cross-posted from: https://quokk.au/c/mop/p/828160/that-s-goofy
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2026
138 points (94.2% liked)
Flippanarchy
2288 readers
429 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
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
They're already out here trying to lay that groundwork for the next election with the shaming. They know all they have to do is get some actual decent candidates but that's obviously a bridge too far and they'll put forth some ungodly combination of Newsome, Harris, and don't forget Klobuchar waiting in the wings.
Forgetting about Pete Buttigeig is both homophobic and a liberal hate crime. We have to remember that he emerges from the depths of some liberal think tank every four years to throw his hat in the ring. Come on, it's 2026....... Gay men can do crimes for the CIA too.
Pete exists to take enthusiasm from an actual progressive and move it to the front runner whenever he inevitably drops out of the race. He launders votes upstream by splitting votes downstream. Him and Elizabeth Warren play this role frequently.
Yeap, he's basically the human embodiment of chase bank rainbow washing their image a month out of every year.
The fact that "next election" to you means the presidential election is very telling. There are more progressive candidates penciled on the midterm ballots (let alone the active primaries) than there have been in living memory. And that's not counting local progressive candidates that are already in office from this election cycle.
But to hear everyone talk, anything short of a leftist presidency is a failure in the same way that anything short of a spontaneous revolution isn't worth doing. A milquetoast neolib president shackled by a progressive Congress by far the best option in the realm of possibility.
This is what drives left infighting, a complete disconnect on what's desired and what's possible. Some limitations are just so obvious that I don't know how people ignore them.
So look at those facts and ask simple questions. Can reform by electoralism be attempted in this environment? What is the best chance for harm reduction here? Do the old rules apply in the same way (eg. is not voting blue even an option now)? Can this regime even be removed from office by normal means? What battles will you pick?
If you've really thought through all of that and landed on complaining about Harris and Newsome then I don't know what to say. That is so far down the branch of things we can't change (media narrative control, DNC establishment power, nascent progressive bloc still solidifying) that it's not worth discussing.
And yet, Britain's next election will likely be a contest between Reform and the Greens. The center has collapsed and both centrist parties revealed themselves to be incapable of meeting the challenges of the moment.
Yes, you're right that FPTP produces a two party system. But what people who point this out miss is that those two parties can be switched out. And the nature of power structures means that it's usually easier to just let one of the entrenched parties completely die than to try and reform it from within. Remember, the Republican Party started as a third party before becoming one of the two main parties. The abolitionists ultimately found that starting a new party was more practical than trying to work within the existing two party structure.
It was possible to reform the Republican party from within, but that likely isn't possible with the Democrats. The MAGA wing was able to take over the GOP, but ultimately their message is no different than the same crap Republicans have been pushing for generations. They're not fundamentally challenging the core beliefs of the party. Trump still takes his court nomination orders from the Federalist Society. He still gets his social policies from the Heritage foundation. Racism is still the primary party value. Very little has actually changed, aside from more nakedly fascist methods.
In contrast, reforming the Dems would require fundamentally uprooting their core values and power structure. And historically that just isn't very practical. It's easier to just create an entirely new party than to try to completely transform one. At that point, you're basically creating a whole new party anyway, just within the shell of the old one. Even if you succeed in taking over the Democratic party, all their old financial backers and supporters of centrist policies will walk away and abandon the party. So you're not even gaining control of the Party's resources. You'll have to build that from scratch anyway. And at that point, it's easier to just build something entirely new.
And yes, the media is a problem. But that's always been the case.
To be fair, they are also doing work to discredit the left flank for the midterms, too.
I mean when talking about presidential candidates running for a presidential election, it does kinda make sense to use "next" even though there is technically another one before then, because the "true next" one doesn't involve presidential elections. It's called context. That doesn't mean that they're not voting at midterm elections, it just means that they understand that presidents aren't elected until presidential elections and we can disregard midterms when talking about presidential candidates.
It's like saying "I'll see you at the next baseball game" to your friend when leaving the stadium, and him understanding that you mean the next home game not flying to Chicago to see them play at Wrigley on Tuesday.
Reread the OP. There was no mention of presidential elections anywhere, just "liberal candidate" generally in "elections". You made the same assumption, which just goes to show how the media landscape has conditioned us to think like that.
Well,
A) "Let's dissuade people from participating in radical politics" is only during presidential election season, when's the last time you saw an ad for midterms? The DNC barely participates themselves. Be real.
B) So? The comment you replied to chose to talk about the presidential election which is no less valid of an interpretation. Maybe they didn't want to dox themselves more locally than "US," you are the one who chose to reply to that comment specifically instead of making your own top level comment about midterms.
C) Almost everyone in this thread interpreted it to be directly about Kamala. It doesn't mention her by name, no, and yes, all the rest in the DNC are just as incompetent of candidates, but people get mad when you remind them of that and if you agree with me, we're the outliers here, as sad as that is for a supposed anarchist community. That said, it was likely OP's intent even without naming her (or it's an old meme about Biden or Hillary because tbh they KEEP doing it for presidential elections especially like they want to lose.)