this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2025
479 points (73.5% liked)
Memes
52250 readers
1212 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
that’s neat and all but it doesn’t respond to or subvert technocrit and his point in any real way.
he’s not making an argument about the origin of our current system, he’s claiming that the status quo is upheld equally by both democrats and republicans who work together to prevent change or radical politics from ever emerging in the american political psyche.
i think everyone is pointing out these similarities. somewhat ironically, i think someone like technocrit is pointing out more important similarities than someone like you who is drawing an imaginary line in the sand. regardless, the whole world is talking about the rising tide of fascism and i think it says more about you than the world or global discourse that you’d posit nobody is talking about it, bc people certainly are. it’s all we’ve talked about for 5-10 years - across the entire west and more.
i think what you’re actually noticing or upset about is that nobody seems to do anything about it…
The history that led us here should be pretty convincing evidence as to why the argument both sides are equivalent or working together is false. Only one side has ever promoted voter suppression and roll backs of protections for rights, and equality, and a desire to return to "traditional values." The U.S. history behind all of this and the creation of a moral majority, which at its core is a desire to protect and enforce white male supremacy, can be traced back to the individuals that created the Heritage Foundation.
It's fair to say the strategy the Dems have used (trying to appease moderates out of fear of losing them to the right) is a bad one bc they don't seem to understand what they're actually working against, and it also plays into the false narrative of the right as somehow being a victim to a "cultural war."
My point about victimhood being shared by fascists globally, is that there seems to be more evidence of far right leaders using the same strategies and working together globally against democracy vs there being any evidence that the modern two party system is a result of Dems working with Republicans or both sides being equivalent.
But thanks so much for explaining to me what I'm awckshully noticing.
History has shown Dems to be playing the role of wolf in sheeps clothings for over a century lmao, what are you talking about? Even the "New Deal" of FDR was actually used to placate the actual demands of the labor movement, after he promised to help if they campaigned for him, and then turned around and outlawed their strikes and busted them when he got in office. From Obama promising to close GitMo but actually accelerating it and the use of drone strikes, Biden letting Roe V Wade be overturned despite Dems for decades running on codifying it, hell even Bill Clinton is resposible for the implementation of private prisons to basically make slavery legal again.
Dems are not your friends. Sure MAGA is the BBEG, but Dems are all the henchmen with different colored shirts you need to fight on the way. They enable and support the BBEG. Sure one is worse, but the other one is still trying to fuck you over too, they're not your ally. And to realize that none of the parties are here for you is a scary thought, and many people want to desperatley push it away for the safe and comfortable thought that you have a champion to fight for you and you're not alone. Well you're not alone, but its not the Dems by your side, it's the other workers. And unfortunatley that means you'll have to get your hands dirty directly, but turning away from the truth won't make it easier.
Not to mention naming a fucking Truman VP when it was nearly certain FDR will die and war was won.
These are called politicians. They are humans like anyone else and they should never be placed on a pedestal or treated like they're above criticism for being on your team.
The both sides are the same argument denies the reality that voting in your best interest and gaining incremental progress for society is a better alternative than sitting by while the world burns around you.
Saving your support for an infallible leader who checks all your boxes, gains power and rescues society while somehow appeasing the majority and yet never compromising or screwing up something important, is a fantasy at best.
A government is composed of people. People are flawed. If you're looking to flawed people to create your ideal society rather than strategizing how to do the best you can with what you have in front of you/working towards an improved future, you're going to be spinning your wheels for all eternity waiting to be rescued.
Out of curiosity though, what is your ideal government/who is your ideal leader, worthy of your support? Who can you point to as an example of "that person/government that got it all right, and if we could just have a government or politicians more like them, everything would work itself out."
Edit: Surely somebody must come to mind? Bc if not this whole post kinda seems like a lot of bullshit
Then stop doing that. You have to hold them on a pedestal to even consider them on your team, since their actions speak much louder than words
You fundamentally misunderstand. What you are arguing for is sitting around while the world burns, while feeling like you did your part for merely voting. What I'm saying is that voting is not enough, especially when the people you have to vote for don't actually want to make things better, and even under their control shit gets incrementally worse, not better. So sitting around and just handing your vote to the people who aren't helping, especially when they know they'll get your vote just for being slightly better than the other guy, is actually doing less than nothing. Politicians have to earn your vote, thats the foubdation of democracy. When politicians don't have to earn your vote because you'll vote for them by default, they're not actually concerned with doing anything for the voters. That's not Democracy.
Thats a huge straw man. Just because all options are currently fucked and not worth standing with doesn't mean you need an infalliable one to be acceptable. Just that the current ones are far below acceptable. "I don't want to eat either entrees you brought me, because they're both piles of dog shit, even if one is filled with razor blades." "Nothing's good enough for you man unless its a perfect 5 star 5 course meal and you're gonna starve unless you eat the dog shit". You see how absurd that thought process is? It comes from fear.
Not to mention that ELECTIONS AND POLITICIANS WILL NOT SAVE US. It's not about voting in just the right way, we have to go out and demand, its the only way rights have EVER been won. Voting is just scratching the surface of political activisim, but its treated like the be all end all and people use it as an excuse to not do the real work.
This one is what you're advocating for though, just voting for not only flawed people, but people working activley against you, all while sitting back like you did your part for checking a box on a ballot.
Yes your post does kinda seems like a lot of bullshit, but I'm still happy to take time to explain. There isn't an example yet, we need to demand better, that's my whole point. Merely voting in politicians and trusting them to fix everything isn't going to work, there's no winning that way. I dunno what goalpost shift you are attempting, but just beacuse I'm accuratley pointing out that our current system and represntation is far from actually working for the people doesn't mean I have to have a fully flushed out and perfect example of an alternate for my critisms to be valid. That's ironically what you were trying to accuse me of about "saving support for an infalliable leader", but is actually your projection.
Pretending that your horse with the blinders on view of history is just objective reality doesnt make it so nor does it absolve you from having evidence based positions. You can't just handwave proof your ridiculous statements by saying "history is evidence enough".
Lmao this is funny as fuck. PSL and the Green party got sued to hell and back by the Dems not a fuckin year ago to prevent them from being on several state ballots, an action that was probably coordinated with Republicans since they conveniently did not have overlapping lawsuits. Democrats passed the fucking Patriot act and it's extensions, Democrats passed the 90s crime bill.
You are still pretending rhetorical and strategic differences are just fundamentally unsurmountable divisions while outright denying the reality that these two parties approve of the same policies with their actions, and rarely do Democrats expend as much energy rolling back the most reactionary policies of the Reps as they do chiding leftists or demanding donations or passing bills in support of Zionism and the MIC.
Yeah let's pretend the green party/Jill Stein doesn't intentionally promote propaganda or accept GOP bribes to split tickets. Or the fact that the European Greens recognized what Stein/the U.S. Green Party has turned into and literally begged her to drop out for the sake of democracy
And let's also pretend the democratic socialists party didn't recognize the PSL is also astroturfy and propaganda fueled as fuck...
They do have a right to be on the ballot even if it was just to intentionally split the vote in favor of the GOP and global oligarchs that provide their campaigns with financial support. So let's also pretend that the Democrats calling that shit out and using their establishment bank account to sue them, is the same as redrawing district lines and voter suppression tactics.
Who is the individual or government that actually passes your purity test? PSL and the American Green party?
It's not antidemocratic to sue perfectly legal candidates bc you don't want anyone to vote for those people?
Scratch a liberal.