• PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Big bridal shower at a gay bar energy these fake leftists be bringing to the defense of America’s most vulnerable when it involves them doing something other than just showing up at the grammable protests and marches.

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      One of them told me any amount of collateral damage to vulnerable groups is acceptable as long as massive numbers of white moderates are executed, which will teach them a lesson. Except it will be the leftists who are executed? IDGI. It’s like they love any sort of authoritarianism far more than they love leftist economics.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s astounding. My only comfort is that online communities rarely reflect the makeup of the real world.

  • hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    democrats fund fascists: https://www.vox.com/23274469/democrats-extremist-republicans-mastriano-cox-bailey

    and boosted trump into the presidency: https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/

    Democrats promote fascists so they can pretend that they’re heroes for running against them. Vote for biden, but don’t fool yourself into thinking that you’re not voting for a fascist, because democrats are absolutely allies of fascists if not outright fascists themselves. They would rather lose an election to a fascist than let a leftist win, 2016 is a prime example of this. As the saying goes, scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.

    • m13@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Of course. If I was American I wouldn’t spend a second campaigning for Biden or telling people “you need to vote!!” online, because I’d rather spend that time unionising my workplace, doing mutual aid, building up communities. Things that build real structural change no matter who’s in power. But on the day I’d still go vote for the lesser evil candidate. It takes a small amount of time. Then I’d go straight back to real work. I think most leftists do the same.

      • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Legitimately yes, that is the actual point most leftists tired of liberals punching left are making.

        Actual organization outside the bourgeois state apparatus is far more important, plain and simple. I’ll probably be voting for Biden, but I am not going to pretend it’s “fighting fascism,” that happens on the ground.

        • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          I don’t think that you and people sharing your thoughts are the target of the meme. There is an exceptional amount of accelerationist and/or anti-electoralist (they are indistinguishable in outcomes) posting going on. People are trying to discourage voting for Biden AND voting altogether.

  • theareciboincident@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yes, in fact, I will be voting for the leftist candidate that most aligns with my political and social beliefs.

    That is not Trump, nor is it Biden.

    I know this is a little too complex for liberals like you to understand but hopefully this helps clear it up! BLUE MAGA!!!

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      That is not Trump, nor is it Biden.

      Cool, so you’re saying you don’t give a fuck how many minorities have to die so you can feel good when you mark the box on your ballot. Great. Left praxis in the flesh.

      • BakerBagel@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        You seem pretty content to let countless Gazans die to possibly prevent you facing oppression here.

        The solution is guwtting leftists into supporting genocide, but to get the Democrats to oppose genocide.

        • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          You seem pretty content to let countless Gazans die to possibly prevent you facing oppression here.

          Nothing any of us do in the upcoming election will stop that. Voting Trump will get Gazans killed, voting Biden will get Gazans killed, and voting 3rd party will get Gazans killed.

          And it’s hardly just a possibility of oppression here. Trump has vowed to do everything in his power to stop gender affirming care from being available. It’s going to end up with dead trans people, including children. That’s not just a possibility, that’s practically a guarantee.

          But Trump isn’t going to stop with that, because he and his buddies have made it clear that they want to tear down what little democracy we have, and kill/jail his political opponents. That means you. He isn’t paraphrasing Hitler for nothing.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          You seem pretty content to let countless Gazans die to possibly prevent you facing oppression here.

          Yep, because Trump has committed to stopping the Gazan genoci-

          Wait, what’s that?

          Oh, he’s actually said he wants MORE dead Gazans?

          Huh.

          The solution is guwtting leftists into supporting genocide, but to get the Democrats to oppose genocide.

          It’ll be great if they do. I plan on raising awareness as much as I can about the atrocities in Gaza. But if it comes down to it, and Biden is still in support of Israel come election day, I’m not dumb enough to vote for MORE genocide for EVERYONE.

          • BakerBagel@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Just because Trump enthusiastically supports the genocide doesn’t make Biden’s acceptance of it ok. Nothing will be done about it unless Democrats feel like it will help them come November. So that means holding the Democrats’ feet to the fire and demanding a ceasefire. The election isn’t for 6 months. There is plenty to do, but liberals on Lemmy seem only interested in saying that leftists support Trump.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              See, the issue comes when “plenty to do” ends up with “justifying allowing fascism”, as a glance down any of these threads will show is a common position. “If Biden doesn’t change his position, he DESERVES to lose”; of course, the deaths Trump will cause is irrelevant; minorities must die to punish the old fucks in the DNC. There is an approach on a deontological level that is fucking insane from a utilitarian standpoint, and it’s not something that I feel warrants standing by silently about.

              On here, on Lemmy, fucking no one is in favor of Israel, except that one weirdo who got himself banned from 2/3s of the communities on here. Thank the gods. “Genocide bad” is already accepted; what is sometimes missed is “A Trump election implies a significant increase in genocide”, which is why I beat the drum on here. I’ve seen leftists on here (by no means representative of all leftists, not even all Lemmy leftists, I know) say things as repulsive, nonsensical, and varied as:

              • America deserves genocide anyway for supporting genocide, so it’s okay if Trump wins

              • Trump winning will spark a left-wing revolution, so everything will be better in the end

              • Trump actually isn’t any different than Biden, and won’t kill any significantly greater number of people

              • A personal moral stand is worth the lives of millions of minorities and leftists

              • As long as the moderates are taught a lesson, it’s worth it

              As long as I see those opinions regularly pop up outside of .ml and like instances, I will continue beating the “Vote for Biden you dumb fucks” drum over the “Genocide is BAD you dumb fucks” drum that I would favor when interacting with the general American population.

  • i_ben_fine@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m not voting for Biden. Nobody I know is voting for Biden. It’s because of the genocide he denies is happening.

    • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      If you don’t vote for the guy that denies the genocide, you gonna get the guy that will aknowledge, revel in and accelerate the genocide, together with a sprinkle of killing LGBTQIA+ folk in his own country. Good job.

      • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Myself? None. As I have said I am most likely voting Biden if he manages to survive. I supported Uncommitted vote in the primary because that was an opportunity for a concerted and focused effort with a direct policy message.

        There are only a few instances and time windows for shaping the policies that the parties and candidates run on. That was one of those times. The next time will be during the conventions this summer.

        After that we will indeed be stuck with whatever shit is left on the table to vote for in the General election. At that point nonvoters and third party voters alike will indeed have to grapple with the choices and risks they’ll make. That is when they’ll have to put their money where their mouth is.

        But resigning ourselves to that now is premature, if not actually a tacit support for the status quo.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Aw, sorry, in the future, I’ll be sure to give third-party voters plenty of asspats for welcoming fascism.

    • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Voting third party also denies the reality of Fitrst Past the Post, and perpetual and well documented trend and reinforcement of duopolies.

      • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The duopole is not a law of nature. It is a psychological effect that the DNC and Reps keep pushing, so you never dare to think outside that box. It is the same like with stock market hypes and crashes. Everybody keeps repeating how they think the system inadvertly works, even though it has not to. Everybody that is not a fascist genocidal mass murderer could agree on one third Party and kick the DNC and Reps asses. But thanks to people telling them it is impossible, you believe it to be impossible. You are gaslighting yourself thanks to your political leaders sucessfully gaslighting you.

        This generation of Americans will go down in history with failures like Chamberlain and his appeasement policies. Sucking up to whoever they can, devoid of any will to improve things or demand dignity.

          • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Man if only there was some alternative to the British Crown taking all the taxes in the Colonies and some sort of self determination for the people.

            You have your souls crushed like the people in Sovjet Russia. The system has no alternative. Obey the system. Stop dreaming. Stop demanding a better future. The system has no alternative. Obey the system.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Oh, I’m sorry, here I didn’t realize “Don’t let fascism immediately win in this election because numerous possibilities and LIVES are extinguished by fascism” was the denial of all work towards other possibilities.

              • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                So what was the last election? And what was the election before that? This is the third time now i’m hearing. “This is the election where democracy is on the line. Otherwise we get fascism. Now is not the time to look outside the system…” And you will hear the exact same thing next election again. And then again and then again. All the while the DNC will move to whatever the Reps stood for the cycle before. Remember all the fuzz about Trumps Wall? Well Biden is building it. You think all the stuff about Trans people or the whole nonsense about furries or whatever will be exclusive to the Reps? The Dems will blow into the same horn in a few years, because enough of their white middle class voter base will have been eroded by their economic policies and need a scapegoat.

                We see the same shit with “center” and “center left” all over the world becoming more and more fascist. And the Dems already started far right with some gay rights sprinkled in between. But please lets have the same argument in four years, with the goalposts being moved about what we should just accept as the “lesser” evil.

                • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  “This is the election where democracy is on the line. Otherwise we get fascism. Now is not the time to look outside the system…”

                  Yes, it turns out that if you don’t work on things between each election, you get the same issue that you had to deal with last election. But sure - vote in fascism this time! That way you won’t have to worry about having this little conundrum next election. :)

                  All the while the DNC will move to whatever the Reps stood for the cycle before.

                  Are you fucking serious.

                  Please compare the 2012 and 2024 Dem platforms, and get back to me.

                  Remember all the fuzz about Trumps Wall? Well Biden is building it.

                  lol

                  10$ says this is the “The money and legislation had already been pushed through but Biden didn’t use the power he didn’t have to unilaterally stop it” incident.

                  You think all the stuff about Trans people or the whole nonsense about furries or whatever will be exclusive to the Reps? The Dems will blow into the same horn in a few years, because enough of their white middle class voter base will have been eroded by their economic policies and need a scapegoat.

                  Do you…

                  do you not remember what the Dem Party was like on trans rights before the modern day

                  Fuck’s sake.

                  We see the same shit with “center” and “center left” all over the world becoming more and more fascist. And the Dems already started far right with some gay rights sprinkled in between. But please lets have the same argument in four years, with the goalposts being moved about what we should just accept as the “lesser” evil.

                  Cool. Your proposed solution, for this situation, right now, without resorting to “Everyone will magically convert to my ideology in the next six months”?

            • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              I slightly misspoke, how certain voting systems devolve into lesser evil voting. FPTP always devolves a 2 party system but something like STV or Ranked Choice open up the field to many more options with little downside.

          • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            (Repeating my reply from above, to a similar comment.)

            This so-called ‘law’ is a myth. Look at the legislatures of other countries that use FPTP, and count the parties that get, say, more than 5 seats. The UK has 6, Canada 4, Russia 5 and India, my country, 11. You certainly can have more than two parties.

            • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              All of those nations implement other forms of voting and mixed members representation in their various elections.

              • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                Only one of the four countries I listed does not use pure FPTP - Russia uses a mix of FPTP and party-list voting. But even if you only count the FPTP seats, and despite stuff like ballot-stuffing committed by the ruling party, 3 parties got >5 seats.

                • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_Kingdom

                  The five electoral systems used are: the single member plurality system (first-past-the-post), the multi-member plurality, the single transferable vote, the additional member system, and the supplementary vote.

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Canada

                  Although several parties are typically represented in parliament, Canada has historically had two dominant political parties: the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, which was preceded by the Progressive Conservative Party and the Conservative Party (1867–1942). Every government since Confederation has been either Liberal or Conservative with the exception of the Unionist government during World War I, which was a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals.

                  Russia and India are also fairly recent democracies or “democracy” in russias case, not having the time to have devolved from a multiparty system into a duopoly through FPTP, and Russia has a whole host of problems with oligarchy, corruption and putin changing the rules so he’s the one who’s been in constant power for like 20 years.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                Duverger’s Law is a tautology because, from a critical rationalist perspective, a tautological statement is one that 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.

                • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  small parties are disincentivized to form because they have great difficulty winning seats or representation

                  The Green Party of Canada is another example; the party received about 5% of the popular vote from 2004 to 2011 but had only won one seat (out of 308) in the House of Commons in the same span of time. Another example was seen in the 1992 U.S. presidential election, when Ross Perot’s candidacy received zero electoral votes despite receiving 19% of the popular vote.

                  This is an empirically testable claim that has come true.

          • Eldritch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            But but but! It’s always been the Democrats and Republicans fault. Even though it’s always been this way. Even before recent changes in both parties. Even though it was this way before those parties even existed! /s

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Everybody that is not a fascist genocidal mass murderer could agree on one third Party and kick the DNC and Reps asses.

          Oh, was it that easy all along? Cool, which third party are Democrats and Republicans going to agree on? After all, the voters secretly agree on all the issues, it’s just the mean ol’ representatives stopping us from coming together and singing kumbaya. 😊

        • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          “duopoly is not a law of nature”, is very, very incorrect. It is simply human nature. Market at work. Same Reason there are two “sodas” in any given area with anything else an also ran. Two big players. Just how it works when unregulated.

    • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Management is ordering pizza for the office and sends around a sheet asking what everyone wants.

      The third-party voter is the last one to get the sheet.

      There are 10 votes for pepperoni and 9 votes for cheese.

      The third party voter hates pepperoni, and thinks cheese is a bit boring, so he votes for the anchovies in his heart.

      He has wasted his vote, since cheese would be vastly preferable to him than pepperoni. That’s why everyone thinks third party voters are ridiculous.

      • distantsounds@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        To make this more realistic:

        Management decides that the pizza choices are: sardines or anchovies.

        The workers want pepperoni, but that’s not an option management allows because they are in the fishing business

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          The workers want

          God, I wonder if some people have ever even talked to other US voters in their lifetime.

            • Optional@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Oooh a poll! Shall we see if it was funded by a right wing org? Any guesses as to the methodology? 20 participants? Maybe 200?! gasp dare we dream . . . 1000?!

              That stuff isn’t usually in the articles for a reason

              • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                It’s Gallup, Gallup is generally reliable.

                The issue is that most people do not put a great deal of thought into foreign policy, and thus often have very contradictory views - such as when most American voters approved of a No-Fly Zone over Ukraine after the first days of the war, but if asked if they would support a No-Fly Zone if it had the risk of US jets shooting down Russian planes (you know, exactly what a no-fly zone IS), half of those supporting swapped their opinion.

                • Optional@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Gallup is generally reliable, for a pollster, so I looked:

                  Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted March 1-20, 2024, with a random sample of 1,016 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects for weighting.

                  Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 80% cellphone respondents and 20% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.

                  So, war-dialing and hoping (a) the person picks up (b) the person doesn’t hang up immediately © wants to give their opinion for 20 questions, and (d) yes 1,000 people out of 80 million voters. Also it was two months ago.

                  Not to mention, the headline is “Approve of Israel’s actions” not “Understands what diplomatic and political issues are involved”.

                  That’s like the message being “95% of people want ice cream for dinner, so vote out mom & dad and let’s go with the guy in the creepy van”

              • distantsounds@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                Where’s the poll that suggests people are ok with the Biden administration’s approach in Israel? Are there ANY polls that support it?

                • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I see you didn’t actually read the poll I replied with. Here, let me help you out:

                  U.S. adults are divided about whether Biden is favoring the Israelis too much (22%), favoring the Palestinians too much (16%) or striking the right balance (21%) on the Israel-Hamas war. Fully 40% say they are not sure.

              • distantsounds@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                Anyway you try to spin it, apologizing for aiding a state engaged an active genocide is really not a positive

                • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  No, it’s not. But “I’m going to give power to the guy who wants to offer unlimited support to Israel’s genocide AND start a few genocides at home too, as well as abolishing what democracy we do have in this country and selling out Ukrainians to be genocided by Russia” is not really an alternative that should be taken seriously.

    • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yes because unfortunately the voting system of your country is broken. It’s not your fault, but you have to deal with the consequences of that.

    • stanleytweedle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Third party presidential voters get well-deserved ridicule.

      Vote third party where it has a chance and where it doesn’t be pragmatic.

      • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Due to the electoral college a massive portion of the electorate, outside of a few key districts that swing whole states, coyld vote third party without changing the result.

        I think about a third of my state who voted Democrat in 2020 could vote 3rd party and blue would still win. There are plenty of 20+ point blue districts.

        So for many: voting third party sends a message, usually about a specific policy.

        Now, outside the presidency though where there’s no electoral college discarding eberyone’s vote? (Or in those few swing districts?) Different story altogether and I get that. Local elections are usually the only place a chance to win exists for third party candidates.

        • stanleytweedle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          So for many: voting third party sends a message, usually about a specific policy.

          Sure, in some states you can reasonably gamble that other voters will compensate for your ‘message’, but you might as well put that message in a bottle and toss it in the ocean.

          The politician that wins won’t give a shit about your 3rd party ‘message’ because they won anyway, and the politician that loses doesn’t matter because they lost. In an election where a 3rd party has no chance of winning your ‘message’ is basically “IGNORE ME”.

          • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yeah so I generally find most of these tactics appropriate and effective for primaries, which has only happened for President. The rest won’t happen until August.

            We are still hard in primary season for the entire House of Representatives, a third of the senate, and like a dozen governors. They all have a calculus to make over how supportive or public they’ll be on issues being protestee.

            Regardless a lot of this judgement should be reserved for the general election. I will be interested to see what the landscape will look like and the rhetoric sound like come September.

            • stanleytweedle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              All fine and good in the primary but relying on the electoral college and other blue voters in your state to let you send a ‘message’ is dangerously stupid and pointless in any presidential election, and doubly so in 2024.

              • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                For the record I have only ever personally expressed how I will likely vote for Biden if he makes it to the general. I just understand the ‘message’ people are trying to send and don’t think it is worth trying to stifle or suffocate.

                (That and I thought Panel 2 was referring to a third party voter at first, but the feathers are already ruffled now.)

                • stanleytweedle@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  I understand the ‘message’ people are trying to send too. I don’t have any capacity to ‘stifle\suffocate’ that ‘message’- but I don’t mind telling them they’re just tossing away their only real political ‘voice’ to shout into the void.

    • Hildegarde@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Voting third party has the same effect on the outcome as not voting. From the last presidential election, there were 24 times more nonvoters than third part voters.

      They blame third parties to suppress their ideas, not because of the negligible effect on the outcome.

      The 33% of eligible voters who chose not to vote could have swung the 2020 election if they voted.

      • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Well put: third party voters are often policy focused if not single-issue (and/or extreme). Which paints a target on themselves because the alternative is reaching out to non-voters. And that requires looking into why people don’t vote or what depresses voter turnout.

    • icydefiance@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Any third party that a left leaning person might vote for will only help Republicans to win elections by siphoning votes away from Democrats.

      In fact, that’s exactly why they exist.

      So yeah, they get hate, because they’re actively trying to sabotage progressive causes and usher in fascism.

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    oooh you are voting, we are truly saved and our problems are solved! why didnt i think of this!

      • umbrella@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        has it been working well for you? is that the whatabaoutism i keep hearing about?

        • Prinzigor@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Bro, he is calling u a Chinese bot, whataboutism doesn’t apply in the slightest here. If you want to use debate terms, please learn when to apply them.

            • Prinzigor@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              No I’m telling you that that isn’t whataboutism.

              Is he calling you out? Yes. Is that whataboutism? No

              Whataboutism would be “Russia is committing war crimes in ukraine” “but what about natos expansion???”

              His argument is (arguably a very snarky) way of telling you that ur opinion is biased and therefore invalid. Do you notice the difference?

    • Could it be that threatning Biden with not voting may somehow force him to use his remaining office time to fight an ongoing genocide, by that winning the public opinion of young voters and being in office for another 4 years?

      That to me is the a logical course of action.

      • umbrella@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        no, the logical course of action is stopping acceptance of such egregious policies and showing it on the streets. every aristocratic political party has showed us they are not the answer.

      • YeetPics@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        “I’ll play with the future of millions to try to manipulate one guy into making an army he isn’t in control of do what I want. This is the only logical recourse”

        -🤡

      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        If he does that, he loses the vote of the democrats that support Israel.

        Biden is in a lose-lose situation with the electorate, and is a stubborn boomer. No amount of letting Trump win and get trans people killed will change Biden’s mind.

        I get it, I fucking hate Biden too. But it is going to be a disaster if we allow Trump to get elected, just like it was the first time.

        • I agree with everything you saif but it is worth noting that those Dems who support Israel are few and may be easily offset by winning votes from other communities that are outraged by everything happening.

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Perhaps I was a bit biased in saying that, as there are some neighborhoods in my city that are predominantly democrat, and they have a number of pro-israel signs up.

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Don’t forget, Biden also has to get the independent vote. And if Biden takes a strong anti-genocide position, the GOP will bash him for it, and use it as ammunition to call him antisemitic just as they have with the college students.

            • zbyte64@awful.systems
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Smart politics would say GOP bashing Biden is a good thing in this context. Adopting GOP talking points is what gave us our current immigration policy, and that is another liability in his campaign, though much smaller than giving arms to an active genocide.

            • umbrella@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              “you don’t understand! biden has to pander to fascists or else he wont get elected to save us!”

              • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                Re-replying since you deleted your original comment:

                I’m not saying he should pander to fascists. I’m saying “here is his motivations, here is what his opponents will do, thus influencing his motivations”.

                Biden is a piece of shit, that’s well established. I’m saying that he will never listen to progressives, and efforts to get him to listen aren’t going to result in anything.

                Our efforts are better used on election reform.

      • Pleb@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yes, hit the point of my comment right in the middle. Perfectly analyzed.

        Truly, the top minds of reddit in this comment section here.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yes, I remain upset at the prospect of people voting to murder minorities and usher in fascism because it makes them feel good. Sorry that you find fascism such a minor issue, but I understand - people with such flexible morals often do very well for themselves under fascist regimes. :)

      • Pleb@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Oh, I wouldn’t exactly say I have flexible morals, which is why I vote the way I do. But I’m across the pond, I couldn’t give any less of a shit which wanker y’all vote into office next to be quite honest.

        Still, after preaching “just go vote!” for a while (not specifically from you though tbh), I see a lot of “everyone I don’t like is a tankie” and “vote for my candidate, you facist!” which doesn’t vibe well with “just go vote!” if you don’t like their choice of vote. Might feel good to you, but won’t help you.
        Hoping people vote against something rarely ever works. And when your candidate doesn’t seem to want to give the voters their reason to vote for him, well… he’ll have trouble.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          You’re absolutely right, the fact that we’ve been imploring people to take their civic duty seriously is definitely undermined by the fact that we find voting in fascism morally unacceptable. Silly me.

          • Pleb@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yes, that was totally the point of my comment.

            Anyways, have fun continuing throwing shit on each other across the pond. I’ll be watching with some popcorn.

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          But I’m across the pond, I couldn’t give any less of a shit which wanker y’all vote into office next to be quite honest.

          . . . Where to start. Um. Well . . . How’s it goin’ over there? I hear the whole Cambridge Analytica voter manipulation evilness also had some sort of effect there? Some kind of irreversible shattering of some economy or other? You even ‘benefitted’ from some Qanon virii floating over there didn’t you? And got your own anti-abortion protesters, funded and organized by the same rat bastards that do it here, I think. And more asbestos. Mmmm.

          A fascist orange rapist over here - again - isn’t going to be good for you, inasmuch as it has an effect. I suppose you might get to see Farage’s face a lot more, so that’s something.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Cool, so you don’t care if fascism wins and minorities are murdered. Unsurprising.

      • Hildegarde@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Fascism is when there are murders. That sounds completely accurate and not at all disingenuous. Thank god we have no murders because we have a non fascist president.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Oh, cool, another denier of the fascism of Trump and Republicans. It feels like I’ve accidentally walked right into the Young Conservatives Club at the local community college.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Sorry, was there another interpretation of “You think there’s going to be FASCISM when Trump gains power just because there will be MURDERS? You silly lib!” that I missed?

              • Hildegarde@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                I was sarcastically pointing out how illogical and manipulative what you were saying was. And I did so using sarcasm. I wrongly assumed you had basic literacy skills. I will be sure to keep that in mind in the future.

                I did not call you a lib. I did not label you in any way. Assigning an opinion onto someone and then arguing against that is called strawmanning and it is generally frowned upon.

                • Stardust@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  PugJesus wasn’t saying there would be no murders of minorities if Trump loses. They phrased things poorly, but what they meant was minorities are going to be thrown into concentration camps which is what the fascist nazis did.
                  Sarcasm implies you mean the opposite of what you said, generally:
                  ‘Fascism is when there are murders’
                  Yes. That is not the sole thing about fascism, but murdering everyone not in your personal social group is kind of a big deal in fascism. You making this statement sarcastic does not reflect well on you or your ability to wield the English language. If you wanted it to come across the way you wanted it to come across, you should have said ‘Fascism is about when there are murders and nothing else’.
                  However, this would have revealed a deep misunderstanding of what your opponent was actually implying, and, ironically, strawmanning them.

      • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Strawman arguments are pretty lame… Something I’d expect from conservatives really

        Maybe you should be mad at Biden for not working to get the votes? Not doing whatever it takes to get those votes is basically giving the election to Trump. Dems should know better, since this “bully them into voting” strategy failed last time too.

      • dogsoahC@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Okay, but that’s the entire reason the “left” in the US is so pointless. They just have to be less shit. They don’t even have to try too hard to avoid a genocide. They still win. But as Trump showed, that doesn’t weaken the right. The right can just say “Hey, look, the leftists don’t do shit! Now if you’d kindly be distracted from our increasing fascism…” Liberals have no recipe against fascism. At best, they just postpone it by one or two election cycles. Like, I’m not saying don’t vote for Biden. I’m glad I don’t live in the US with your stupid two-party system. I’m glad I don’t have to decide whether to vote for everything that’s wrong in that country rn, or the worse alternative. If you think voting democrat is the right move, good on you. If you want to convince others from that view, great. Just, don’t be a dick about it. That “so you’re secretely a fash, hur di hur di hur” shtick isn’t gonna do anything but alienate others further.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Liberals have no recipe against fascism. At best, they just postpone it by one or two election cycles.

          Perhaps you can clear this up by directing me towards the political ideology that has the recipe against fascism?

          • dogsoahC@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            I highly doubt that you’re gonna like this, but… communism. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe it’s anarchism. But liberal democracy has failed that task time and time again.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Would you like to inform me when and where communism has indefinitely thwarted the rise of a totalitarian regime like fascism?

                • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  Is this the same Soviet regime that ran a totalitarian society whose primary difference from fascism was the coat of red paint? The same Soviet regime that itself collapsed into modern Russia?

              • dogsoahC@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                First of all, what the fuck kind of standard is that, “indefintely”? At least it doesnt actively lead to fascism. I’d cite the “fascism is capitalism in decline” thing, but since Lenin said that iirc, that’d be like citing the bible to prove the bible.

                Second of all, socialists, communists, and anarchists were always on the forefront of fighting fascism. They were the major force in the Spanisch civil war until they lost because fascism is better at the military. They were the ones arguing the loudest against Nazis, which is why they were such a threat that the first concentration camp were made for them. In Cuba, they literally overthrew the fascist dictatorship that was there at the time. Even reformism won out in places like Chile until the USA (you know, that liberal democracy that’s all the rage now) decided they’d rather see a FASCIST DICTATOR in its place. And even though I don’t like the Soviet Union for a variety of reasons, especially once Stalin took over, they were the ones who bore the brunt of the war against the Nazis while the USA were initially only helping for profit. And yes, I am aware that the USSR also played a significant role in letting the Nazis grow to power. Like I said, Stalin (and the system he represented) bad.

                To get back to the original topic, since we both evidently disenjoy fascism, we (as in, our respective ideological groups) should maybe join in a united front against it. Not as a centrist “reach across the aisle”, just to work together on this particular issue. And I’d love to do that. But Joe seems stuck in the proud 'murican tradition of panicking at the sight of red flags and siding with fascists.

                • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  First of all, what the fuck kind of standard is that, “indefintely”?

                  Is that not the standard you’re applying to liberal democracy?

                  They were the major force in the Spanisch civil war until they lost because fascism is better at the military.

                  That’s not even close to true. The fascists won the Spanish Civil War due to a mixture of outside help and the Soviets literally backstabbing the socialists and anarchists.

                  In Cuba, they literally overthrew the fascist dictatorship that was there at the time.

                  Oh, cool. What did they replace it with?

                  And even though I don’t like the Soviet Union for a variety of reasons, especially once Stalin took over, they were the ones who bore the brunt of the war against the Nazis while the USA were initially only helping for profit.

                  Jesus Christ.

                  And yes, I am aware that the USSR also played a significant role in letting the Nazis grow to power. Like I said, Stalin (and the system he represented) bad.

                  Okay, then you are also aware that the USSR was a fascist regime painted red which engaged in a great deal of ethnic cleansing and mass murder, as well as autocratic governance and the destruction of workers’ political, civil, and economic rights.

                  So you’ve still not offered a single ideology that has actually managed to hold off totalitarianism in a way liberal democracy has not.

                  To get back to the original topic, since we both evidently disenjoy fascism, we (as in, our respective ideological groups) should maybe join in a united front against it. Not as a centrist “reach across the aisle”, just to work together on this particular issue. And I’d love to do that. But Joe seems stuck in the proud 'murican tradition of panicking at the sight of red flags and siding with fascists.

                  Cool. The United Front here is really easy. Vote for the coalition candidate; you know, the one running with the party that has DemSocs and SocDems in it in addition to moderates and neolibs; against the literal fucking fascist.

                • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  How so? The question regards indefinitely thwarting fascism, which the other commenter accused liberal democracy of being unable to do. I ask which ideology it is they think CAN indefinitely thwart fascism in a way that liberal democracy has failed to.

          • dogsoahC@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            I guess then it’s a good thing that I’m not advocating for inaction. We just have very different ideas on what to do.

            • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Perfect being the enemy of good, you’ve sided with pointless to remain pure. Such an example of futility and ignorance. But you do you.

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Liberals have no recipe against fascism. . . I’m glad I don’t live in the US with your stupid two-party system.

          Does anyone saying liberals bad in this thread live in America?

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          “We will only throw some people into a wood chipper.” is not a great platform and I understand those who dont want to be complicit.

          And by refusing to be ‘complicit’, they are instead complicit in “We will throw as many people as we can into a wood chipper”.

          Not exactly morally praiseworthy.

          The American political system is not changed in the ballot box.

          Not changed for the better, maybe. But it absolutely will be changed for the worse at the ballot box. Forgive me for not being excited for fascism.

          • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            You know who has the power not to toss people into the wood chipper? President of the United States Joe Biden.

            And the fact that currently he prefers to have many people being thrown into the wood chipper instead of not throwing some people in himself, should make you very worried about how his policies will look like, when he has no reelection to work for.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Ah, good, you’ve convinced me, I will work towards seeing the fascist who has pledged to never leave office and throw as many people in the wood chipper as possible win.

              • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                Well you are working very hard for that. Instead of holding Biden accountable but offering to vote, if he stops being a genocide supporter who runs interment camps at the border and builds the wall for Trump, you divide the people so they don’t take power and get fucked by whoever wins in the end. And with this you are demotivating people to vote in the first place, helping Trump the most.

                Congratulations. The American Elites have successfully played you, to do their bidding.

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  This comment makes me think you would literally slam your dick in a door and then be surprised when the pain of that sets in.

                • bobburger@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Lol what a shit take.

                  Don’t try to blame other people for your choices and actions. If you want to live in a Trump America, don’t vote for Biden. Just remember, it was your choice and not something “Corporate elites” made you do.

                • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Imagine literally working towards a Trump victory and thinking you’re the one who has finally thrown off the Dastardly Manipulations of the Elite™.

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          The American political system is not changed in the ballot box.

          I think it’s fascinating you wrote “in” the ballot box.

          Not to mention, the system is literally changed first and foremost by the elections. But sure, biden bad, let the orange chips fall where they may and so on.

          If you are in fact able to vote in the US presidential election, I hope you’ll do it and support all the downballot candidates as well.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I truly hope people aren’t stupid enough to be convinced by this “trickle down economics”-type bullshit

        • blazera@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          When these protesters were getting arrested i got so many upvotes for calling it fascism. Oh but Bidens the champion to save us from fascism.

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Splintering of the establishment left (SDP) versus the actual left (KPD) in the 1932 German elections was a big part of what allowed Hitler’s rise to power. Even while both were literally gun-battling in the streets with the paramilitary force that later became the SS, the KPD was calling the SDP “the main enemy” and “social fascists.” The SDP saw what was coming and allied with their conservative opponents to promote Hindenburg in the 1932 election, so that Hitler wouldn’t win, while the KPD ran its own candidate who siphoned off 13% of the vote.

    Hindenburg still barely squeaked into power, but Hitler was the only candidate with a strong unified front behind him, and on Hindenburg’s death Hitler assumed power and immediately starting killing the KPD members en masse. The SDP and KPD blamed each other, for not compromising and thus allowing Hitler to gain so much ground instead of facing a unified opposition, but at that point it didn’t really matter, and the KPD were the first grouping explicitly singled out for death once he took over.

    You can read all about it in here.

    I had someone on Lemmy tell me not that long ago that the lesson of this was that the KPD was right, and the SDP were the real enemy for compromising with the conservatives, and if they’d just been more left and earned the support of the real left people then the whole thing wouldn’t have happened.

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Lmao that was me again

      KPD was responding to the same economic distress as the NSDAP, they were right to believe the national populist movement would continue growing if they didn’t deliver on real material relief to the German people.

      That the SPD eventually fell to the NSDAP (with hindenburg placing Hitler as chancellor, allowing him to assume power after his death) certainly doesn’t exonerate their responsibility in allowing the rise of the nazis.

      That was a banger conversation, if I wasn’t on mobile I’d go back and find it.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think I got irritated and just abandoned the conversation, but we can continue.

        What you just said actually made a lot of sense and as far as I know the history, I agree with it more or less completely (and would allocate blame for Trump at most of the Bill Clinton / Nancy Pelosi type Democrats in exactly the same way for exactly the same reason)

        So if it sounded like I was exonerating them I was not. My point was, once Hitler comes around it doesn’t matter; if you’re still running a 13% spoiler candidate to weaken the alternative to Hitler, and then blaming the ones who won the election because they didn’t do a good enough job of compromising with you… I mean, you may have a case, but you’ll still be dead if Hitler wins. Surely that is relevant?

        They sure didn’t get the real material relief to the German people by not supporting Hindenburg; definitely not until 1945 and even then it came with some caveats.

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Plenty of area of agreement I think.

          I just don’t think the NSDAP would have been defeated even if the SPD and KPD somehow fully united (I probably have as much knowledge of the history as you do, or less). Fascism doesn’t work like that, it would have just continued to boil under their thin coalition until eventually they would have to put it down forcefully. Just like I don’t think beating trump in a single election will defeat the fascist movement he represents. Whoever it is that’s leading the opposition has to take (likely un-democratic) action against them if they really want to put it down, and honestly I don’t know if it’s a good thing or a bad thing that Biden wont cross that line.

          Revolutionary movements generally don’t fully resolve until the conditions that seeded them change, one way or the other. That’s why it’s important that whatever coalition that forms the opposition is serious about addressing them, and in my mind simply having the coalition isn’t enough.

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Just like I don’t think beating trump in a single election will defeat the fascist movement he represents

            I don’t think anybody is under the illusion that stopping Trump from winning would end republican fascism.

            But at the very least, delaying it is preferable. Because in that delay time we can weaken their movement, help get trans people to safety, and so on.

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Then Biden should be doing what he can to make that happen, and from where I’m standing there’s at least one thing he’s doing that his base is irate about

              If the one thing he needs to do to kick the can is be popular then woah is he not the right candidate

              • stanleytweedle@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                he not the right candidate

                He’s the less wrong candidate. Sorry reality is this hard for you but them’s the breaks.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Ah yes, remember the part where the Spartacists had a literal armed uprising because they didn’t like the prospect of participation in a democratic government? Something Luxemburg herself voted against?

        Oh, what am I saying, what I meant is “The Weimar Government should have put the gun barrel to their head and begged the Spartacists to pull the trigger on them”

        • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          She was still killed in spite of that, which was my point: establishing that the political bridge was burned; the division was not healed in time to form a united front against the Nazis.

          There is no disagreement here the SPD fought the KPD and won.

          They mainly used Freikorps to do it, and those Freikorps were nothing close to left wing or even democratic. They were imperialists and monarchists who formed the basis for other more infamous paramilitary groups. Interwar history is wild.

          • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            There is no disagreement here the SPD fought the KPD and won.

            “How dare you fight back when I try to armed-uprising you, that is very unfair and my feelings are hurt now and so I can’t support you.”

            I love the left dearly but this sounds exactly like left person logic, yes. 🙂

            the division was not healed in time to form a united front against the Nazis

            And again, it’s relevant that the SDP was willing to heal divisions with (at least some of) their enemies to fight the Nazis, and the KPD (from what you’re saying) were not (at least where the SDP was concerned).

            I have no particular dog in this fight; I’m out of my depth now in terms of what happened and who was at fault. My point is, those bitter divisions and arguments and the justifications for them that you’re talking about – however you want to allocate blame for them between the SDP and KPD – didn’t do either of them a lick of good when the NSDAP started kicking down doors and shooting them both in the back of the head, and that’s relevant to the upcoming US election.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              I have no particular dog in this fight; I’m out of my depth now in terms of what happened and who was at fault. My point is, those bitter divisions and arguments and the justifications for them that you’re talking about – however you want to allocate blame for them between the SDP and KPD – didn’t do either of them a lick of good when the NSDAP started kicking down doors and shooting them both in the back of the head, and that’s relevant to the upcoming US election.

              No, it didn’t. Which is why I’m all-in on making sure that the NSDAP doesn’t win this election.

            • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Why is it always a fake made up quote to respond to? It will sound however you want since you came up with it.

              I really was just trying to point out that the division between the SPD and KPD didn’t start in the 30s and went back further and involved some pretty complex shit regarding World War 1 and its aftermath.

              But I may have been too partizan bringing up the Freikorps: whom the SPD allied with in 1919 and some of which formed the Sturmabteilung, the Nazi paramilitary organization: in 1921. Maybe that context is too inappropriate.

              • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                I wasn’t trying to put words in their mouth; just saying how it sounded to me if they were upset that when they took up arms against the SDP in 1919, what came back to them was violent and unfair. There’s also the issue (which is maybe why I’m so unsympathetic in general) that it’s silly to still be upset in 1932 about something that happened in 1919, when the way to stay alive and keep alive a whole bunch of people who had nothing to do with either SDP or KPD, would have been for both of them to let it go and start fighting the bigger enemy.

                But yeah, maybe I picked an unkind / unfair way to make the point, you’re right. And like I say, we’re into the detail points that I really don’t know about, so I am learning also from you about all of this for the first time.

                • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I won’t launch into the end of WW1 or the civil wars and revolutions replacing monarchies and empires overnight, so I’ll just give a contextual thought.

                  1932 and 1919 are thirteen years apart.

                  Donald Trump was elected eight years ago.

                  It isn’t too crazy of a timeline, politically speaking. And for the germans their leadership was summarily executed by paramilitary groups sent by the government.

          • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            She was still killed in spite of that, which was my point: establishing that the political bridge was burned; the division was not healed in time to form a united front against the Nazis.

            And you think the division between the SPD and KPD in 1933 was due to… the actions in the chaotic post-war environment of 1919, despite periods of participation in a common united front before that and the fact that the KPD’s final break with SPD cooperation came at the behest of the Stalinist USSR, which made demands the KPD, like most interwar Communist Parties, cheerfully danced to without question?

            There is no disagreement here the SPD fought the KPD and won.

            More precisely, “There is no disagreement that the democratic government, which included the SPD, fought the armed uprising against the democratic government, supported solely by the KPD, and won”.

            • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              I am am clearly stating the political schism between the KPD and SPD from post war Germany wasn’t mended by the time of the Nazis. More examples of that division worsening isn’t really counter to that notion.

              • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                Ignoring the extended period of a united front breaking apart because the leader of the KPD was a Soviet puppet isn’t exactly “an issue in 1919 wasn’t mended 😔”

                • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Their deaths easily left a power vacuum that was filled by soviet leaning german communists, most especially after 1922 when the civil war ended and the soviets emerged victorious. While some of the prominent german communists that werent russian soviets… were dead.

                  The Nazis had formed by 1920 and the S.A. formed from some Freikorps by 1921. It isn’t like there was an expansive amount of time there.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I had someone on Lemmy tell me not that long ago that the lesson of this was that the KPD was right, and the SDP were the real enemy for compromising with the conservatives, and if they’d just been more left and earned the support of the real left people then the whole thing wouldn’t have happened.

      Yeah, that sounds like my experience on here.