Flippanarchy
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.
Banner by @Val@anarchist.nexus
view the rest of the comments
No, please stop and think. I'm telling you that you cannot infer what you think your inferring from people who didnt vote. The non-vote is literally a schrodingers cat situation you cannot make claims about the non-voters position unless you explicitly ask them.
Let me redo your list of options.
The fact I personally show up and hand in an empty ballot is a personal behavioral quirk. I'm telling you that you're entire premise is built on the false assumption that the two non-voting instances are the same thing. which they are not. they're very different and need to be solved in very different ways. and there are more than two variations there but they're outside the scope of this discussion.
Dems are currently trying to figure out how to solve the loss of voters who are saying 'None of the candidates are acceptable to me' by assuming they're in 'A candidate is acceptable to me' group (someone who ends up voting). Instead of realizing that anyone in the 'A candidate is acceptable to me' group already has a prefered candidate (that isnt them) and that they should figure out why they lost voters.
Already did, but sure.
I'm not the one who will be doing the inferring. This should be the first thing you try to understand before trying to get me to pretend what you're suggesting is going to make sense (PS: It doesn't).
The ones who will be doing the inferring are the political strategists. The ones who tell politicians, who tell the DNC and RNC the best strategy for what they want.
You know that good ol' meme about the overton window? Want to know how it keeps cranking to the right?
"Leftists aren't voting. To get voters, you'll need to shift right."
This comes from polling information, from voting records, etc. Not voting is a great way to keep cranking that window to the right.
They aren't going to bother trying to capture the people not voting.
This is shown further with systems that allow someone like Mamdani to succeed. They are already working on one approach to capture votes, so they try to prevent situations that will require a strategy change.
You can obviously do whatever you'd like, I'm encouraging people to vote. I sure as anything won't tell people to not vote and continue decades of the same message, get the same results, and then be mad about those results.
I also know that if you want to make a difference in who is on the ballot, that doesn't happen after the ballots are set. That was months ago. I put my efforts in to push the people I wanted to then. Some of them are on the ballot, maybe I helped with it, maybe I should have done more, idk. But I did what I could and there are some progressive candidates locally that I wanted that hopefully will get in.
And if you want to change who is on the ballot too, you should also put in efforts a lot earlier than a month and change before. The deadline has already passed just about everywhere, including last-minute petitions for a vacancy.
Vote by mail ballots are being prepped (I do not recommend voting by mail, use a drop box).
Early voting is single digit weeks away.
The time to complain about who is on the ballot has long since passed.
Now take a moment and realize that if people didnt complain then, and then don't vote now, what message comes across?
Not the one you're claiming IMO.
Oi. Let me explain something clearly: You can literally be screaming outside of their conventions and they'll still ignore you (see harris' campaign). The only thing they'll understand is you not voting for them, that does not mean you need to vote for the other guy. long as you continue to think 'you must vote for the least bad option' they'll continue to ignore you and you wont be able to convince people who already dont vote for your 'least bad option' to come out.
no its not. candidates need to give people a reason to vote for them. remember harris' 11th hour policy reveal? because I do... fucking weed legalization. a policy basically everyone already has. not health care, not a reasonable life. weed. jfc.
people have been complaining for literally decades. harris literally voted against raising the minimum wage as VP and you wonder why she lost. Remember obama's hope and change + universal healthcare? because I do. where is it? oh right, every candidate who wasnt bernie / warren ran on not doing it since.
congrats welcome to corporate propaganda, first time here? this simply isnt fucking true. never has been. they dont vote for shitty corporate candidates, there is a difference. people who understand what the term marxism is about are not the ones you need to convince to vote. Do you know how many times i've had to explain to people that 'electibility' means absolutely nothing? They're not the leftists. Its the liberals like yourself who think constantly giving your vote to the corporate cunts sliding to the right is worthwhile as a form of harm reduction. jfc.
no you're not. you're telling people they're bad people for not voting for shitty candidates and wonder why they dont want to interact with you. while completely ignoring the knock on effects your preferred voting strategy (a stupid fucking concept, having a strategy, in the first place) has on lived outcomes which are similarly bad. arguably for more people atm since it resulted in trump twice because the dems politicians havent learned. they're still supporting the war in iran, they're still blocking wage increases, they're still blocking minimum paid leave, they're still trying to throw trans individual and other minority groups under the bus, etc.
You want to encourage people to vote? go push your candidates to adopt policies the people you want to encourage to vote want. Don't tell them to vote for the least shitty candidate. talk to them and find out what they want. they'll fucking tell you. then talk to your candidate and tell them to grow a pair. 20 million people were screaming at you idiots during biden/harris' campaign that a red line was being cross. wake the fuck up. stop with the strategy nonsense and attempting to shame people who dont think your candidates are worth two shits.
I'm just going to keep repeating myself here, so I'll be done with this comment chain now.
If you have questions, you can read my.comments again, because I've already addressed all of this. I'm not interested in doomer shit.
and I'm tired of idiots telling people to vote for a shitty candidate. demand better and you'll get better.