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, its not. you can't infer that. jfc people read what I'm writing to you.
Not Voting can mean a number of things depending on the individual, including but not limited to:
If ALL candidates are unacceptable from the get go that's a candidate issue not the voters problem. thats literally the definition of a line in the sand. the fact you can't distinguish it from 'being fine with either' doesnt mean what you're implying is true. BOTH voters are fairly easy to win over long as your candidate isnt ideologically opposed to something they actually care about.
Here is a simple action you can take to distinguish between the two non-voters: 'What issue would get you to support candidate Y?'
-> if they give a policy that neither candidate is running on you've found someone who finds both objectionable.
-> if they say they're not interested in politics / can't think of anything then you've found someone who is actually indifferent.
you need to approach these two voters very differently when trying to get them to vote. For example: my answer is 'support universal health care, fix the visa program so people are not tied to a company, set a inflation matching living wage' there are a ton of issues personally that would get me to cast my vote, and not a single one starts with 'but Y (republicans) are X (murdering children)!' or uses the phrase 'least worse choice'.
You can get away with the 'least worse choice' nonsense with the indifferent candidate. but you're still more likely to win them over with something they want.
You really enjoy being wrong, don't you?