• Octagon9561@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Yes and the other side enables them. It’s fascists vs oligarchs that benefit from fascists. We’re not living in a democracy. People need to realize you can’t just vote fascism away. The entire system should be thrown into the dustbin of history.

    • DagwoodIII@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      102
      ·
      9 months ago

      You do realize that you can both vote and work to destroy the system at the same time, right?

      It’s like when you were in school and you could do math and then play with crayons and then have a nap, all in one day.

      • Octagon9561@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        9 months ago

        You’re missing my point entirely. I’m not gonna say don’t vote but also let’s not pretend that’s how we’ll get rid of fascism because that’s simply not how it works. The neoliberal system actively benefits from it, just look at how many companies are in bed with the Trump regime. Not to mention Palentir, Flock and others.

      • luierik@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        9 months ago

        Respectfully, I do not think you understand what was meant by that comment. Voting does not work if both parties work have eachother’s back (even though it does not seem like it on the outside)

          • luierik@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            9 months ago

            Keeping up appearances maybe. I mean, how hard have Democrats fought back against this mess? Can’t really say they fought hard

        • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Nah, just putting words together doesn’t make them true, and they aren’t. The parties consistently vote differently & non-cooperatively on legislation as roll call votes & their analyses show.

          • According to roll call analysis, non-cooperation in Congress has increased exponentially over at least 6 decades, and dissatisfaction with weak congressional productivity may be due to harder ideologues failing to realize that.

            Excerpts

            partisanship or non-cooperation in the U.S. Congress has been increasing exponentially for over 60 years with no sign of abating or reversing

            See graphs of probability distributions of cross- & same-party pair agreements increasingly diverge over congressional sessions. See networks of pairwise agreements between members for each congressional session increasingly split by party over time. From historical heights of cross-party cooperation around the 1970s, cross-party agreement has declined significantly at an exponential rate as same-party agreement has grown.

            Cooperator prevalence has decreased by two orders of magnitude from the 1970s to 2000s. From 1967 to 1979, Congress often had over 10,000 cooperators (max: 12,921) and was comprised of at least 10% cooperators (max: 13.4%), i.e. at least 10% of CP pairs agreed on more issues than SP pairs. In comparison, 2001–2010 held fewer than 1,500 cooperators (min: 181) with fewer than 1.5% (min: 0.2%) of CP pairs acting as cooperators (Table 1). Longitudinally, partisanship/non-cooperation has been increasing at an annual rate of about 5% over the last 60 years. The average number of disagreements on roll call votes between CP pairs is increasing exponentially (Fig 3A), as illustrated by an exponential growth model in the form of y = c₀eγt which exhibits a fit (F₃₁ = 236.22, α = 0.05, R² = 0.88, p < 0.0001).

            The harder ideologues who claim their parties aren’t partisan enough instead of recognizing the partisanship is peaking may paradoxically be contributing to their own dissatisfaction with congressional productivity.

            Our analysis shows that Congressional partisanship has been increasing exponentially for over 60 years, and has had negative effects on Congressional productivity. This is particularly apparent in the steady reduction of the number of bills introduced onto the floor, suggesting that the primary negative effect of increasing partisanship is a loss of Congressional innovation.

            This increase in non-cooperation leads to an interesting electoral paradox. While U.S. voters have been selecting increasingly partisan representatives for 40 years, public opinion of the U.S. Congress has been steadily declining.

            Voters might believe that highly partisan candidates will ‘tip the scale’ in one party’s favor. However, based on correlations shown here, a partisan candidate may lack cooperation needed to pass legislation.

            Current affairs do not explain this height in party division.

            Certainly current affairs do not seem to divide potential cooperators, as cross-party relationships peaked in arguably the most tumultuous period in recent U.S. history, marked with numerous political assassinations and Vietnam War and the resignation of President Nixon, as illustrated by others, such as [23–25].

          • DW-NOMINATE scores of congressional voting records confirm increasingly polarized party voting.

          • An analysis of party conformity over the last 2 decades finds higher party unity among Democrats.

            In the House and the Senate, the average party conformity score was higher for Democrats than Republicans over the nearly 18,000 total votes taken. Democrats in the House voted with their party 90.4 percent of the time; Republicans in the House, 89.3 percent of the time. In the Senate, the gulf was wider: Democrats lined up 89.8 percent of the time while Republicans did so only 86.6 percent of the time.

            Over the past 20 years, Democrats have, in fact, been more likely to stick together on votes than have Republicans.

          Not voting as hardline ideologues would want doesn’t imply they aren’t the representatives people voted for or the parties are cooperating. More than ever, the parties largely aren’t cooperating, because they’re as partisan people voted (particularly on the right).

    • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      ·
      9 months ago

      “I don’t particularly like the other guys, so in practice I’m fine with Nazi’s in power”

      – smartest .ml user.

      • radiouser@crazypeople.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        9 months ago

        Unfortunate you felt the need to change their words and ridicule them instead of engaging with their actual point.

        They didn’t say they were “fine with Nazis in power.” They argued the system itself is broken; when the choice is between fascists and those who enable them, you’re not living in a functioning democracy. Voting can’t fix a game that’s already rigged.

        Mocking them just avoids the harder conversation but you do you boo.

        • Soulg@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          39
          ·
          9 months ago

          Because they had no point and deserve to be ridiculed. That thought process is precisely what got us here, and they decide to continue to double down.

          Of course Gaza would still be a humanitarian nightmare, but none of the other things happening right now would have been happening if Harris won, and if you can’t see that then you just should never vote again period.

          • Jack@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            “the brown people would still be dying, but who cares”

            – the regular Dem

            • Afaithfulnihilist@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              23
              ·
              9 months ago

              It’s weird that you are unwilling to see that Trump is worse than harris. It’s like the difference between losing a finger and losing a hand. Yes both are bad but surely you can see that one is worse?

              It’s also weird that you would characterize the other comments so dishonestly. Like that’s not snark it’s just bullshit.

          • radiouser@crazypeople.online
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            You’ve perfectly illustrated the original point. You’re essentially arguing: ‘This side is objectively less bad, so you must support them, and if you don’t, you’re the problem.’But that’s the very enablement they were talking about.

            The argument isn’t that “Harris vs. Trump is the same.” It’s that a system which only offers a ‘lesser evil’ every four years, while tolerating the growth of fascism and protecting oligarchic interests the rest of the time, is fundamentally broken. Demanding endless, un-critical support for the ‘lesser evil’ is what allows the whole cycle to continue. You’re proving their despair correct by saying the only permissible choice is to play a rigged game.

          • wpb@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            humanitarian nightmare

            Genocide. The word is genocide. A genocide that doesn’t just spring up out of nowhere and kind of “happens”, but is actively being committed by Israel and the United States since October 8th 2023.

    • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      The entire system should be thrown into the dustbin of history.

      Gotta love the geniuses that chime in with this infinite wisdom then fuck back off to do anything other than provide real solutions.