I understand what you’re getting at but I don’t know what kind of answer you want here. Are you suggesting that violence is the only way to achieve change? Are you suggesting that third party candidates could win a national election and then eliminate the two-party system? Are you suggesting that electing more Republicans will result in a political future that offers more power to voters to choose their own government? Do you think that electing fascists will accelerate the collapse of the state and then a more progressive ideology will rise from the ashes? Are you just cool with what the Republican party looks like right now and the way that they govern?
Do I need to specify that I’m not saying you should vote for every Democrat no matter what and that you really should consider candidates as individuals?
I guess I see the Democratic party as a deeply flawed party (with abysmally out of touch leadership) that needs serious reform and I see the Republican party as a cult of christofascist fucks that need to be defeated before they completely erode individual rights and entrench their own power for generations.
So yes. I get the contradiction in saying “You should vote for one of the two parties in order to create a political landscape where it is possible to one day move beyond the two-party system”. Partisanship makes everything harder. But if you really think both parties are the same and that it doesn’t matter which one you pick then I don’t know what to tell you.
Your thesis is fundamentally flawed, if we are ever going to get an answer you need to stop getting mad at the people working to help you find a solution.
What I (and others) are trying to tell you is that the christofascist fuck cult goes much deeper than the surface level that you are fixated on. The “deep flaws” you see in the Democratic party aren’t bugs, they’re ‘features’.
The current status quo is deeply broken, I think we can both agree on that, yes?
The threat of violence (along with capability) has historically been a very effective tool for change (for better and worse), but I do no not see it being effective in a world where drone strikes, autonomous murder copters and nuclear weapons are a thing.
I also argue that the concept of electoralism is fundamentally broken and so electing more Republicans, Democrats, 3rd parties, goldfish, etc. is not going to solve/change anything either.
Accelerationism replaces current problems with worse ones, but my understanding is that if you’re focus is on your grandchildren and thinking in the timescale of centuries then maybe. IMO it’s one hell of a big gamble with an incredibly high cost and low odds of substantial/any progress.
I suppose I don’t see that as a productive perspective? You’re not offering any solutions or actions to take to enact the change you want to see besides doing nothing until we collectively figure out how to have a revolution.
The system is flawed. Maybe you’re right that it is fundamentally broken and cannot be reformed but disengaging from voting only supports the status quo and those that are already in power. I think it’s worth it to vote for candidates that share some of the same values as me even if they aren’t perfect while continuing to put political pressure on leaders that are not serving the public effectively. I would vote for someone one day and join a protest against them the next day, I do not see that as a contradiction. That is just being civically engaged.
Also I know I’m probably coming in hot here but I’m truly not mad or upset. I think these are the sorts of conversations on Lemmy that are really great and hard to have in other settings. I appreciate your thoughtful responses. It seems like we’re pretty aligned on what the problems are. I’m very open to solutions that don’t involve harming others but if you aren’t a voter I’d strongly encourage you to consider voting, though I agree that voting alone will not solve every problem.
Lol, I definitely didn’t interpret you coming in hot at all. I made the mistake of engaging in on a few other ‘hot button’ threads the last couple of days and you have been, by far, the most pleasant, insightful and willing to engage in good faith. It’s very much appreciated <3.
Action for action’s sake just makes everyone tired and unable to act when it’s necessary. I’m not advocating “doing nothing” I’m advocating for intentionality, thoughtfulness, a hefty dose of cynicism and acting out of evidence instead of idealism.
I’m not saying don’t vote, I’m saying be realistic about what it can and cannot accomplish. The reason I often end up in these sorts of conversations is due to the common trend of people refusing to engage or help those directly in front of them because of some variation of ‘they voted for things to be different’ and so feel entitled to not get their hands dirty as well as a smug “not my problem, I did my part” or “that problem has already been solved, it’s just not fully implemented”. In either case it often leads to them being an active barrier to helping others and intentionally choosing to harm others. Which makes even doing small things like providing food, first aid, escape etc. sooooo much harder than it needs to be.
The problem though is it doesn’t matter how many individual fires you put out, it doesn’t scale up and doesn’t affect the root cause of any of them and that’s what I was replying “I don’t have a good answer to” to. Especially since each individual problem is probably going to end up needing a different approach.
So until we can figure out how to turn off the ‘light everything on fire machine’ it seems like we’re pretty aligned on putting out fires where we can, when we can. Keep fighting the good fight, and good luck!
I suppose I’m open to suggestions?
I understand what you’re getting at but I don’t know what kind of answer you want here. Are you suggesting that violence is the only way to achieve change? Are you suggesting that third party candidates could win a national election and then eliminate the two-party system? Are you suggesting that electing more Republicans will result in a political future that offers more power to voters to choose their own government? Do you think that electing fascists will accelerate the collapse of the state and then a more progressive ideology will rise from the ashes? Are you just cool with what the Republican party looks like right now and the way that they govern?
Do I need to specify that I’m not saying you should vote for every Democrat no matter what and that you really should consider candidates as individuals?
I guess I see the Democratic party as a deeply flawed party (with abysmally out of touch leadership) that needs serious reform and I see the Republican party as a cult of christofascist fucks that need to be defeated before they completely erode individual rights and entrench their own power for generations.
So yes. I get the contradiction in saying “You should vote for one of the two parties in order to create a political landscape where it is possible to one day move beyond the two-party system”. Partisanship makes everything harder. But if you really think both parties are the same and that it doesn’t matter which one you pick then I don’t know what to tell you.
I don’t have a good answer for you, I have a:
What I (and others) are trying to tell you is that the christofascist fuck cult goes much deeper than the surface level that you are fixated on. The “deep flaws” you see in the Democratic party aren’t bugs, they’re ‘features’.
The current status quo is deeply broken, I think we can both agree on that, yes?
The threat of violence (along with capability) has historically been a very effective tool for change (for better and worse), but I do no not see it being effective in a world where drone strikes, autonomous murder copters and nuclear weapons are a thing.
I also argue that the concept of electoralism is fundamentally broken and so electing more Republicans, Democrats, 3rd parties, goldfish, etc. is not going to solve/change anything either.
Accelerationism replaces current problems with worse ones, but my understanding is that if you’re focus is on your grandchildren and thinking in the timescale of centuries then maybe. IMO it’s one hell of a big gamble with an incredibly high cost and low odds of substantial/any progress.
What are your thoughts?
I suppose I don’t see that as a productive perspective? You’re not offering any solutions or actions to take to enact the change you want to see besides doing nothing until we collectively figure out how to have a revolution.
The system is flawed. Maybe you’re right that it is fundamentally broken and cannot be reformed but disengaging from voting only supports the status quo and those that are already in power. I think it’s worth it to vote for candidates that share some of the same values as me even if they aren’t perfect while continuing to put political pressure on leaders that are not serving the public effectively. I would vote for someone one day and join a protest against them the next day, I do not see that as a contradiction. That is just being civically engaged.
Also I know I’m probably coming in hot here but I’m truly not mad or upset. I think these are the sorts of conversations on Lemmy that are really great and hard to have in other settings. I appreciate your thoughtful responses. It seems like we’re pretty aligned on what the problems are. I’m very open to solutions that don’t involve harming others but if you aren’t a voter I’d strongly encourage you to consider voting, though I agree that voting alone will not solve every problem.
Lol, I definitely didn’t interpret you coming in hot at all. I made the mistake of engaging in on a few other ‘hot button’ threads the last couple of days and you have been, by far, the most pleasant, insightful and willing to engage in good faith. It’s very much appreciated <3.
Action for action’s sake just makes everyone tired and unable to act when it’s necessary. I’m not advocating “doing nothing” I’m advocating for intentionality, thoughtfulness, a hefty dose of cynicism and acting out of evidence instead of idealism.
I’m not saying don’t vote, I’m saying be realistic about what it can and cannot accomplish. The reason I often end up in these sorts of conversations is due to the common trend of people refusing to engage or help those directly in front of them because of some variation of ‘they voted for things to be different’ and so feel entitled to not get their hands dirty as well as a smug “not my problem, I did my part” or “that problem has already been solved, it’s just not fully implemented”. In either case it often leads to them being an active barrier to helping others and intentionally choosing to harm others. Which makes even doing small things like providing food, first aid, escape etc. sooooo much harder than it needs to be.
The problem though is it doesn’t matter how many individual fires you put out, it doesn’t scale up and doesn’t affect the root cause of any of them and that’s what I was replying “I don’t have a good answer to” to. Especially since each individual problem is probably going to end up needing a different approach.
So until we can figure out how to turn off the ‘light everything on fire machine’ it seems like we’re pretty aligned on putting out fires where we can, when we can. Keep fighting the good fight, and good luck!