Alt text: a screenshot of a microblog post with the text "you walking down an alleyway with a gram of weed in your pocket, who would you rather catch you?" Below are two pictures side by side. One of Kamala Harris and the other of Batman.
- No Discrimination, this includes usage of slurs or other language intended to promote bigotry
- No defending oppressive systems or organizations
- No uncivil or rude comments to other users
- Discussion, not debate. This community is exclusively for genuine logical debate, any comments using whataboutism or similar will be removed.
- No genocide denial or support for genocidal entities. Anyone that supports the mass murder of civilians will be banned.
These guidelines are meant to allow open discussion and ensure leftists and post-leftists can have a voice. If you are here to learn, then welcome! Just remember that if you're not a part of the left (Liberals don't count) then you are a visitor, please do not speak over our members.
I've really thought about whether I even want to engage with this. Mostly because I see your comment as dishonest, misinformed or maybe just tone deaf; to voice the kindest interpretation I can muster, from what I have seen.
Here's the deal: The US is currently at a point where its already fragile and lackluster democracy could become completely meaningless within a matter of months.
There's a time to push for more. But not now. You banned people and deleted their comment for "electioneering"; for advocating for the best path forward currently available. You may not like the system or the dems, but there just isn't any momentum for anything else. That has to be built up first.
If you want to bitch and moan, feel free to do so after the immediate threat has been dealt with. Anything else is practically accelerationism and will lead to a terrible outcome and disenfranchise who knows how many people.
Bargain with what you have and don't overextend.
EDIT: I'll not engage with anything that doesn't also offer a practical, actionable solution. Striving for the best is great, but look around you. Abolishing the police is not on the table, and not voting because of a single issue is shooting at ones own foot.
EDIT #2: Words.
What you're proposing is a failed strategy. Remember Hillary? People said exactly what you said, and she lost.
Trying to pretend the justice system is actually just, that's not going to gain her any votes. You could tackle the issue head on, and that might get her some votes. And voters are remarkably smart in many ways. Dishonesty alienates many of them. They don't expect that things are perfect now, but they do have hopes for the future, and they're on the lookout for obfuscation and denial.
Finally, the strategy you're proposing is something that MLK specifically warned against in Letter from Birmingham Jail.
I'm starting to believe that there is a contingent on Lemmy who wants this solution to be violent revolution, but they don't want to say that out loud. They don't want you to vote Kamala, they don't want you to vote Trump, they don't want you to vote third-party--they want you to make some molotovs and buy a Guy Fawkes mask.
But maybe I'm just reading into things.
Eh, I have the same hunch. They wanna be violent and be heroes, but vigilantes are mostly fantasy. In the meantime, they pat themselves on the back for playing pretend
Modern anarchist praxis largely involves building up parallel systems of power with horizontal (rather than hierarchical) structures to counter the existing capitalist systems from within. The revolution that we want to see is not a bloody one fought with guns in the streets, but a cultural one fought by communities of people meeting their own needs without the interference of the state. This is usually called "mutual aid" and is intended to meet the needs of the people who have been failed by capitalist society while also building solidarity and a community informed about the root causes of their problems - namely capitalism and hierarchical power structures.
Anyone pushing for violent revolution is more likely a vanguardist than an anarchist, and anarchists have a very long history of being absolutely fucked over by vanguardist parties throughout the history of anticapitalist struggle.
To suggest that the only alternative to voting is violent revolution is to deny the existence of well over a century of anarchic theory.
By all means, vote for the lesser evil. I won't stop you nor could I. But when we point out why the lesser evil chosen for us by our masters is still in fact evil, don't say that we haven't offered up a viable alternative. The alternative we propose has in fact been in progress by passionate people meeting the needs of thier communities to the largest extent possible for decades. It's just outside of the confines of what capitalism has pushed as the only method of affecting change, as it must be.