this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2025
836 points (92.0% liked)
Political Memes
9585 readers
2150 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It being a bad strategy and also the best available strategy are not mutually exclusive. No presently actionable strategy has a better outcome.
So there's no strategy that has a better outcome than Trump's second term? You sure about that?
What? Trump's second term is largely the result of not strategically voting for lesser evil.
What alternative, actionable strategy would have led to a different outcome? Actionable means "Everyone votes for the same third party" doesn't count. So go on, what was the alternative strategy that had any chance whatsoever of succeeding?
I think you're missing the point. The strategy out of the DNC going on two decades has been "our horrible candidate is less horrible than their candidate," and it took a worldwide pandemic and thousands of deaths for it to work once.
They need to stop and find someone who isn't horrible if they ever want to win again. That or just let the world burn and hope it's only the neolibs that survive. I wouldn't bet on that myself.
On the contrary, you missed the point. I do not set DNC policy, it does no good to tell me what they should be doing. If "making them lose" was going to affect their strategy, it would have worked in 2016.
I am but a lowly voter, who has to live in this country. As a human being, there are many options available to me to try to effect change. As a voter, I am functionally limited to choosing between the two most popular candidates.
Voting for the less fascist of the two is not what I want to be doing, but it is the most likely to support all the other non-electoral options available to my fellow humans, without sacrificing the vulnerable to the greater evil.
So in other words, you're just trying to assuage your own guilt for being powerless in the face having to actually do something to change things.
You'd have to have pretty abysmal reading comprehension to come to that conclusion. That couldn't be farther from what I said. Try again, pay attention this time.
"I don't set DNC policy, I just blindly promote it no matter what."
"I'm not a fascist, I just loudly promote actions that benefit them".
Hi, yes, calling communists fascists is certainly a strategy that makes a lot of sense.
I'd ask you to define both terms but I don't want to cause you distress.
I didn't call communists fascists, I called you either a fascist or s fascist's useful idiot, because you support fascists.
Are you stupid?
there is no evidence they support fascists
Their positions directly help fascists. Whether they know it or not, they are supporting fascists.
wrong on all accounts
"Nuh uh", truly the height of persuasive debate. Self-delusion isn't fighting fascism. Voting stupidly doesn't fight fascism, it supports it. If you promote that nonsense, then best case scenario you're a fascist's useful idiot.
a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
And the evidence has been made clear. If you still can't see it, you're just as complicit.
saying it doesn't make it so.
Neither does denying it. "Both sides"ing Democrats in general elections helps MAGA, that is a simple fact. It would sure be nice to have an alternative electoral system where it makes sense, but we don't, and it doesn't. Ignoring reality for idealism turns people into useful idiots.
wrong
Nope, I'm right, this is a fact, not an opinion.
The electrical opinions of someone who doesn't know what a circuit breaker is are worthless. Likewise, the electoral opinions of someone who doesn't understand Duverger's Law are worthless.
Educate yourself before making a fool of yourself.
duvergers "law" is more of a tautology. it doesn't describe any actual natural phenomenon like gravity does
duverger's law is a tautology because, from a critical rationalist perspective, a tautological statement cannot be empirically tested or falsified. it's true by definition. duverger's law states that a plurality-rule election system tends to favor a two-party system. however, if this law is framed in such a way that any outcome can be rationalized within its parameters, then it becomes unfalsifiable.
for example, if a country with a plurality-rule system has more than two parties, one might argue that the system still "tends to" favor two parties, and the current state is an exception or transition phase. this kind of reasoning makes the law immune to counterexamples, and thus, it operates more as a tautological statement than an empirical hypothesis.
the critical rationalist critique of marginalist economics, which relies on ceteris paribus (all else being equal) conditions, suggests any similarly structured law should be viewed with skepticism. for duverger's law to be more than a tautology, it would need to be stated in a way that allows for clear empirical testing and potential falsification, without the possibility of explaining away any contradictory evidence. this would make it a substantive theory that can contribute to our understanding of political systems rather than a mere tautology.
You tortured a lot of smart sounding words to say nothing of value. As I said, worthless.
now who looks ignorant
Still you. That's not what a "tautology" is, and even if it was, your argument still makes no sense.
you haven't read any critical rationalists, and it shows.
edit: I accidentally a couple letters, but look at this fucking bad faith and proud ignorance
edit: it's understandable I guess that when your worldview is threatened, you slink off pretending you were right all along.
Not sure what a "rationist" is, but if that's what they believe then yeah I'm not reading that tripe.