Libs when voting for the "lesser evil"
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
127 points (86.3% liked)
Memes
51385 readers
1197 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
Neolibs are the ones who pushed Harris to capture the conservative vote.
Weβre finally starting the age of the progressives.
I know, let's vote for hell on earth instead. That'll surely clean things right up.
Voting is a very small part of what the average person can do to use their political power.
I mean, even this kind of argument doesn't really work in reality. We already live in "hell on earth", and via electorialism usually two choices are given: the progressive "nothing ever happens" option (so your socdems, democrats, you'll be lucky to get a good policy or two but no real change to the status quo) or "literally hitler" option, maybe some parties that stand in the middle of the spectrum if the country is "advanced" enough.
In other words, via electorialism you can either preserve the hell on earth or make it worse, and the process of voting legitimizes this status quo as it's what "people have decided" rather than who the ruling class cast as candidates, who had the most money and media influence for campaigning.
It's important to see electorialism for what it truly is.
Oh dear, the shitlibs are still using the 'lesser evil' argument!
Neoliberalism is all about creating hell on earth
The "Hell on Earth" is just yet more capitalist/empire propaganda to scare you into thinking exactly this so you keep voting for the uniparty
Or maybe the uniparty is a bad enough option so you keep not voting for it and allowing Hell On Earth instead. Fuck em both, but let's stop pretending we are superior for not voting, that's not the point.
Depending on the context, this may or may not be a false dichotomy.
If considering the act of voting in an election in a country with a two party system, each with a different shade of neoliberalism, then there are two choices realistically, and picking the lesser evil is a decent moral choice.
If considering other countries or primaries where there are more than two options polling above 2%, then it'd be a false dichotomy.
The reason it's a false dichotomy is because the implicit point of the OP is that revolution is necessary. The original commenter either didn't pick that up or ignored it, centering voting as the primary means of political engagement without addressing the point raised by the OP.