The only solution is for people to stop seeing criticism of Democrats as endorsement for Republicans. That will require shattering their bubble of perception that they are the good guys vs the bad.
That’s what agitation is, it’s direct confrontational and in your face. It’s to make you have to rationalise your views and try to defend the indefensible.
I mean, every registered Republican is a bad guy, at least within the last 20 years, probably longer but I don’t have enough historical context to know that for sure. With the Democrats it’s more nuanced but it can range from Chuck Schumer working to continue enabling genocide to Zohran Mamdani working for the people.
Imagine two groups of people, one is all Nazis and the other is 60% Nazis, 35% Nazi apologists, and 5% potentially decent people.
Would you hang out with the slightly less Nazi group? What do you think that would make you if you hung around with 60% Nazis and their apologists?
I know what my answer would be, and it would be to hang around neither group and instead plan how to see very real harm come to them as my enemies. I wouldn’t defend them for being less Nazi, because any amount of Nazi is indefensible.
I get your meaning. It’s infuriating and exhausting that I have to constantly fight for incremental progress and I hate that there are still terrible actors in the party. That’s why I champion progressives and celebrate every time one gets in.
The fact of the matter is not engaging gets (even more) people killed and I will always hold them accountable but that also means holding myself and the other side accountable. Does it stop at the ballot box? No. You protest, you educate, you arm.
Both Nazi groups were starting wars and running camps. You should be outraged but you’re too busy defending one lot of murderers because they murder slightly less.
Correction: starting more wars, AND succeeding in them.
And the other group was not running death camps. My Hispanic family and friends didn’t have to worry that they’ll be detained with papers at least under Biden, or Obama. That doesn’t mean those presidents weren’t promoting an oligarchy, or didn’t make it worse. But it did mean my parents etc could at least go vote for a more progressive candidate without the chance of being detained.
But hey, you go be a dumbass if you want.
Doubt y’all will have legitimate elections over there anymore anyway. I moved away long ago seeing potential allies like you were too stupid to see the forest for the trees and everyone else was even worse off. There was no hope for that sinking ship, and seeing Lemmy fall for the same dumbass propaganda (that’s already been revealed to be perpetuated by Russia and Israel) come election time shows nothing has changed.
PS: the literal Nazis promoted 3rd party voting once they were gaining majorities too. Maybe you should look up why that’s when they started to, and why they wanted to promote that, during that point in time.
PS: the literal Nazis promoted 3rd party voting once they were gaining majorities too.
The Weimar Republic had a multiparty, parliamentary system. There was no “third party” there were just “parties.” The Nazis always supported “third party voting” (if you mean voting for a minority party) because they were a new party trying to attract votes.
Is this claim actually tethered to reality in some way?
They had “multiparty” much like Canada does currently by the time the Nazis were a majority party.
As in, it was 2 major parties and satellite parties that barely made a difference. They just needed a bit of extra support to get the super majority, and to achieve this they got people to vote for the minority party which supported them, and ran propaganda to get people to vote for a minority party that was unpopular instead of their main opposition to divide the opposition vote.
So to reiterate the point, “third party” doesn’t mean literally “a third party”, much like in the USA it doesn’t either; there’s technically also other parties than just Democrats or Republicans, like the Green party and the Libertarian party. And much like the Nazis did, the Republicans supported and welcomed in the Libertarians while launching propaganda to divide votes from the Democrats to the Green party (the Green party itself likely compromised) in past elections.
As in, it was 2 major parties and satellite parties that barely made a difference.
??? Which were the two major parties, and which were the ones that barely made a difference? Can you be specific? I literally have no idea what you’re talking about.
The governing coalition was led by the SDP but also included several center-right parties which exerted influence by keeping the SDP from enacting any significant reforms to address the economic crisis. The worsening conditions and uncontrolled unemployment hurt the popularity of the coalition, and led to people moving to the far-left KPD and far-right Nazis. As it became impossible to maintain that coalition government, the SDP and their partners endorsed Hindenburg for president as a “lesser evil” to stop Hitler, and they got what they wanted except that Hindenburg then appointed Hitler as chancellor which allowed him to seize power.
You seem to be projecting modern day US politics into the situation because you’re too lazy to actually learn about or understand the situation.
That logic breaks down with elections where choosing to not vote instead of voting for the slightly less nazi group results in a higher chance of the 100% nazis winning.
The only solution is for people to stop seeing criticism of Democrats as endorsement for Republicans
Did you know there are mathematicians who study fairness and bias in voting systems? Well, is possible for you to convince those mathematicians of that fact, but first you’ll have to abolish First Past The Post and replace it with a condorcet method.
Now I’m not using that as a gotcha. I think changing America’s voting system is a great idea. But it’s also really hard. So I’ll support you in trying to do that. But if you want to change people’s understanding of the system without changing the system, I don’t think that’s a serious ask, because these people you’re criticising tend to have a good understanding of the mathematics.
Let me guess, your strategy for changing the voting system is to vote for a lesser evil in the broken system.
“My car broke down” “Well then, just drive it to the mechanic!” what a load of nonsense. A broken tool won’t fix itself.
“Mathematics” my ass. I’m constantly in awe of the fact that most of the ways I disagree with you are that you are too attached to treating human social constructs as objectively real. The whole electoral system was created by humans and is maintained only through faith, if it proves incapable of functioning as is required by the actually real physical constraints of planet earth, then it will change. The gap between what must, necessarily happen, and what this social construct tells us is possible widens every day. One way or another, things the system claims are “impossible” are going to happen, and it can either adapt or it can go down in flames.
The idea that electoral strategy is purely dictated by “mathematics,” that liberalism is somehow an objective, unchangeable facet of reality, is completely absurd.
The only solution is for people to stop seeing criticism of Democrats as endorsement for Republicans. That will require shattering their bubble of perception that they are the good guys vs the bad.
That’s what agitation is, it’s direct confrontational and in your face. It’s to make you have to rationalise your views and try to defend the indefensible.
I mean, every registered Republican is a bad guy, at least within the last 20 years, probably longer but I don’t have enough historical context to know that for sure. With the Democrats it’s more nuanced but it can range from Chuck Schumer working to continue enabling genocide to Zohran Mamdani working for the people.
Imagine two groups of people, one is all Nazis and the other is 60% Nazis, 35% Nazi apologists, and 5% potentially decent people.
Would you hang out with the slightly less Nazi group? What do you think that would make you if you hung around with 60% Nazis and their apologists?
I know what my answer would be, and it would be to hang around neither group and instead plan how to see very real harm come to them as my enemies. I wouldn’t defend them for being less Nazi, because any amount of Nazi is indefensible.
I get your meaning. It’s infuriating and exhausting that I have to constantly fight for incremental progress and I hate that there are still terrible actors in the party. That’s why I champion progressives and celebrate every time one gets in.
The fact of the matter is not engaging gets (even more) people killed and I will always hold them accountable but that also means holding myself and the other side accountable. Does it stop at the ballot box? No. You protest, you educate, you arm.
This analogy would work if the full Nazi group wasn’t already in power starting wars and running camps.
Both Nazi groups were starting wars and running camps. You should be outraged but you’re too busy defending one lot of murderers because they murder slightly less.
Right.
Correction: starting more wars, AND succeeding in them.
And the other group was not running death camps. My Hispanic family and friends didn’t have to worry that they’ll be detained with papers at least under Biden, or Obama. That doesn’t mean those presidents weren’t promoting an oligarchy, or didn’t make it worse. But it did mean my parents etc could at least go vote for a more progressive candidate without the chance of being detained.
But hey, you go be a dumbass if you want. Doubt y’all will have legitimate elections over there anymore anyway. I moved away long ago seeing potential allies like you were too stupid to see the forest for the trees and everyone else was even worse off. There was no hope for that sinking ship, and seeing Lemmy fall for the same dumbass propaganda (that’s already been revealed to be perpetuated by Russia and Israel) come election time shows nothing has changed.
PS: the literal Nazis promoted 3rd party voting once they were gaining majorities too. Maybe you should look up why that’s when they started to, and why they wanted to promote that, during that point in time.
The Weimar Republic had a multiparty, parliamentary system. There was no “third party” there were just “parties.” The Nazis always supported “third party voting” (if you mean voting for a minority party) because they were a new party trying to attract votes.
Is this claim actually tethered to reality in some way?
They had “multiparty” much like Canada does currently by the time the Nazis were a majority party.
As in, it was 2 major parties and satellite parties that barely made a difference. They just needed a bit of extra support to get the super majority, and to achieve this they got people to vote for the minority party which supported them, and ran propaganda to get people to vote for a minority party that was unpopular instead of their main opposition to divide the opposition vote.
So to reiterate the point, “third party” doesn’t mean literally “a third party”, much like in the USA it doesn’t either; there’s technically also other parties than just Democrats or Republicans, like the Green party and the Libertarian party. And much like the Nazis did, the Republicans supported and welcomed in the Libertarians while launching propaganda to divide votes from the Democrats to the Green party (the Green party itself likely compromised) in past elections.
??? Which were the two major parties, and which were the ones that barely made a difference? Can you be specific? I literally have no idea what you’re talking about.
The governing coalition was led by the SDP but also included several center-right parties which exerted influence by keeping the SDP from enacting any significant reforms to address the economic crisis. The worsening conditions and uncontrolled unemployment hurt the popularity of the coalition, and led to people moving to the far-left KPD and far-right Nazis. As it became impossible to maintain that coalition government, the SDP and their partners endorsed Hindenburg for president as a “lesser evil” to stop Hitler, and they got what they wanted except that Hindenburg then appointed Hitler as chancellor which allowed him to seize power.
You seem to be projecting modern day US politics into the situation because you’re too lazy to actually learn about or understand the situation.
That logic breaks down with elections where choosing to not vote instead of voting for the slightly less nazi group results in a higher chance of the 100% nazis winning.
The logic holds because people it doesn’t matter what percentage Nazi you are, you are still Nazi.
Did you know there are mathematicians who study fairness and bias in voting systems? Well, is possible for you to convince those mathematicians of that fact, but first you’ll have to abolish First Past The Post and replace it with a condorcet method.
Now I’m not using that as a gotcha. I think changing America’s voting system is a great idea. But it’s also really hard. So I’ll support you in trying to do that. But if you want to change people’s understanding of the system without changing the system, I don’t think that’s a serious ask, because these people you’re criticising tend to have a good understanding of the mathematics.
Let me guess, your strategy for changing the voting system is to vote for a lesser evil in the broken system.
“My car broke down” “Well then, just drive it to the mechanic!” what a load of nonsense. A broken tool won’t fix itself.
“Mathematics” my ass. I’m constantly in awe of the fact that most of the ways I disagree with you are that you are too attached to treating human social constructs as objectively real. The whole electoral system was created by humans and is maintained only through faith, if it proves incapable of functioning as is required by the actually real physical constraints of planet earth, then it will change. The gap between what must, necessarily happen, and what this social construct tells us is possible widens every day. One way or another, things the system claims are “impossible” are going to happen, and it can either adapt or it can go down in flames.
The idea that electoral strategy is purely dictated by “mathematics,” that liberalism is somehow an objective, unchangeable facet of reality, is completely absurd.