this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2025
615 points (88.2% liked)
Memes
53323 readers
1380 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
Last election the choice was between Palestinian genocide and Palestinian genocide. You are smoking crack if you think the oligarchy is ever going to provide you with a meaningful choice to loosen their hold on you through the civic ritual of voting.
You people really are hell bent on reducing the word "genocide" to meaninglessness
This line is smoking gun proof that everyone in this thread trying to engage with you is talking exclusively over your head.
I take it that means you disagree. Well congratulations, your orange man won. Was it worth it?
He’s not our man. Previously:
The game is rigged. The election cycle’s pomp and circumstance is to divert your energy and attention from the fact that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.
No, he's not. Despite that, there sure are a lot of folks here who were eager to hand him the keys of the country, and continue to to defend their choice.
Mostly agree, with the caveat that it's not all pomp and circumstance, only mostly pomp and circumstance. Take genocide for example, which seems to be the theme of the thread: we didn't get the choice of no genocide, our only options were more vs less. Those are shitty options, but if we have that wiggle room, it's worth voting for less in order to prevent more. Damage mitigation. Still genocide, still shitty options, but tangibly distinct options.
We're given a crumb of freedom - use it. It's the only official voice we've got.
Fortunately there lots of other options too - everything from shouting into the void like I'm doing here in this thread, to throwing molotovs at Nazis: each tool comes with its own risk-to-impact ratio. Voting is low impact, but it's safe and (for most people) accessible. It's the bare minimum.
There's a lot of strawman in this thread against the non-existent argument of voting and only voting. I'm with you on that one: that would be fucking stupid. But that's not what I'm advocating for.
Bro you've been reduced to yelling "This is what you wanted!!!" at the people telling you none of this was necessary, it's pathetic. Every day liberals prove there is no bottom to how low they will go to drown out their conscience
Well, you got your "pragmatic" genocide and then some. You got your guy in to stop Trump, and he immediately shit the bed. Here we are again. You've learned nothing.
So you knowingly voted to throw Palestinians under the extermination bus, is that it? And you consider yourself to be on the right side of history? And you never considered that perhaps your slavish ideological devotion to following the rules of a fascist political system was slow-boiling you into a fascist?
You're talking about the ten years of ethnic cleansing the Ukranian nazi government was doing to ethnic Russians within its borders, right? You wouldn't possibly consider yourself to be against genocide while supporting these guys, right? Because nobody could possibly be that deluded, right? Tell me you're not that programmed.
The bus was already headed for the Palestinians, and we were well past the point of being able to stop it. I voted to make a last ditch effort to turn the wheel toward the part of the crowd with the fewest people. YOU voted to step on the gas.
When did I say to follow the rules? I said use all the tools we've got - whether those tools are legal or not, idgaf. Voting happens to be legal, so yay I guess, but that's not why you should do it.
Why would any of that change my opinion of being against killing the people of Ukraine? Russia's obviously doing some horrible shit, but I'd be against a genocide on them too. Same with Israel or any other nation that's decided to play the villain - none of that shit justifies attacking their civilians. ...is this really a controversial take?
You are doing the thing right now. The other choice is "none of those things," actually, and you don't get that by voting harder because as you've just demonstrated you were not given the choice. Is any genocide acceptable to you? The line is never "less genocide," it is "no genocide."
All that does is allow the other voters to make the decision on your behalf - but it's still a dichotomy. We need a fuckton of systemic change before it'll be anything else. You can opt out or vote for a spoiler, but until we see that change it's going to red or blue every time. So why not use your vote for damage control while pushing for real change with your other tools?
What's acceptable to me vs not doesn't determine our options. The only line was between 'more genocide' and 'less genocide'. I wish 'no genocide' was an option, but that's not the reality we live in. Given those options, I'll choose 'less genocide' every time. The majority of our voters disagree, and with the help of propaganda like yours, they succeeded - YOU succeeded - in choosing 'more genocide'. Congrats. Was it worth it?
Liberals can have a little genocide, as a treat.
There was a choice. Primaries. Americans rejected every option of no genocide, so the final round had genocide A or genocide B. Same way that they rejected Bernie Sanders a few times.