this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
5 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

5425 readers
3829 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes 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 misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"Every previous president would have ended it by now."

"Biden literally couldn't do worse."

top 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.one 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm just to figure out why the Hexbear communities are even federated into some Lemmy instances. They are blatantly racist to users.

[–] YeetPics@mander.xyz 1 points 7 months ago

"False, you can't be racist to crackkkers. Also calling for nuking an entire hemisphere of the planet will only bring prosperity to everyone."

-a hexbear or something idk

[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Donald Trump is Genocide at home and abroad.

Joe Biden is "only" Genocide abroad, and probably less of it.

Therefore, a vote for Joe Biden is a Vote against genocide.

No, it doesn't matter that he's an active participant in the apparatus that's creating the genocide, because if he's in office there's less genocide. Which is the important part, and pretending otherwise is sophistry. If you abstain from voting, you are increasing the likelihood of more genocide and if you discourage others from voting, you are an active participant in the overall social apparatus that is probabilistically increasing the amount of genocide.

The utility calculation is dead simple: more votes for Biden in key states makes more genocide less likely, and discouraging people from voting for Biden makes more genocide more likely. Therefore, discouraging people from voting for Biden is a pro-genocide strategy and voting for Biden in battleground states is an anti-genocide strategy. You should vote for Biden unless you live in a solid blue state, and even then it's not a bad idea.

TLDR: if you encourage people to not vote for Biden, that's supporting genocide. Accelerationism never works for us.

[–] Melkath@kbin.social -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Of all of the self diluted mental gymnastics...

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

it's literally double speak: war is peace, voting for genocide is antigenocide.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There are two options: 'some genocide', and 'a lot more genocide'. The race is close, so if not enough people vote for 'some genocide', 'a lot more genocide' will win. 'No genocide' is not one of the options. Do you vote for 'some genocide', or do you assent to letting 'a lot more genocide' win?

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I'm going to vote for a candidate that wants no genocide.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

As I said, 'No genocide' is not one of the two options that's going to win. The race is close, not voting for 'less genocide' only helps 'lots of genocide'. So you're helping 'lots of genocide' beat 'less genocide', congrats.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

voting against genocide doesn't help genocide. this is pure doublespeak.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Voting against genocide doesn't reduce genocide. In American elections, the only votes that have an effect are those for one of the two front-runners. Any other vote is an admission of equivocation of the two front-runners. The two front-runners are 'some genocide' and 'lots of genocide'. Equivocating the two means you think 'some genocide' and 'lots of genocide' are equally acceptable. Q.E.D. you accept lots of genocide.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Equivocating the two means you think ‘some genocide’ and ‘lots of genocide’ are equally acceptable.

no. i don't find either of those acceptable. that doesn't make them the same. it just means that neither of them meets the bar of acceptability.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Unfortunately the American electoral system is not ranked choice, so "bar of acceptability" isn't a functionally meaningful concept. In American elections, the situation is as I've described above. Refusing to choose one of the two primary options functionally means you find both primary options equally acceptable.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

“bar of acceptability” isn’t a functionally meaningful concept.

it is in ethics

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

duverger's "law" has no predictive value. it's a tautology as empty as "supply and demand".

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Any other vote is an admission of equivocation of the two front-runners.

false dichotomy

[–] Hamartia@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Loving your dauntless energy. Nothing gives a bully the shits quite like looking them in the eye.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

always happy to be of help where i am needed.

[–] bobburger@fedia.io 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Will that actually help reduce genocide or just satisfy your need to be self righteous?

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

I don't believe any vote will reduce genocide. ballots don't stop bullets.

[–] Minotaur@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I live in a swing state and I’m voting third party. It’s not great, but it’s the only thing I can bring myself to do. Between Gaza and Bidens commitment to pour billions of dollars into more cops and more surveillance, I just can’t do it.

If he stepped down or they put someone else up I’d probably be happily voting dem, but they didn’t. It’s a shame. They said themselves that they’re fine to lose some progressive votes if they scoop up 3 or 4 Nikki Haley voters for every progressive lost. I guess I’m one of those. I dunno. I wish it was a better circumstance.

[–] modifier@lemmy.ca -1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Just say you're voting for Trump because that is what you're doing.

You're just giving yourself deniability to yourself, but no one else is fooled in the slightest. In the general election, a vote for anyone but Biden amounts to a vote for Trump.

Just say you prefer Trump's approach to Palestine, Ukraine, human rights, women's health, religious freedom, freedom of speech, gun rights, net neutrality, Healthcare, etc, etc, ect. Just say that.

[–] tswiftchair@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

I’ve frequently seen this claim, and similar ones, but it doesn’t really make sense. If not voting for Biden or not voting at all is actually a vote for Trump then his votes outnumber Biden’s by a landslide since ~80 million people don’t vote. So, by this logic, Trump should win and it shouldn’t even be close.

[–] Minotaur@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Actually, I’m voting third party. If I wanted to vote for Trump I would just vote for Trump.

[–] modifier@lemmy.ca -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm familiar with these coping mechanisms, and any other year I'd tell you to vote your conscience.

This year, a vote against Biden in a swing state is a vote for Trump and it tells me everything about your conscience I need to know.

People think it's hyperbole because they've heard Wolf too many times, but this is about democracy or not.

I suspect you think you're sending a message to Biden by voting third party. You're not. You're just messaging to the rest of society that you want Trump over Biden. It really is that simple. Don't insult us by pretending it's not. You are in a fucking swing state.

[–] Minotaur@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It’s not a coping mechanism. I simply have an idealogical difference to you. Calling it a coping mechanism insults your own intelligence.

[–] Rampsquatch@sh.itjust.works -1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Your ideological difference is that you don't mind if Trump wins if that means Biden loses.

[–] Minotaur@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

I’m not voting against Biden. I’m voting for a third party.

[–] gastationsushi@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Nobody is changing a voter's views on genocide.

Wouldn't it be better for Biden's re-election if he stopped the genocide?

[–] Rampsquatch@sh.itjust.works -1 points 7 months ago

No shit it would be better.

[–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 months ago

(based on my observations) Hexbear users' typical response is absolutely authoritarian, just extreme left flavor of it.

You can't, however, build a reasonable discourse with an absolutist pro-authoritarian type, no matter how hard you try. And it's no wonder they are going for the authoritarian representative one way or another.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What do you believe is the underlying set of values and principles guiding Hexbear?

What do you believe the goals of people on Hexbear are?

Is it possible to analyze the beliefs that lead them to the conclusions they have, so as to better argue against them, than to call them MAGA supporters?

I myself will probably be voting Biden, for transparency, but this meme is just a gross misunderstanding of how disaffected leftists, and Marxists in general, operate, and why.

[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The creeps on Hexbear aren't leftists. I've never come across a coherent and useful definition of "leftist" that includes them.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Why do you say that? They oppose Capitalism, colonialism, Imperialism, and bigotry. They support Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism. They read Marx, Lenin, and Goldman, and share memes based on Marxist theory.

On what grounds do you decide that they aren't leftists? Is it because you disagree with their stances, as a presumed leftist, therefore anyone you disagree with cannot be a leftist? Is it because you think they are bad people, and bad people can't be leftists? Is it just vibes?

What is your coherent and useful definition of leftism? We can compare Hexbear's stated goals and see if it lines up better with leftism or rightism.

[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Being a leftist requires one to oppose capitalism.

Leninism is a blatantly capitalist system that pretends otherwise.

Also, they don't oppose bigotry. Once someone from Hexbear said that Hexbear was more pro-trans than any trans space was, and their fellows seemed to agree with them. Paying lip service to anti-bigotry does not mean one is not an ignorant bigot to the core.

Edit: there are other problems with what you said, but frankly, I'm not going to waste my time addressing every part of the gish-Gallup.

[–] ReallyKinda@kbin.social 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

You’re not going to convince anyone to participate in your game by insulting them. Unfortunately as the party who wants someone else to change their behavior, you have to be the bigger person. If you actually care, ya know.

[–] Melkath@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago

Sort of this, but also the person who is acting like a crazed extremist shilling for a genocidal maniac is accusing the peaceful abstainers of being MAGA.

Biden moving the Democrat party right and courting rightwing voters is what is disenfranchising liberals.

It is projection in its ultimate form.

[–] Minotaur@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Kind of the irony of these situations. People saying “We all need to vote for Biden and if you don’t you’re a STUPID, CRYING BABY” don’t truly want to get people to vote for Biden. If they did they’d have some tact, maybe made their case and discuss the pros and cons of voting for him and hopefully actually get some conversions in rather than just looking down their nose at people.

It’s little different than the evangelical Christian’s who show up to events with big signs saying “GAYS will burn IN HELL!”. They don’t actually want to convert people. If they did they would be so alienating. They just want to scream their position to feel something.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 7 months ago

Weird, I had this made already for some reason...

[–] hark@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Democrats love genocide too much to give it up and improve their poll numbers. Clearly it's the fault of the voters for not giving democrats the votes they're owed for simply not being the fascists who they purposely promote to pretend they're the heroes.

Save democracy by always guaranteeing your vote for the one and only good party that also happens to carry out genocide and fund fascists.

[–] PiousAgnostic@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Careful, you'll cut yourself with that edge.

[–] hark@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

You must think conformity is the new counterculture. Be careful with that plain mayo, it may be too spicy for you.