timemachineyeah

drives me up a wall living in a very very red district, like “no democrat is ever going to win any local election, let alone a real leftist” district, like “our school board members ran on who was the most anti-mask” red, like “I pass white supremacist signs on the way to buy weed” red

and being in the local leftist community and the guy who runs the anarchist book club and the lady who helps keep the warming shelters open and the people who marched on city hall when a local business was getting death threats for having a drag show are all members of a discord and we get on this discord and have frank discussions about how best to vote

the people who do the protests and the mutual aid and all the real work

going “okay, they’re both fascists, but this one lacks ambition and seems happy to just glide in the position” or “they both suck, but this one can be reasoned with if you frame it patriotically enough” like we don’t even have a democrat to vote for. we know what a vote is. we know what we hope accomplish with it. we know what it can do, and we know what it can’t.

and going from those discussions to here where people think that your vote is some kind of fucking??? enabling maneuver??? as if someone isn’t going to end up in that seat regardless of what you do???

we didn’t build this system, we just live in it. we’re just trying to survive. a vote isn’t a statement of your values, it’s not an endorsement, it’s not a marriage contract, it’s a strategic play you make to keep alive.

the biggest mistake I see leftists making is overestimating their own popularity. “well but everyone would be leftist if they just-” no, stop, 1) you can’t possibly know that 2) everyone will not just

  • Lojcs@lemm.eeEnglish
    1415·
    3 months ago

    Feels like there’s some sort of a spiritual element at play too. One option might be better irl, but it isn’t worth it if you think choosing either will get your soul damned (in a religious, social or self respect sense)

    • idiomaddict@feddit.deEnglish
      175·
      3 months ago

      That’s part of my problem. I’m a moral absolutist about a lot of things, which is a luxury. I don’t currently have that luxury, but that knowledge doesn’t change my morals.

      The other part is the game theory aspect, in that the further right a candidate you accept, the further right the next democrat will be. The OP in this is trying to survive, not to change the system.

      • Lojcs@lemm.eeEnglish
        141·
        3 months ago

        in that the further right a candidate you accept, the further right the next democrat will be

        This too. Seen people that think there’s literally no difference between conservatives and liberals so it’ll be the same either way. I can’t fathom how you can be so devoid of nuance so it feels like what they really want deep down is to accelerate.

        Also I like that oop is specifically talking about nuance between two repubs. People seem to equate ‘better’ with ‘good’ so they’ll come up with reasoning like ‘liberals are not better they will just let conservatives do whatever they want’. That’s still better than more conservatives that help conservatives do what they want. And between conservatives there can still be a distinction.

        • MolochAlter@lemmy.worldEnglish
          7·
          3 months ago

          it feels like what they really want deep down is to accelerate.

          Predictable byproduct of the borderline adventist “rapture” that is “the revolution”.

        • root_beer@midwest.socialEnglish
          3·
          3 months ago

          it feels like what they really want deep down is to accelerate.

          It doesn’t just feel that way, it is that way for a lot of people because they believe that they’ll be the vanguard of a glorious rising utopia, when they’re statistically more likely to be a meat crayon marking up the hood of some chud’s Jeep when they’re out protesting

      • spujbOPEnglish
        13·
        3 months ago

        The OP in this is trying to survive, not to change the system.

        says who? genuinely, what leads you to believe that? what part of reducing harm in the immediate future also precludes one from working for systemic change?

        i commented this elsewhere but it bears repeating: why are we alergic to doing both?

        • Synnr@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          7·
          3 months ago

          I believe they meant to phrase it as:

          The OP in this is saying to vote strategically is to survive, which you have to do to change the system.

          At least that’s what I got from the context.

          • spujbOPEnglish
            6·
            3 months ago

            I’ll let them weigh in if they choose.

            But I do like this framing. Can’t have a revolution if you got fucken killed by neo-Nazis.

        • idiomaddict@feddit.deEnglish
          6·
          3 months ago

          We didn’t build this system, we just live in it. We’re just trying to survive.

          Obviously both need to happen, because you can’t change the system if you’re dead. I don’t live in a situation like the OP though, so we’re going to have different voting priorities.

          • spujbOPEnglish
            6·
            3 months ago

            gotcha! i fully agree and thanks for the clarification. i admit i misunderstood your position due to similarities between your language and the opposing view’s but that’s on me not you :)