this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
631 points (94.8% liked)
Political Memes
8111 readers
3000 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.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Personally? For me, I don't care what kind of leftist you are.
For now, we are united against one singular goal, the total annihilation of Donald Trump's fascist regime of religious cultists and billionaire oligarchs.
Before we throw a single punch at one another, we have to solve this first. We'd all rather eachother's ideals than him if given the choice.
flexible on range of solutions for dealing with the billionaire problem
“Ally? That’s a funny way to spell FASCIST!”
-the American left during the 24’ election
*Doesn't vote to enable fascism.
Your parties are seriously a mess, though. Sorry to say. Yes, come the vote under a FPTP duopoly I agree maximum impact is to vote for the lesser of the two, but I honestly don't think much is going to change for you guys if all you do is vote.
I want a society that is a democratic communist society ruled by a democratically elected council. None of this single person has ultimate authority, because that's the worst weak point. All laws apply to the leaders as well as the masses. Money should either be abolished, or capped. No individual should be able to acquire enough influence that they can dictate anything about others lives. Democratize and co-op all workplaces. All basic rights of humans are absolutely not allowed to be profited off of.
In our current system, no individual should be able to acquire enough influence that they can dictate anything about others lives.
Humans are fallible. Any council can be corrupted or dominated slowly, especially as long as currency and power corrupts and hierarchies can exist. Democratic socialism is a utopian idea of a fallible system, when what you are really asking for is the abolishment of corruption, prejudice and greed itself, the cancers that ruin otherwise harmonious societies.
Until a form of government arises that rewards the participant for seeking purpose rather than fame or reward, we'll just be replacing fractured systems, destined to fail, over and over and over again.
but, per my own personal bias, I don't believe people are inherently good enough to act that way. I believe we will destroy ourselves before we ever get there. The individuals that would dominate the next system of government will be the ones holding the pen to craft it, so it goes...
The Baha'is have a system that kinda works like that. They don't have clergy, the have democratically elected spiritual assemblys. The rule is that no one that wants the position can have it. The communities elect people that have proven they can lead with humility.
Your ideal society in the best case scenario is... 500 or so years away!
I just want people to have food, shelter and healthcare at an affordable price.
So you want billionaires hoisted up by their figgins as a warning to the rest of the bourgeoisie?? That's what I'm hearing here.
TERRORIST.
Ugh George Soros poisoned Progressivism!
By "affordable" I'm assuming you mean free. Always wanting a handout, of course.
I just want untaxed inheritance, corporate welfare on top of more tax breaks for me and all my friends, unregulated surveillance and data collection of the plebs so I can continue to make even more money (untaxed obvs), exclusive and elite private universities, and a justice system where I can live free of consequence and purchase a judge at a reasonable price because I believe in being fiscally conservative.
Food, shelter, and healthcare are things I've just never had to think about really. Although, I would also prefer that if too many people are worrying about those things in my immediate vicinity, they be shuffled around or forcibly moved to a different vicinity.
That way I don't have to start thinking too much. It's really unfair when that happens, because it starts to make me feel all kinds of uncomfortable. Uncomfortable is not something I'm used to feeling, and since I don't like to think about things, I never stop and think about why somebody else being uncomfortable would also make me feel so uncomfortable.
Logically, the solution is to just put those people somewhere not visible to me, and then complain about what society is "turning into these days" when they slip through the privilege perimeter.
Some call this “Leftist extremism”. =/
Like .. all people?
Every single one
What about people we don't like?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Anti-Conservative
There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whatever-the-fuck-kind-of-stupid-noise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:
The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Also, those who insist on political purity tests reveal themselves to be temporarily-inconvenienced-dictators-in-waiting.
While I am totally in the "bind all and protect all" camp and really against the "in group protect, out group rules" and I think conservatism is often in practice "protect me and rule others", I am not sure if I agree with it being called conservatism.
I think fundamentally the hierarchy in right wing politics imply an in/out group. But just like conservatism is a form of right wing political views, so you could argue that the hierarchical political views are a Form of "in group protect, out group bind".
Whatever you want to call it, is part of conservatism, I believe. But I don't like to call it conservatism, so it feels like we are defining two related but different things with the same name, which will be confusing and could be used by e.g. "progressive" capitalists to claim that they aren't conservative and therefore not "in group protect, out group bind".
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(14 replies)
not one
a rare sighting on lemmy
Somewhat yeah, but I think there are a few others, just mostly not people who are that vocal about it
Yeah I'm not really either but you just get attacked so I tend to stay out of politics here
Other day I tried explaining to lemmy why it's disrespectful to hang a LGBT flag on the side of a mountain and just got a bunch of hatred lol
view more: next ›