instances.
right? if you say something the lef... i mean lemmy users don't like, you just get SHOUTED down instead. cause if you screetch loud enough it makes it true.
It’s useful for gauging the general opinion on a subject, or for “exposing” fake affirmations without having to dig comments.
It does bring its issues, but I think the pros outweigh the cons. Plus it’s not like Reddit where you just have the balance, people indeed have the tendency to ignore/comment snarkily on “-5” comments, but if they see a “+10/-15” they often realize it’s a controversial opinion and might weigh in.
How is anyone on Lemmy silenced by downvotes? Just basic feelings of shame because some people on the internet didn't like what they said?
People have a tendency to pile on and dismiss any opinion or comment with -1 votes or less instead of properly responding to it, like what's happening just above this comment. Turns the place into an echo chamber.
How does it turn the place into an echo chamber? Why would anyone let that silence them? There are zero repercussions for a downvote on Lemmy.
Is your ego really so fragile that "people don't like my comment" is enough to make you stop talking?
Lmao did you even read my comment? Who said anything about not commenting if you're getting negative votes?
That comment did not justify your original comment, which was:
Someone not responding to your post does not silence discussion. Neither do downvotes. No one, not even you, is entitled to a response. Who sees a downvote and decides that they were going to respond but now won't? That's ludicrous.
So as far as- "Who said anything about not commenting if you’re getting negative votes?," that would be you, who claimed downvotes silenced discussion.
Again, did you even read my comment? Pointing out a tendency people have isn't "entitlement". People shy away from small numbers and interact with large numbers more.
We literally see this in threads all the time. Negatively voted comments are responded to with one-liners or nothing at all, as if the negative votes somehow prove them wrong.
Lmao I'll be "discussing" this topic with my wall now
You again did not explain how anyone is silenced by downvotes. And we do not "literally see this" because you have no idea if those people who downvoted were ever going to respond.
My comment:
.
That's not what I said:
People dismiss it either because it has low visibility since it's downvoted so people wouldn't see it, or because of our tendency for big numbers.
Taking out downvotes would allow for less popular opinions (that do not break rules by being hateful or spam; you'd report it in those cases) to have higher visibility and discussion since the majority can't just downvote it, just because they slightly disagree with it or are biased against it, and silence discussion.
People who do agree would also be able to show it through upvotes, and it wouldn't be eaten by the downvotes.
Thanks for your comments actually. Got me to think about the benefits more clearly. Discussions are great.
That is absolutely not how Lemmy works. Downvoting has no effect whatsoever. This is not Reddit.
I assume you're talking about the 'active' and 'hot' sorting?
From the Lemmy docs:
You'd also notice this if you use Lemmy for any length of time lmao
You know what's weird? What's weird is that, despite your claim that people aren't having discussions with people who get downvoted, my reply to you was part of a huge amount of discussion with someone who was downvoted. And that is true of multiple other discussions in this post.
Is this post special? Is it the exception?
I am the exception because I keep the less visibility thing in mind
That does not explain why this post contradicts your claim multiple times, but your massive ego is noted.
Look, with nearly 100 comments a day, we realize that no amount of downvotes is going to silence you from commenting in every post. However, for us mere mortals, can you not see how a dogpile of downvotes from the local majority opinion might dissuade some individuals from wanting to engage in discussion?
Nope. I don't see why it matters when it didn't even matter on Reddit except that comments with enough downvotes were hidden. They aren't hidden here.
It's clearly psychological. It's not that it quantitatively "matters." I suspect very few people are going around using the downvote button with the intent of statistically decreasing the view count of a particular comment. On these politically charged posts, it's used as a litmus test for whether or not you are part of the 'right side' or 'the other side.'
90 million people or whatever they claimed the outrageous number was voted with their emotions in 2020.