Remote View

6mo ago

Just a reminder

766 comments

I love how the propagandists just keep beating the same drum after the Biden administration has constructed a ceasefire deal which has received unanimous UN Security Council support, and did appear to be moving forward until about 14 hours ago. (Edit: It might still, that's not over yet.)
It's almost like if the US just turns its back on Israel, we'd lose our leverage to press a negotiated agreement, which would surely not end with Israel digging in their heels even further. (/s) It's almost like geopolitics are - wait for it - complicated.
Second Edit: Let's also not forget that Israel is a nuclear power. What do you think happens when Israel's back is against the wall, they're running out of conventional weapons, and Iran and/or other groups decide to take advantage?
- It was unanimous because Russia abstained. Putin loves the refocus on Israel while he continues his genocidal war crimes in Ukraine under the US media radar.
  For those who haven’t been keeping up, Russia has abducted 700,000 Ukrainian children to be raised as Russians in foster homes since the war began. It’s genocide on a scale 20 times larger than Palestine, and isn’t making national headlines in the US due to the focus on Israel.
  The US formally declared this as genocide in the House of Representatives with a 390-9 vote in April by invoking the UN Genocide Convention, and the ICC has issued arrest warrants. Did you see any headlines about that?
  Russia is also the largest investor in the sanctioned Iran economy that is directly funding Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
  
  I was sceptical of this claim so I did some research - 700,000 is almost certainly too high, but other than that it's disturbingly true:
  The 700,000 number comes from a Russian parliamentarian in 2023, and refers to orphaned and abandoned children Russia has 'protected' from conflict zones in Ukraine. A later Russian report walked this back a bit, and claimed that most of this number were children accompanied by family voluntarily escaping the fighting by feeling into Russia.
  Obviously we should be sceptical of what Russia says about this, but this is not the same number as the number of children abducted - not even Ukraine alleges it to be this high.
  The number of children abducted and forcibly deported was officially reported by Kyev to be 19,000 to 20,000 at the time of the above claim based on the data (nearly 30,000 now). The real number is almost certainly higher - many Ukranian officials believe the actual amount is higher, with one saying it may be into the 'hundreds of thousands'. A US report in 2022 estimates that Russia has "interrogated, detained, and forcibly deported... 260,000 children, from their homes to Russia"
  Even if we take only the low amount that can be fairly positively stated as abductions, that's nearly 30,000 children. Various reports have shown some of these children being given new Russian identities and false birth certificates, and being put up for adoption in Russia. Some have testified to being indoctrinated and shown pro-Kremlin propaganda.
  This broadly constitutes Cultural Genocide - whether it technically is or not is for academics to argue over, because the legal definition of genocide is complicated and so much is unkown.
  Whether or not you want to call it a Genocide, it is undeniably a War Crime. The ICC has issued arrest warrents for Putin and Russian Children's Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova over this.
  
  And yet not a peep from these “Genocide Joe” people. They’re either Russian disinformation agents, or useful idiots.
  
  It seems like the potential for an ethnicity to disappear completely after decades of starvation, oppression, and embargo is a more pressing concern than a war between two competent militarized nations, but yeah I agree they're at completely different scales in every aspect except funding from third parties.
  
  I'm legit not trying to troll here, but I vaguely recall a news story last month where Biden said it's not genocide. I forget if he was referring to Ukraine or Gaza, but either way I was kind of dumbfounded like wtf.
  
  And you can’t even bring this up as an argument against the “gEnOciDe jOe” kids because it gets removed for “whataboutism” in almost every thread.
  They have their agenda pretty locked down
  
  "The news is so focused on children trapped in a war zone but they're ignoring the real issue we should be focusing on: children being safely transported out of a war zone."
- I'm absolutely voting for Biden and everyone should, because he is the best viable candidate on literally every issue, including Palestine.
  That said, he has openly and loudly taken Israel's side for months. As a result, he's made himself an avatar for all the other US institutions that are openly against any criticism of Israel or support for Palestinians. Even if he has secretly been doing everything he can to stop the killing all this time—which I doubt—he had still fucked up massively when it come to avoiding the blowback from other groups' attempts to crush anyone who speaks out, including agencies his administration controls.
- But hey, some rando with literally no national attention is polling at 3% in a couple of safely blue states, so definitely don’t vote for GeNoCiDe JoE! /s
  
  Notice how they only ever criticize Biden, and never the Republican party, which fully supports Israeli bullshit?
  
  Is that Jill Stein? She barely scraped past 1% of the popular vote in 2016, less than 1/3 of fucking Gary Johnson.
  Oh but this time, this time Dems will learn a lesson and turn full leftist 2028. There's no risk either since muh both sides are dictators so it's equally bad either way.
- It's almost like if the US just turns its back on Israel, we'd lose our leverage to press a negotiated agreement, which would surely not end with Israel digging in their heels even further. (/s)
  How is this distinct from the current situation, where Israel has killed at least 35,000 people, is starving around a million more, shows no signs of changing course, and also we are giving them bombs to carry it out?
  The time to start applying gentle pressure was about 8 months ago.
- Well said.
- Have the weapon shipments to Israel stopped?
  
  No, neither has the money
- It is complicated. I don't bother acting like I know what's going on, I just accept that there is guaranteed to be more complicated reasons than what we are often given. This means the problem is extremely simple:
  Critical Thinking Skills and willingness to challenge one's own beliefs.
  Which is a strong reason why far too many people continue to parrot the same arguments. Biden could at this point cause an act of God to occur, reset the timeline, and if people remembered we'd still be hearing it.
- Israel's pack is against the wall against... Hamas?
  They managed to push those bastards back, before they've destroyed the Gaza strip.
  
  What do you think happens when Israel's back is against the wall, they're running out of conventional weapons, and Iran and/or other groups decide to take advantage?
  Do not misrepresent what you know full well I am talking about.
  
  Against Iran. Which is Hamas' big brother.
  (This comment is not approval of Israel's actions)
- There was another similar ceasefire a couple of months ago that got vetoed by Chairman Xi Jinping, as well. They say any ceasefire proposal which includes complete release of all Israeli hostages is unacceptable, for some reason.
- It's almost like if the US just turns its back on Israel, we'd lose our leverage to press a negotiated agreement
  No kidding huh, I can't believe people don't see this. You want to influence Israel? You can't do that if you cut off communication and shun them.
  
  Not continuing to provide them with weapons of war while they are actively committing genocide is not cutting off communication and shunning them.
  
  Does that apply to all countries the US has differences with?
- It’s almost like if the US just turns its back on Israel, we’d lose our leverage to press a negotiated agreement, which would surely not end with Israel digging in their heels even further. (/s) It’s almost like geopolitics are - wait for it - complicated.
  Which would end up with Israel in a war not just with Palestine but probably other countries in the region. And something I feel people forget: Israel has nuclear weapons but doesn't acknowledge them. Which means we don't have a great idea of their nuclear capability. So if Israel's existence is being threatened, there's a good chance to ruin that part of the world for generations and/or start WW3.
  
  Are you saying that if the US stops sending Israel weapons, they will likely start a nuclear war? Bruh
- Second Edit: Let’s also not forget that Israel is a nuclear power. What do you think happens when Israel’s back is against the wall, they’re running out of conventional weapons, and Iran and/or other groups decide to take advantage?
  Sounds like Russia.
- I don't really disagree with you, but I do unironically think we should have invaded Israel months ago.
- Great work on the peace deal, fellas. I think we can treat ourselves to another 20 billion of bombs to Israel to celebrate.
  Second Edit: Let's also not forget that Israel is a nuclear power. What do you think happens when Israel's back is against the wall, they're running out of conventional weapons, and Iran and/or other groups decide to take advantage?*
  Should we allow Russia to just run over Ukraine? They have the largest nuclear arsenal on Earth. Who knows what happens when their backs are against the wall.

Both sides do suck. but only one is trying to get an orange dictator elected. I'm still voting Biden. Democrats aren't perfect but it's the only choice we have.
- You elect Biden to live another day to fight him, you vote for trump and you shoot yourself in whatever genitals you have before we go full dictator for life, immunity for all crimes (and none of those things for you)
  
  This. I f*cking HATE having to vote for Biden. I've hated voting for Democrats for the last 20 years. But I'll vote for him this year because right now, our choices are between boring corporatists and 100% concentrated evil. I may hate my government but I love my country and I don't want it to end.
  
  You elect trump if you watched Civil War and thought, fuck yeah that looks fun, want that.

The only person who can so militantly cling to the idea that both sides are exactly the same is the person for whom the outcomes are exactly the same.
IE the person who needs to do a lot more shutting the fuck up and listening to the people for whom this shit is life and death.
- I'm sorry, English isn't my first language. First paragraph is kinda confusing for me. Could you please elaborate for me? Thank you.
  
  Basically I'm saying that only someone who's completely insulated from the lived experience of inequality could be capable of so strongly believing that both the democrats and republicans are exactly the same, because only someone so insulated would have a lived experience in which democratic and republican governments could even remotely feel the same.
  
  All of the replies to you are complicated, so here's a simple summary: The poster implied that a person who doesn't see the difference between Trump and Biden probably wouldn't be hurt by any of Trump's policies or goals.
  For example, a transgender person may lose access to hormones and a gay person may be unable to marry or adopt a child. Poor people may lose food stamps (money given for food) and old people may lose social security (money given at old age).
- Exact-a-fucking-lacty.
- The only person who can so militantly cling to the idea that both sides are exactly the same is the person for whom the outcomes are exactly the same.
  Destruction Of Black Wealth During The Obama Presidency
  When you have an incoming president who campaigns on dramatic reform and a return to an egalitarian social policy, but delivers large bank bailouts, record rates of foreclosure, and a slew of legislation designed to beef up the police in the midst of wave after wave of street protests, why would you expect this voter base to stick around?
  Dems love to talk about FDR as a big political reformer, but what they often neglect was his success as a partisan party builder. Guys like Clinton and Obama and Biden come into office thinking their voters owe them something for kicking the Republican out. Guys like FDR, LBJ, and Reagan come into office thinking their voters need to be rewarded for delivering the vote.
  the person who needs to do a lot more shutting the fuck up
  How many times do I see people whip their dicks out in the middle of an online forum and tell their opponents to STFU?
  How many times has it ever worked?
  
  At least one more time based on your comment.
  
  Not enough times, clearly

I do think there is a constructive way to talk about how both sides accommodate the interests of the ruling class. We are at the point where our choices are corporate shills and fascist corporate shills. I am going to vote for the non-fascists every time, but don't tell me I am harming the conversation when I expect the corporate shills to be better too.
- We need to start pushing other parties. This doesn't change for as long as we keep dems and repubs.
  However, I'm voting blue for prez and over any repub for the foreseeable future.
  
  The way to actually make progress in this regard is to start at low level. City, county, and eventually state positions have to be the focus if we want to get a broader range of parties into the conversation.
  
  First past the post favors 2 parties. You can vote for other parties but you'll just end up with the side you disagree with more winning.
  
  Pushing for voting for other parties in most of the US gets you nowhere because of the way our elections work in the first place. At least, outside of elections where parties (and policy in general) barely matter at all, like very small municipalities; but generally unless you get the entire city council and judicial system in that town/county progressive it's pretty hard for small-town politicians to make much meaningful change anyways. Although it's not impossible – recently an "independent" (I think Republican but idk) city council member I directly voiced my concerns to right before the election about the lack of investment in sidewalks, public transport, and other non-car infrastructure in our small extremely conservative town actually got some sidewalks built which was great.
  With the state level, though, it's not coming unless you live in a state with some sort of multiple answer voting like RCV (like Instant-Runoff Voting / IRV), approval voting, cardinal/rated voting (like STAR voting or score/range voting, etc.. Or if you live an extremely progressive state where candidates that advocate for that kind of system are able to get voted into office, almost always a Democrat or sometimes an Independent aligned with Democrats.
  IMO the ideal voting system would be Condorcet Single Transferable Vote / CPO-STV (same exact thing as STV to the voter, but implementing a variation of the Condorcet Method under the hood, which would be the most proportional system in both multi-winner and single-winner elections) but I don't think that's actually used anywhere, and a system with such computationally heavy internals would be a hard sell to people who already see IRV as "controversial". As long as we get anything other than FPTP, we can make it better later, the specifics don't matter too much.
  For the curious, STV (Single Transferable Vote) is essentially the same as IRV (Instant-Runoff Voting, known simply as ranked-choice in the US although there are other ranked-choice systems) except it's multi-winner instead of single-winner, where you can "rank" multiple candidates, and if your first choice candidate is eleminated or if they have surplus votes, your vote is instead "transferred" to your second candidate. The Condorcet system is basically a voting system that takes into account every possible candidate match-up, and makes the winner whoever has the most votes in each individual match-up – it's very computationally heavy since, especially in elections with many candidates and in multi-winner variations, you can have extremely large amounts of matchups. You can combine STV with the Condorcet method and get CPO-STV, which would theoretically be the system which would be the hardest game/"tactically" vote in (a.k.a. people wouldn't have any incentive to vote against a candidate they like in order to make a different candidate more likely to win, thereby increasing the chance of a candidate they don't prefer winning) and achieve the most proportional/happiest-choice voting.
  
  You can't vote your way out of this one America, time to get serious
- I am going to vote for the non-fascists every time
  As if the Dems aren't. They're literally passing bills right now to limit free speech and crack down on people condemning Israel for their genocide, by classifying that as antisemitism. US imperialism is a bipartisan issue, it literally doesn't make a difference in terms of geopolitics if you vote for either.
  
  That's one characteristic of fascism, but not the whole story. The Dems have slight authoritarian tendencies for sure, but they are explicitly fascist by the actual definition. Republicans are.
  I don't agree with their authoritarian policies, but by the actual definition of fascist, they aren't fascist, they are just shitty.
  So my point stands, I will vote for the non-fascist every time.

Sure, both sides are not the same. But the "good" side is still part of the system that allows the "bad" side to exist.
So by all means, vote for the party that will do less damage in the short term. But oppose FPTP voting at the same time.
- Voting is not enough to have a functioning democracy. Activism is essential
- In a world where a large majority of America has recognized it was asinine to ever consider voting for the bad side, it becomes more practical to have third party alternatives.
  
  But that cannot happen within the current system lest you allow the Republicans to win. Change must be forced onto the system.
- Who says we are?
- Would preventing the bad side from existing equal thought police?

both sides aren't bad.
one side is bad. the other side is a comically evil, fucking nightmare that is going to make sure all future generations for the foreseeable future will suffer things that can be avoided by voting for the "bad" side.
don't be stupid. one side is banning abortion, is going to go after simple contraceptives next, and will certainly ban gay marriage as soon as possible. their obsession with trans people is just a foot in the door.
- No.
  Don't be stupid don't vote for procorporate genocide supporting trash in the Democrat primaries.
  
  we're not talking about primaries.
  i checked your history and you're trying so hard. I'd be really surprised if you weren't a Russian troll.

And to say bOtHsIdEsSaMe you have to simplify to the point of stupidity to try to equate them. There's no detail or nuance. The world is a million shades of grey but they can only see black or white.
- Of course, because when you lay it all out, there’s an obvious difference.
  Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement, revoked the Keystone Pipeline permit, created a 13 million acre federal petroleum reserve for Alaskan wildlife, greatly increased oil site lease cost, signed $7B in solar subsidies, enacted the Inflation Reduction act to support clean energy, leveraged the NLRB for an FTC ruling that eliminated non-compete agreements, forgave billions in student debt from predatory loans, created the CHIPS Act to improve reliance on domestic technology, reinstated Net Neutrality, repealed Title 42, ended the Muslim Ban, reinstated the law prohibiting Israeli settlement on Palestinian territory, signed the Equality Act for LGBTQ+ rights, restored gay rights to beneficiaries, reenacted trans care anti-discrimination law, signed the Respect for Marriage Act, enabled unspecified gender on US Passports, rejoined WHO, rescheduled marijuana, reducing drug costs with the American Rescue Plan Act…
  Trump repealed 112 climate regulations, left the Paris Climate Agreement, disbanded the pandemic response team stalling national pandemic response, left the WHO, repealed trans care anti-discrimination law, repealed gay rights to beneficiaries, enacted Title 42 and the Muslim ban, repealed laws on Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory, repealed Net Neutrality, provided tax cuts to the wealthy that further widened our already exploitative wealth inequality, increased tariffs on goods costing the consumers, repealed the ACA without replacement, seated the conservatives in SCOTUS that repealed Roe v. Wade…
  
  I like when you bring some of that up and they say, for example, that Dobbs is actually Biden's fault because he was in office at the time. That's the best their think tanks have come up with, literally ignoring causality in favor of correlation.

100% true. "Both sides" arguments exist SOLELY to deflect from awful things done by Republicans, or detract from positive things done by Democrats.
Not once have I seen it deployed for any other purpose.
Edit for the pedants: I should probably have not led with "100% true" before the sentence where I clearly stated my position. Although I think the delta between what I wrote after that and what is in OP is a difference without a distinction, if some of you want to feel like you really got me, you go right ahead.
- How about.
  Both sides are bad. Republicans are worse.
  
  Nope, it's still used as a way to depress Democrat votes. "Both sides are bad. Republicans are worse." is used as an opener to such arguments as:
  vote 3rd party
  reject the system (ie don't vote)
  accelerationism
  do this pie-in-the-sky impossible thing first (communist revolution, etc)
  It's a platform by which people are herded into arguments designed solely to depress Democrat votes, aimed squarely at Democrat voters.
  Just stick with "Republicans are bad".
- You're 100% assuming motives. "Deployed", lol.
  This is like saying that because we know smoking causes lung cancer, that the ONLY reason anyone smokes is because they're trying to get lung cancer.
  Review Hanlon's Razor, and stop thinking there's sinister conspiracies everywhere, it's bad for your mental health.
  
  Intent doesn't matter. I've never seen it used differently. You are welcome to disagree.
  
  Does it actually matter at all what the intent is if the result is Trump winning and full on reducing the United States to a fascist ethnostate?

Absolutely correct. And when you see them here on lemmy, and there are a TON of them suggesting not to vote-
CALL THEM OUT.
I would LOVE to see a movement form to start pushing these bad actors out of here.
- They don't care and double down. I tag them as "Pro US Fascism" and move on.
  
  What do you use to tag them? I miss that functionality of RES.
- Ahh, yes. The classic way to combat authoritarianism: with more authoritarianism. "If you disagree with the party line your voice must be silenced."
  And since I know your kind tend to assume things that aren't said: I'm not saying don't vote. I will vote Dem in November, but I'm very close to my breaking limit on voting for people that constantly disparage me. I am saying that the kind of thinking you've displayed here is just as much of an existential threat to the US as the MAGA cult. Refusing to hold the Democrats accountable for anything ever (because it's "not the right time") is just a slower death.
  
  Ahh, yes. The classic straw man. Accuse the author of something they didn’t say, or imply, but something you can summon a paragraph of nonsense to support flawed thinking.
  Did say silenced? No. I said CALLED OUT. As in- flush them out for the bullshit they’re spreading.
  You claim you’re voting. So clearly this isn’t directed at you anyway. Unless of course you’re just saying you’re voting so that you could follow it with the… “but maybe I won’t if people don’t stop being mean to people that are telling other NOT to vote!”

Don't forget, Trump said if minorities vote, Republicans will never win another election. Republicans are doing what they can to stay in power and make it harder for people to vote.
- I would take whatever that guy says with a grain of salt

Vote.
And vote down-ticket. Your local elections are far more important than the presidency.

But both sides ARE bad. Still, go vote.
It's ok to be critical of our politicians regardless of which "team" they're on. We should all be holding their feet to the fire every day.

Both sides are bad, votes third party.
- When it comes to keeping republicans from taking power and enacting Christian nationalism, how is that different than not voting?
  
  It's not. I think they were just doing a tongue in cheek joke that 3rd party voters think they are beating the both sides argument but they aren't.
  
  This is the kind of mindset that keeps people from voting third party.... "You're just throwing away your vote" and it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, because enough people believe it, and either don't vote as a result, or vote disingenuously, that nobody votes for third parties that they actually want in office.
  The problem is self reinforcing too.
  The fact is, if enough people are brave enough to "throw away their vote" by going for a third party, the momentum may push others that either are not voting, or are voting for a party they don't believe in, to vote for the third party that doesn't normally have a chance, to actually add their voice to the mix and those people may be enough to actually swing towards a third party.
  This rhetoric is the exact same crap that OP is complaining about.
  I understand why people don't want to "throw away their vote" on a candidate that isn't likely to win, which is why we need voting reform and an alternative to the FPTP voting that we currently "enjoy", so people can vote for who they actually want, and still not "throw away" their vote if that candidate doesn't get enough votes to get in.
  Which makes it even more important for the right to maintain the current voting system. By gerrymandering the hell out of the districts, they can dilute more centrist and left-leaning areas into several strong conservative areas nearby, or concentrate undesirable voters into a single district, which is vastly out voted by the surrounding districts.
  The whole thing has been manufactured to optimise the capacity for success for those who do not win the popular vote.
  IMO, it's insane that a party can consistently win the popular vote, but not consistently win elections. It's crazy.
  
  Democracy is when you only have one choice and if you don't choose it then you're no better than a fascist.
- The first step in fixing the two party system is ACCEPTING that it is a two party system.
  Sucks to suck.. but it's true and foolish to not accept and use the system you have instead of a silly dream.
  Hate the game but still play or you will lose.
  
  The first step in fixing the two party system is ACCEPTING that it is a two party system.
  Did you really write that sentence down sober?
  I usually also fix, like a broken vase, by accepting that it's broken and not doing anything about it. Yes, that definitely fixes the vase...
- Last time people split between third party and democrat, we got Trump and then it came out that the third party candidate had connections to Russia.
- Third side is bad too!
  
  Only in like 5 states... If you're not in those states you should definitely vote 3rd party
- Is the shocked pikachu the dictator from the right getting elected because of third party (on the national level) siphoning off D votes in America and you no longer have the choice to vote at all, or have a putin-style election going forward?
- This guy gets it

Plus they cherry-pick items, take them out of context, distort them, then bombard social media with it in a way that tries to push as many visceral buttons as they can.
All the while actively ignoring any and all information that might challenge the narrative they are cynically pushing, of course.
It's probably damn near impossible to fully disentangle oneself from this addictive web, we all have fallen prey to weaponized disinformation at some level or other, and different disinformation campaigns target different segments of the population.

"both sides" arguments exist to remind us that neither is our friend. Yes, there are clear differences between the two, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend that one is the "good guys" and ones some unfathomable evil entity.
Neither side is my friend, and I aim to remember that. It doesn't mean I'm going to not vote. It doesn't mean I'm going to encourage others to not vote. It's simply an expression of "I am voting now under duress. None of these options appeals to me, but I must participate in the system lest I be consumed by it."
- If you don't see the Republican party as "some unfathomable evil entity" 70 years after The Southern Strategy, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush and fucking Trump with over 1 million Americans dead from COVID due to a purposefully inept and sandbagged pandemic failure, then, I just don't know what to tell you my friend. Your response, to me, is "unfathomable", and worse, under the threat of fascist tyranny, purposefully and irredeemably obtuse. Be better.
  
  Not to mention overturning abortion rights, criminalizing trans people, trying to overthrow democracy, and full throated endorsement of climate skepticism.
- Voting let's you choose your enemy
  
  Want to re-read that? I pretty clearly said I would vote, and encourage others to. I can do that, and still proclaim that both of the 'viable' parties are shitbags.

<rant>
I watched this standup special (Chad Daniels) and I found myself getting annoyed at the premise of most of his jokes.
The premise is that there is a far left and a far right and both sides are bad and need to move closer to the middle.
A joke he made, for instance, boiled down to far right were racists while the far left is overly compassionate to living things. See, both sides are bad!
First, his far right example was not an exaggeration. That is literally how people on the far right think. The far left example was a funny exaggeration that almost nobody on the left believes.
Second, even with his exaggeration, the 2 extremes are in no way equivalently extreme. The far right needs to come over significantly before it is equally extreme as the far left.
Anyway, I felt like this whole special was an example of what is wrong with the way society talks about the right and left.
I made a graph:
FL—-——|M|—————————————-FR
</rant>
- This is exactly it.
  <rant>
  Another comment the comedian made was that he can hold both liberal opinions and conservative opinions at the same time. For instance, he thinks school lunches should be free. That’s a liberal opinion. And for his conservative opinion, he thinks if a student attacks a teacher, the teacher should be able to defend themselves…. Bro, that is not a conservative opinion!
  I should let it go as it’s just a comedy special, but I think many people make similar arguments. Also, after making all the jokes he says he’s surprised that liberals don’t laugh as much as conservatives… Like a liberal can’t laugh at themselves the way a conservative can.
  </rant>
  I apologize for the rant, I was triggered, but I can move on with my life now…
  
  Maybe it's just me, but I don't see most of the "both sides are bad" posts as a push toward the center, I see them as a "both sides are too far right" telling people to vote blue now, but to also fight for a far more left-leaning candidate by the next election, since we shouldn't be settling for someone like Biden long-term.
  
  Except that's being utterly disingenuous by picking a left wing view that most folks are going to agree with except the far right and the very most extreme right view that all but the most extreme right are going to oppose.
  I mean it would be just as easy to look at left wing vs right wing views on guns: Left wing: No one should have guns unless they have them to resist right wingers, because they might shoot minorities! Right wing: Everyone should have guns, so long as they mostly use them legally because statistically the ones who don't will shoot more minorities and poors than whites and rich and a majority of those doing the shooting will be minorities, providing a pretense to demonize them for it!
  Or speech: Mainstream left: Speech should be controlled to silence my opponents! (Meaning right wingers generally and the far right especially) Mainstream right: Speech should be controlled to silence my opponents! (Meaning LGBTQ+ stuff aimed at minors and left wing protests) Centrists: I literally cannot tell you two apart.
- This whole comment is an example of how some people don't understand that the fundamental point of actual comedy is to elicit laughter, not clapter for confirming the audience's biases with a jovial tone.
  If you watch stand-up to hear your political team's talking points in 'joke' form, you're just insecure.
  
  I think you misunderstood my actual complaint. I was not bothered that he disagreed with my opinions. As a matter of fact, I’m willing to bet he was in agreement with everything I believe.
  The logic this comedian used as the basis for his entire set didn’t match with reality. It’s hard to find the jokes funny when they aren’t based on anything true.
  This isn’t specific to politics either. There’s plenty of comedians that use faulty logic as the set ups to their punchlines, and if you don’t think about that too much, you may find the punchline funny. For me, all I can think is that the punchline would have been funny if anything that led up to it was true.

Both sides are bad. But vote anyway.

In politics all parties are bad, each in their own unique way. It's just that they can be bad to vastly differing degrees.
Unfortunately lots of people struggle with continuums and see only black and white.
- Define bad.
  Because one party literally has Nazi dinners. That party has successfully passed laws that actively killed Americans and made rich people richer.
  If you're a minority, person of color, LGBT, low or middle class and think both parties are the same? Just yikes man.
  
  Because one party literally has Nazi dinners.
  AIPAC uncorks $100 million war chest to sink progressive candidates
  We've got a litany of conservative democrats who are perfectly fine taking money from fascists.

Republicans have argued, under oath, that high voter turnout is unfair for their electoral chances.

Eliminating the First Past the Post voting system would enable people to vote for third-party candidates without the risk of a spoiler effect. This change would foster competition in the electoral process, enhancing the quality of candidates for all voters. Additionally, it would likely increase voter turnout and political engagement.
Electoral reform is possible at the state level, Alaska and Maine have already passed electoral reform so it is possible to get this done.
Republicans have already made moves to protect First Past the Post voting. Florida recently made Ranked Choice voting illegal. Fortunately there are many alternatives to FPTP, so the ban still isn't in the way of passing electoral reform.
So the question remains, why do Blue states still use FPTP voting? Why would you want to use the voting system republicans prefer? There are no republicans stopping these reforms in states that democrats control.
It is clear that democrats understand the flaws of FPTP voting, just talk about voting third party in nearly any social media and you will get a entire flock of Democrats lecturing you on how a vote not for a democrat is a vote for a republican. How can you admit the voting system is flawed and then not make any moves to rectify the situation is beyond me. You don't get to lecture people on the flaws of FPTP voting and then do nothing to fix the issue.
- If only there were a party you could vote for that wants to pass federal election reforms. Oh geez, if only if only. Gosh, I wonder how your comment fits into the context of this post which is about how one side is clearly much much worse than the other? Maybe the point you're trying to make is that the whole system sucks and that both sides are... bad? Is that what you're trying to say?
- Yeah, but that's not where we are NOW. Yes, definitely work for it. I'd love to see ranked choice voting in my section of the deep south. But, again, that's not happening this election.
- that cgpgrey video takes liberties (to say the least) with the truth, making logical leaps and asserting opinion as fact. i think it should not be used as a source of "good" information unless the information you want is "why does everyone think two party systems are inevitable without proof?" or maybe "how can i tell people who won't fall in line they're stupid while sounding academic?"

I'm going to vote for the democrat this November but I think most folks who talk about this issue are not disingenuous. Voting in the presidential election is a bare minimum, minimally effective political action. For me and most of the people I know it matters almost not at all because I don't live in a swing state. My local elections matter a hell of a lot more.
There are limits to the effectiveness of electoralism that are worth understanding. I think a lot of folks who talk about the Democrat's failures are advocating for political action beyond voting. Direct action is a far more effective form of political action that people should be putting their energies into.
Union organizing, renter's orgs, housing activism, talking to your neighbors, local politics, and lots more are much more effective ways to assert power in your life. Voting makes me feel helpless. We need to act as well. The primary thing preventing positive political change is the belief that we can't do anything to bring that change about.
- Thank you. Your politics may be messed up over there, but you guys still live in a free, and democratic, country. The reason you all feel you have to vote Biden while hating him is there are genuinely a lot of people, your fellow countrymen, who support Trump, the GOP, and/or their policies. That and layers of corruption and manipulation, up and down the political and economic ladder.
  So to fix the first, without abandoning democracy, show the other half of your country why your vision and values are worth embracing. Act. Speak. And do it in a way that draws the country together to agree: otherwise you're aiming for a class rule, where your side rules over the other - then you'd be better to split to two countries.
  For the second, start by being uncorrupt and unmanipulative yourself, then take that to your workplace, your political activism, your journalism. Fight for truth even when the lies and the lier offer you an easier win.
  You can't fix it all yourself, any more than your one vote will win the election. But your one vote matters, and your one life, lived well, matters much more.
  So vote in your presidential election. Vote in your other elections. But also get out there and be the change you want to see. And take care you don't fall to the temptation of lies and greed, yourself.

But what if I don't want a typical Democrat in office either?
- What if you really want a warm hug but you only have the choice between a poke in the eye with a sharp stick and not a poke in the eye?
  You still choose "not a poke in the eye", dumbo.
- Then go run for office and be better. Until then, unfortunately, pick the FAR lesser evil
- Voting for someone in an election in the US is not an endorsement of that person. You have effectively two choices in many of the elections due to how the system is designed. You vote for the best choice of those two.
  Not voting, or voting for a non viable candidate, is a signal that you Do Not Care who is in power.
  Voting is a tool, and a civic duty. It's one of the few ways US society allows direct input from citizens.
  If you actually are against facism, don't use misguided idealism to encourage people to throw away the little political power they have.
  
  It’s one of the few ways US society allows direct input from citizens.
  Okay here's my input: I don't vote for people who support genocides or block strikes.
  If you want my vote work for it.
  
  Boycotting is also very patriotic
- Right now the Democratic Party's convention and local election Primaries haven't happened. Best that can be done is to influence the party platform through this primary season to influence or change what a 'typical' Democrat may be.
  There's a massive influx of money right now going towards keeping typical Democrats in line with Israel. So it appears that will predictably be a prevailing issue one way or another.
  So like: most of my local elections usually feature Democrats v Democrats so I'll likely opt for the non-Zionist or at least the less Zionist of the two. That may send a message for the winner of the Presidential ticket, if anything.

I just want one election in my life where it's not the end of the goddamn world if Democrats lose, so I'm allowed to vote for someone I actually like.
Just one fucking election.
- You really don't. Because Dems have been selling themselves as essentially "Vote for us because you should be scared shitless the other guy might win."
  When the GOP eventually wins again (please let Trump be dead or imprisoned by then, maybe 2032 at the earliest?) if the country doesn't immediately descend into Christo-fascist super-Nazism the Dems are going to have to totally reinvent because "vote for us or it's the end of the world" won't fly any more if they lose and the world doesn't end, which means once they lose they are probably going to lose several times in a row until they come up with a better pitch.
  
  I've been reading "this is the most important election of our lifetimes" online since the 1990s. It's never the same people saying it between elections, and career politicians don't make this argument.
- I don't think that's realistic in a democracy unfortunately. It'll always come down to who you like better, but not who you actually like. Even countries with popular vote parliamentary systems don't have the luxury of voting for people they like.
  
  What a stupid world
  
  If we had sane voting, like STAR, we would be able to express such a preference without wasting a vote we need to cast against the worse choice.
- You say that like the stakes truly aren't as high as people say they are.
  
  I say that like it's happened in every fucking election I've been aware of since I was born.
  And if the stakes are even higher then we're actively circling the drain as a nation.
  
  You say that like people haven't been saying that exact same thing every election for all of US history. It's a tactic to silence unrepresented groups and bully them into conformity. Some people think differently from you and do legitimately view both the Democrats and Republicans as anti-democratic organizations.
  And since at least the ones on the left were personally deprived of a fair election by the Democrats in 2016 and arguably 2020, pretending the Democrats are not also a threat to democracy immediately makes any argument you make fall on deaf ears. Instead, the Dem base parrots the party lines about progressives being the ones who gave us Trump in 2016. Despite literal evidence that the Dems propped him up during the primary.
- That's literally every election. You just get sucked into the left's hype. Trump isn't going to end the world or elections if he wins. Biden isn't going to make anything more democratic or fair than it already is if he wins.
  
  If you truly believe that about Trump, you are a fool. Were you stuck in a cave on Jan 6th? Do you know what Project 2025 is? Have you listened to a word Trump has said about wanting to be a dictator “for one day”?

The intent of someone's speech, or even its outcome, does not make it incorrect. A culture of hiding from reality thinking in doing so it will give us certain outcomes is what this practice will create.

Then they better get started earning those votes

Bro vote democrat this time. I'm sure next elections the republican candidate will be better when they inevitably win. I'm sure the democrat candidate will be better too, bro, I swear, just vote. The spiral towards right wing because of the recurring "lesser evil vote" will get better bro I swear.
- How does not voting stop the spiral towards the right?
  
  By either having representation from a third party which opens up the floodgates for future elections, or by forcing the Democrats to actually put a progressive candidate and adopt progressive policy under threat of never winning the elections again.
  
  You've assumed that because someone isn't going to vote for the Democratic party or the Republican party that they aren't going to vote at all.
  
  How about you ask the people who voted for Joe Biden in the primaries if they're ever going to support anyone under the age of 70.

Both sides are bad
It's jut that one is kinda great with a bunch of bad things, the other is a pineapple up your ass nightmare shitshow.
Which one to choose, choices choices choices...
- One is implied as guilty of genocide because their companies sold weapons to and haven't actively prevented their use in an overseas conflict they have no authority over.
  The other is s convicted felon, who is also likely guilty of treason, actively fights democracy and has been caught in blatant lies, wants to take the country back 150 years in civil rights, actively seeking campaign funding by selling out the global climate futures and thinks we should use nukes to combat weather we don't like.
  I don't know how Americans can choose
  
  I fully agree with you.
  But... This comment is a month old, how do you feel now?
  We CANNOT get Trump, but Biden is practically endorsing Trump at this point. People are dumb enough to vote for Trump after seeing Biden mumble about
- Is it even fair to call them bad if you immediately also admit that they're "kinda great"?
  
  A few things the biden admin has done have been incredibly based, but on the whole yeah pretty bad.
  
  If you cherry pick the comment, yes. Insaid a little bit more there.
  Truth be told, Biden has done a shit tonne of great things, really, and a lot of the bad was out of his hands. Truth be told too, he now appears a bumbling old man close to his deathbed, and very far from ready for a presidency and still I'd say vote for him because well, you know, the alternative sucks

Get involved locally and build from there. Under 60? You'll be the youngest there in a lot of Democratic clubs.

You should definitely vote, at a minimum. But if you want real change, you need direct action.

Hey France has a lesson for you: 2 years ago the liberals called the left to vote for them in order to prevent the far right from getting elected.
For 2 years the liberals governed with the leaning to far right - right. The far right applauded many of their policies.
This Sunday the far right went first in the European election, because the left was a bunch of clowns and everyone hates the liberal government.
1h after the results, the Liberal president Macron disbanded the parliament. Now there are 3 weeks to elect a new parliament. He also opted for a vote that favors the biggest, so the far right is favoured, and there's no time for a campaign and barely enough time for the left to unite. The president is also still saying on TV that the left is just as bad and as extreme as the far right.
We didn't see it coming, but the liberal who pretended he would fight the far right is the first accelerationist in France. It is chaos right now, and the far right has never been so close from being in power in France since 1944. The 5th Republic is almost a presidential regime btw, so if the far right has the power, it'll be very dirty.
Trust the liberals they said, it's better than the far right...
- Liberals in France are conservative, in the US they're progressive. Huge difference which is conveniently exploited by posts like yours.
  
  Really so? Do the conservative write abortion right in the constitution? Tell me more about that please.

You need to do more than merely vote

Oh, they see the connection. They just want Republicans in office. They don't give a fuck about the suffering of minorities, they just want the worst possible option in power so they can feel smug about "not supporting the system".

Just remember, people: the US is always one election away from sudden, irrevocable demise. But if you elect the conservative with a D next to their name, then America gets to continue its slow, but inexorable socioeconomic decline as the executive and legislative representatives continue to ignore the policies of the progressives who held their nose to keep them in power. Asking for anything more is both foolish and, even worse, selfish.
As a conservative democrat myself, who will never be forced to compromise any of my ideological positions because the status quo of every election being "too important to lose" is at this point part of the core design of our two party political system, I can say with confidence that if I were ever faced with the choice of voting between an outright fascist and a socialist candidate, that I would definitely vote the only way that made sense to preserve the corporate oligarchy on which the fragile veneer of American democracy rests. Which is to say that I would vote for the fascist, obviously.
If you want to actually vote for progressive candidates, then you are free to move to Mexico and start farming avocados for the cartels.
- I... I... Don't know how to interpret this comment... Are you being sarcastic for the last two paragraphs? I'm honestly confused
  
  I… I… Don’t know how to interpret this comment…
  To be completely genuine: it's a satirical comment made as a cynical representation of the perspective of a conservative democrat. A lot of it comes from the combined perspective of "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" along with the conservative "love it or leave it" mentality you find coming from people who criticize progressives for criticizing the nation in which they live.

I say that and mean it. Still going to vote for that twat biden. He is a better choice than our low grade hitler wanna be trump.

Actually they are designed to make people vote third party. Critical voter mass moving to third party is the only option to end the duopoly political system that literally everybody agrees is bad and undemocratic.
Gas lighting people into believing there is only 2 choices when there isnt is how this corrupt system maintains its power.
- That's a great way to just give the facists more power due to the spoiler effect. Until first past the post is abolished the most a third party can accomplish is cannibalizing whatever party they most closely align with.
  
  Another great way to give fascists more power is to vote for a geriatric procorporate genocide supporting trash candidate in the Democrat primaries.

this aged like wine

No. They have plenty of voters. I'm so tired of this liberal bashing of people with fucking empathy and a tired deposition towards the apathetic unhelpful political parties in charge, as your way to get more votes.
I get that we have a binary decision with our presidency election but no, this is not an effective method other than to piss off people you are essentially stating straight up you think of as lesser.
- I mean, regardless of what you decide is the reason for not voting, one side is happy about it.
  The other side just wants everyone to vote. And if everyone was to vote, then maybe the independents would have a chance. But no. People would rather just not vote at all. Which is basically a vote for Trump at this point, since every single Trump supporter is not only going to vote but is constantly down everyone's throat to also vote for him.
  Not voting = vote for Trump
  
  Independents don't have a chance regardless. Has nothing to do with their platform or how many people are voting...our voting system itself means voting for a third party will have the net effect of not supporting the primary party more closely aligned with your beliefs, which in turn is indirectly supporting the primary party least aligned with your belief. The same can be said of voter abstinence.
  This is basic game theory stuff. Going for a third party in a major election because they are more directly aligned with you, individually, is ultimately letting perfect be the enemy of good. And personally, I think it's a bit arrogant to think any party holding no other federal office, and barely any state offices, will jettison directly to POTUS. It's almost like they know they exist solely to facilitate the spoiler effect.
  
  Sounds like you've got your work cut out for you then. I expect to see you going up to people who voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 primaries and telling them if they continue to do stuff like that the Democrats will lose to Republicans.
- it screams privileged liberal that doesn't understand the system is working as intended right now

Yeah well neither is your friend. Both consistently take away your rights and give you barley anything. You can say both are bad but one is worse, sure.

get f*ked. George carlin applies.

Do you want your Brussels sprouts boiled or steamed?
We're like children getting tricked by our parents into making a choice we didn't want.

Representative democracy is hard.
- ~~Representative~~ bourgeois democracy ~~is hard~~ isn't democracy.

Why would I want Moloch when the other option is Baal?

votes 3rd party
- But if every person thought like that, we'd get a 3rd party candidate elected
  
  Every? Sure. A lot? Just handed a landslide victory to Trump.
  
  If everyone did a general strike there would be no need to vote. How is this rhetoric helping?

Nah i encourage people to vote for a better candidate
- There is no better candidate. Stein and West want a peace treaty in Ukraine, which implies concessions to Russia. Russia should not be rewarded for invading a sovereign nation, destroying its cities, slaughtering its people, and kidnapping its children.
  It would be like if a treaty for Gaza was that the fighting would stop but in return Israel would get to build their own settlements on the Palestinian land they've destroyed.
  Unless Stein and West specify that they want the total withdrawal of all Russian forces and a restoration of the borders prior to Russia's conquest of Crimea, in addition to reparations to rebuild what they destroyed in Ukraine, the two of them are no better.
  
  Can you find me a source on Stein calling for a peace treaty in Ukraine?

Both sides are bad. that's factually correct information
- Turd Sandwich or Massive Douche.
  
  Yup

Ah got it so we need to be like Trump's base and ignore any problems Biden has because that encourages people not to vote. /s
You can call out problems with Biden and acknowledge how that is gonna make left leaning people not want to vote for him and average people not care enough to go out and vote at all without supporting not voting for him.

That's an hyper-simplist take, self-serving if the author is a Democrat tribalist.
A Biden victory will have two effects:
It solves the Trump problem for the next 4 years.
It makes the DNC conclude that even outright support by their sitting President and Candidate with weapons and ammunition for a Fascist regime committing Genocide along ethnic lines is not an impediment for lefties to vote for a DNC nominated Democrat Presidential Candidate as long as the other side's candidate is worse. This means that in the next election the next Democrat candidate is unlikelly to be better and will possibly be worse. It also doesn't solve the problem of a somebody-like-Trump or, worse, an intelligent version of Trump, being a candidate with a chance of winning in subsequent elections.
So what's at stake is a Trump victory now (what Trump might or not do once in power is mainly speculation, and the more extreme theories being pitched by people who stand to gain if their candidate wins instead of Trump, have to be taken with a pinch because they'se self-serving political propaganda) versus what will happen in subsequent elections.
(The whole "what might Trump do" uncertainty is what actually makes the whole thing a complex and trully fucked up choice: if one knew with absolute certainty that Trump would end even the flawed thing that passes for Democracy in America, the choice would be an obvious "vote Biden" even at the risk of there only be even worse choices in subsequent elections, because if Trump won now there would be no subsequent elections).
Frankly I don't see any scenario were post-Trump the Republicans become less Fascist and hence the DNC becoming less evil because their upper evilness limit which is "the other guy" gets pushed down, and suspect that who the Republicans will put forward next is a more intelligent version of Trump.
That being so, the only way to push the DNC to in the future put forward less evil candidates (or to not intervene in the Primaries to stop such candidates, like they did to stop Sanders) is to make them fear that they will lose the leftwing vote and hence never again win Presidential elections, and that means Biden has to lose and Trump has to win.
It's a fucking tough choice. (Sorry for the expeletive, but it's what better reflects the trully, utterly fucked up nature of the whole "choice")
I'm happy I'm not an American and am not forced into such Hobson's Choice and can thus just intellectually analyse the whole thing without an associated rollercoaster of emotions.
- When discussing the effects of a Biden victory:
  A Biden victory will have two effects:
  When discussing the effects of a trump victory:
  what Trump might or not do once in power is mainly speculation,
  Hmmm.
  
  That's a good point (no irony intended)
  The actual actions of Biden and his place in the Moral scale aren't really speculation (supporting with military hardware and ammo a Genocidal fascist ethnostate because of the dominant ethnicity of that state - check!), but the part about the DNC does indeed fall into the realm of speculation.
  Further, from his historical track record it seems likely that Trump wants to take over power and become some kind of dictator - he says a lot of things and then doesn't go forward with them, but this one he said it and tried it - however, what's in doubt (IMHO) is whether he actual can do it.
  On the side of the DNC, from decades of historical track record it seems very likely that they do not want a more leftwing Democratic candidate and from recent history and the whole Democratic Primary structure, most noteably the anti-Democratic super-voters, it's clear that they also can stop a more leftwing candidate, as that's exactly what they did with Sanders.
  So it's a don't vote Biden and if Trump wins he will try to become a life dictator but might or not succeed or vote Biden and if he wins the Democrat Party will keep on shifting right (and there's not that much right to shift to, since this election is "quasi-Nazi"-supporting hard neoliberal - vs - Fascist) and eventually the Democrats will be fielding a Trump-like candidate and the Republicans a Worse-than-Trump one, with a very low probability of it not being so (it would require a change of a trend of 3 decades without anything at all forcing them to do so, hence probabilitically a Fascist -vs- Fascist election in the US it's mainly a question of when rather than if).
  It's a Trump-today vs Trump-like-or-worse-tomorrow scenario unless (if they vote Biden now) people find a way to shift the direction of things in the time between, and I have yet to hear a single realistic way to do that for the Presidential elections, though I've seen a few good ideas to push the Democrats left in Congressional and Senate elections, through civil society movements and targetted campaigns in the Primaries against the most rightwing Democratic candidates.
  As I said, it's a fucked up "choice".
  PS: For me the best result (IMHO) might be a barely by the skin of their teeth Democrat victory - just about enough to stop Trump and so close to a Democrat loss that it makes the DNC fear that they've shifted too much to the Right - however such an outcome is impossible to organise and even if it does happen, my hope of how the DNC gets affected is still all speculation and might be totally wrong.
  
  When talking about Biden, they're talking about the consequences to democrat party structure. When talking about Trump, they're talking about policy. Their point stands
- Yes! Exactly what I was trying to say.
  Also, I didn't see "both sides bad" memes here, like, ever.
  Yet when one questions the position that we should vote Democrat or end up eternally doomed, they are immediately downvoted without reading.
  Thanks for taking time to cover this issue properly.
- That's the best write up of the situation I've seen.

antisemitic tankies in the comments losing their tiny minds
- Every time you smear anyone who is completely opposed to an ethnostate committing genocide as antisemitic you are equating being Jewish to supporting the actions of the state of the Israel which is both antisemitic in itself and actively harmful to Jewish people globally.

If you’re making a both sides bad post, be sure to suggest that people vote for a third party, got it!
Btw, have you heard about the party for socialism and liberation? They’re running Claudia de la Cruz for president on a platform of Palestinian liberation and stopping weapons shipments to Israel!

??? "Keeping people from voting is literally the only way Republicans can stay in office" is just such an objectively false statement I don't know where to start.

766 comments