Asklemmy

I think it's because of stuff like this:

I'm not a U.S.A-ian. From my view(might be too critical), I don't think the foreign policy would be greatly affected by the President or party, unless there's some massive movement and notion of losing resources like during the invasion of Vietnam.

Lol, living in a world where "anti-genocide" is actually a thing people say is messed up.

Sometimes, I see a quality discussion between principled people who care deeply about the issues. They both want to do what’s best, but simply disagree on what "best" is.

Their opinions can be so far apart, though, that they’re unable to even comprehend the other position.

I think something that contributes to people talking past each other here is a difference in belief in how necessary/desirable revolution/overthrow of the U.S government is. Like many of the people who I've talked to online, who advocate not voting and are also highly engaged, believe in revolution as the necessary alternative. Which does make sense. It's hard to believe that the system is fundamentally genocidal and not worth working within (by voting for the lesser evil) without also believing that the solution is to overthrow that system.

And in that case, we're discussing the wrong thing. Like the question isn't whether you should vote or not . it's whether the system is worth preserving (and of course what do you do to change it. How much violence in a revolution is necessary/acceptable). Like if you believe it is worth preserving, then clearly you should vote. And if you believe it isn't, there's stronger case for not voting and instead working on a revolution.

Does anyone here believe that revolution isn't necessary and also that voting for the lesser isn't necessary?

The opposite is more plausible to me: believing in the necessity of revolution while also voting

Personally I believe that revolution or its attempt is unlikely to effective and voting+activism is more effective, and also requires agreement from fewer people in order to progress on its goals. Tragically, this likely means that thousands more people will be murdered, but I don't know what can actually be effective at stopping that.

Democrats: "Either you vote us or you are fucked. And no you won't get what you really want (the end of the genocide, healthcare, whatever), but you can choose to eat out shit or the republican's. Are you happy with that? No? Fuck you and vote Harris anyway ah ah ah. You don't have a choice, we don't give a shit about you and your problems but you have to vote us. You have to."

You see, people are realising that their vote is useless by design, and maybe the only way to change something is to punish the party that pretend to be the good one, the one that pretend to be at your side and pretend to work for you but it really doesn't.

They are making you believe that democracy is just about preventing the others to get elected because they are worst. No it's not, and you should stop being a victim and do something, anything, to force them to change. Even if you get 4 years of Trump: whoever think that it makes a difference is delusional, he's just blatant fascist while Harris is secretly fascist. They are just two different seasoning for the same plate of shit.

Never try and figure out single issue voters, they tend to be dumb as fuck

Why in the world would you make this thread? Almost every single day for at least the last month (and still often beforehand) there have been threads where the liberals and the leftists aggressively talk in circles on this issue. The odds of you hearing anything new are incredibly low, and you might as well just go back to .ml's c/news threads for the same material.

I just can't keep having people yell the same nonsense at me over and over. If you're really badly in need of leftist takes, I'll DM you on request, but I don't really want to talk about it publicly anymore except in more convincingly leftist spaces than .ml has been rendered by its federation.

It's the difference between those for whom leftism is an aesthetic and those who want material progress. Those who value the aesthetic can't bear to compromise their aesthetic by voting for Harris, while those who care about people's material conditions and doing work to actually make progress do vote for her.

Asking this question on the tankie/bootlicker instance... That's brave.

Could be bad actors trying to sway the vote. Could be sweet summer children who believe the means justify the end.