1340
Anger
(thelemmy.club)
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 29 Jul 2026
1340 points (97.7% liked)
tumblr
6416 readers
165 users here now
Welcome to /c/tumblr, a place for all your tumblr screenshots and news.
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Must be tumblr related. This one is kind of a given.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
-
No unnecessary negativity. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean that you need to spend the entire comment section complaining about said thing. Just downvote and move on.
Sister Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Oh so encouraging American voter apathy is the fix?
Sure, buddy.
You're the one who's encouraging apathy. If you want people to come to your party then the bare minimum you need is that it can't smell like shit, much less be a pigsty that everyone who shows up is forced to roll around in.
"Voter apathy" isn't the problem. I'm certainly not apathetic, but you seem to be when it comes to the shit you're rolling in. Again, I'm proud of you for not eating it but that's not that much of an improvement.
What you're missing is that politics is compromise, by definition.
I don't like that the Democrats don't align with my beliefs perfectly, but I'd rather vote against Trump than whine about the Democrats not being perfect and stay home, which is what a massive portion of American voters did, thanks in large part to the "Why bother when the Democrats are just as bad?" messaging that is completely a PsyOp that helps Trump whether you're doing it on purpose or not.
What compromise?!?!? Your "vote blue no matter how many people it hurts/kills" is the reason why the "reactionary right" has the base that it does.
Your politic of appeasement does not end well. You cannot compromise with reality.
Where do you draw the line? At what point are the Democrats too compromised even for you? Genocide abroad and concentration camps at your locale clearly aren't enough.
Never said that
No it isn't
The right has its base because they know they can be increasingly extreme and their supporters will still fall in line while the left will purity test everyone to no end, driving voter apathy and infighting.
Where do you draw the line?
The minute a D is, on balance, worse than an R, I would vote against them (i.e. for the R).
If the Rs are enthusiastic about supporting genocide and the Ds are toying with going against it? I'll vote D.
If the Rs are enthusiastic about depriving minorities of their rights and the Ds are meekly speaking out against it? I'll vote D.
etc. etc.
So there is no line.
You will legitimaze, and actively advocate, for your own death so long as the Ds say nice things during the execution?
Nope!
Cool straw man, though.
What's your aim here, anyway? Propaganda for readers? Convincing me of something? I would say you're not doing well on either metric, given the vast majority of your recent comments are fairly transparent straw men.
Deflecting won't get you out of this.
If we play along though, can your share your definition of a strawman? Would it be less of a "strawman" to say 'You will advocate for your own death, and the death of others, so long as the Ds delay the trigger pulling by 1ns.'?
If you answer yes/no to that "strawman" then I'll explain my aim.
lmao, tuff
I already answered your ridiculous question. Maybe you should polish up on your English reading skills?
Sorry, yes you did. I, ironically, got misdirected by the "strawman" bit.
My aim is to understand your thought process, check my own perspective, crowdsource actual solutions to little problems like fascism, and push back against misinformation/disinformation.
Specifically here, I'm trying to highlight the death spiral that results from the false dichotomy you seem trapped in. I don't have a solution, but I need you to understand your "solution" is a core component of the underlying problem.
Do you see that question as a strawman because I made the consequences explicitly personal instead of abstract? Is it less of a strawman to say "you will support genocide abroad so long as the Dems delay pulling the trigger by 1ns."?
It's not a false dichotomy, especially once the primaries are over.
I guess you haven't paid much attention to how American elections work (or First Past the Post in general), but the party in third place has 3% of the vote, which is far from a plurality when the top two are at 35% and 30%. Because they're so far from plurality, they act as a "spoiler" party, harming the closest party to them.
No, because you are still making up a position of mine to confirm via question. So I'll answer your new straw man of "you will support genocide abroad so long as the Dems delay pulling the trigger by 1ns." again:
No, I don't/wouldn't.
Are you seriously this confused on what a straw man argument is?
It is. The Ds and Rs are not two separate monoliths. They are friends, coworkers, and individuals who's class/professional interests are directly in conflict with our own.
I think you are misunderstanding my position. I am saying do not support or legitimize them and it is important to call them out on their bullshit instead of running cover for them. I do view voting for them as legitimization, I am asking the questions I am to try and provide you an opportunity to share some perspective that changes/conflicts/opposes that. So far, you have done the opposite.
I am specifically asking for clarity around your previously stated position:
You have contradicted this statement twice now without any explanation as to why, or how it differs. What changed? The point of that "straw man" is for you to explicitly call it out and clarify where the difference lies. Just saying "strawman!" doesn't clarify anything for either of us.
Literally none of that has anything to do with whether or not we're talking about a false dichotomy.
I think you're confused about what a "false dichotomy" is, or maybe you think "It is" is a good explanation for your reasoning. It isn't.
Again, this is based on your misunderstanding of First Past the Post voting systems.
It's like if someone pointed a gun at your friend and your neighbor and said, "Who should I shoot? If you say nothing, I will shoot your friend."
People like you say nothing and get their friend shot, but feel righteous for it, proud that they did not endorse murder of their neighbor.
No I haven't. I get that you('re pretending you) don't understand my position despite explaining it to you several times, but that doesn't change the fact that I explained it. I can't make you understand it.
When you ask silly questions based on straw men, you are not endeavoring to understand my position. It's fine if you don't actually want to, but stop wasting time pretending you do.
I do kind of like this metaphor. So what do you do? Say "shoot me instead!"? You sacrificed yourself and the person shooting people still has your friend and neighbor at gunpoint. Why would the gunman do what you say, and if they do what is stopping them from shooting your friend and neighbor as well?
Do you say "shoot my neighbor!"? Why would the gunman do what you say? He's more likely to shoot you for being bold and confident than anything, and next most likely to shoot your friend out of spite.
Do you say "shoot yourself!"? While a clever response, I do agree this is the equivalent of "third party" voting. There is zero reason for the gunman to honor the rules of the game and suicide themselves.
My position is there is no correct response to this game. The reason people are dying is because a deranged lunatic is shooting people, not how the victims are responding to the madman's game.
I have heard your talking points parroted hundreds of times and I still do not understand. The metaphor you provided is a perfect example of what I don't understand about your position/perspective. What exactly were you trying to communicate with it?
The message I am trying to get across is that the gunman can not be trusted, yet you insist that playing by their rules will somehow result in the best outcome and insisting my evidence otherwise will "drive voter apathy".
How do you propose dealing with this metaphorical gunman?
That's not applicable in either the metaphor or the literal situation any more than "I put on my robe and wizard hat and cast Delete Gun!"
In other words you've managed to twist the metaphor in bad faith to suit your refusal to see what I was saying. Great job.
At least this bad faith slice of your twisting does actually have some real-world application. I'll use your logic against you:
What's stopping your preferred politician/party from simply doing what you accuse/worry Rs and Ds (will) do?
Obviously "Nothing" is the right answer, and the question itself is a cop-out.
Yeah, again, you confirm that you would do nothing and let your friend be shot. Brilliant.
That no matter how much we hope, beg, plead, wish, work, etc. to the contrary, some matters of real life boil down to brutal practicality and seeking the ideal solution is futile or counter-productive.
Again, Donald Trump is president in large part because so many people sat home and refused to vote against him because Kamala Harris wasn't better enough for their tastes. That's thanks in large part to people like you, who insist on fueling political apathy.
I'd have them shoot the neighbor, as any rational chooser-of-lesser-evils would.
That is insane! That is not a healthy society, nor behavior you want to encourage! If that was as widespread a belief system and if the rules were as rigid as you imagine you better pray you're the loudest, quickest and most ruthless person in the room because otherwise your neighbor will get you shot instead!
You have such a lack of imagination and perspective and are so caught up in a worrld of imaginary bullshit rules that you would actively, and deliberately, hurt those around you. That is the problem!
My neighbor is my friend as well. The only reason to "play" the gunman's game is to distract them while we work together to disarm them. That is the only move I see in that game. What am I missing?
As they say, first they come for your neighbor, then for your friend, and when they come for you there's nobody left to speak up for you.
In this metaphor: absolutely nothing! That's the whole goddamn point! Get out of your own head and try a different perspective! How do you change the situation so that isn't the case?
Stop advocating for your neighbors death you psycho!
At what point did I say our democracy was healthy? You sure do love your straw men.
By not sitting elections out because the Lesser Evil is still evil, duh. Push the needle in the right direction, don't avoid touching it because it's not in the best position yet.
Lol, clear bad faith argument or further twisting of the metaphor to be ridiculous. I'm bored of your tactics. Have a nice life.
I'd love to, except I'm the neighbor you keep trying to kill out of selfishness, stupidity and short-sightedness!