Hexbear people go two ways. They either come up with an amazing take, or they decide to manifest all of the collective stupid into 1 post.
This one is the latter.
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
130 points (84.2% liked)
MeanwhileOnGrad
1268 readers
394 users here now
"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"
Welcome to MoG!
Meanwhile On Grad
Documenting hate-speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse
What is a Tankie?
Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.
(caution of bias)
Basic Rules:
Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.
Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.
Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism or any variation of Tankie Ideology. There is no justifying Genocide.
Revisionism — Downplaying or denying atrocities past and present will result in an immediate ban.
If you're violating instance rules, you'll typically be warned. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last seven days, but repeat infractions will have longer sentences. You may ask to be unbanned.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
These are just fascist nerds cosplaying as commies. Not a genuine Communist in the bunch
What I find funny is that they idolise China as some form of left wing communist utopia. When in reality it's a very conservative and hyper capitalistic society, just with tonnes of authoritarianism and government control.
Xi being too conservative is not a take many people grasp well.
Discrimination against LGBT people is rife in China. The social attitude towards them isn't great either.
While I strongly disagree with the dogwhistles here, it's true. If your state voted for Trump or Clinton/Biden with >10% margin in the last two elections, there's almost zero chance the Trump/Harris election will go any differently.
I personally dislike both major party candidates (but dislike Trump more) and since my state (Utah) voted for Trump with ~20% margin in both prior elections (even in 2016 w/ McMullin taking >20% of the vote), I feel comfortable voting my conscience. I even voted for Biden last election on the off-chance that people here hated Trump enough to matter, but no, >20% spread.
So I'm back to voting third party. Even if every third party vote went to Harris, my state would still elect Trump with something like 15-25% spread. The only way that changes is if Kamala converts to my state's predominant religion and Trump literally outs himself as worshipping Satan, and even then we'd probably still go with Trump for some stupid reason.
So I vote for the next most popular third party, and in this case, that's Chase Oliver from the Libertarian Party. I'm also registered Libertarian, mostly because I think they have the best chance to actually get a message out about voting reform, but also because I'm probably closest to their views (though I disagree with the LP on a ton of issues, especially recently, and especially the local UT LP). He'll probably get 2-3% of the vote, perhaps less this year because he's gay. If that instead were the Green Party, I'd vote for them (even though I have even less in common), because my goal here is to send a message that the 2-party system sucks.
If your state is that polarized, there's really no point in voting for the minority party candidate, go third party and make a statement.
I'm glad you're sending a message about the two-party system in a way that actually matters. Voting third party in a state that will never change is like, the one time it's safe and effective to do that.
Exactly, yet I get so much pushback on that.
Yes, if your state has any chance of flipping, choose the lesser of two evils. And don't just look at the last election, look at the last 5 or so. If any of them were anywhere near close, vote for the lesser of two evils. Or if your state is trending toward being competitive, vote for the lesser of two evils. If you're not willing to check, vote for the lesser of two evils.
But if your state consistently votes a certain way with a huge margin, then vote your conscience. For me, that's the most popular third party.
believing your state is hard locked in one party is exactly the mindset that makes it hard locked. My state is 'hard red' but it wasn't always like that. California was a solid red state but no longer is. Until we have ranked voting, we're stuck with two parties at the federal level. Voting 3rd is only serves to signal to the majority parties where to not waste their energy.
Never understood the "throw your vote away" thing. Only one person will win. Almost 50% of people will not vote for them in any given election. Did they "throw their vote away" by not voting for the winner? That's just what voting is.
Totally agree. It's like saying scoring a goal was a waste when your team still lost. Just score the damn goal and move on.
IMO people often attach way too much meaning to what a vote even is. It doesn't mean that you are swearing fealty to or even agree with them, it literally just means you think that person is better for the seat. I vote in every single election for every single race, it's just not even a consideration that someone wouldn't live up to my moral code on every issue because that's not what a vote even means to me. Vote early and vote often, and stop letting candidates define you.
In the US, the statement only truly applies when voting for a 3rd party, due to how our absolutely fucked FPTP + gerrymandered + electoral college system works, which additionally gives rural (predominantly conservative) areas disproportionately more electoral power. The bar is very literally higher for liberal (in the American sense of the term, not the European/global sense) presidential candidates. So if you vote green or socialist or whatever, you are absolutely voting against your ostensible interests in a statistically-provable sense.
I fear the expression leads to voter fatigue. Why bother if 65% votes one way and I'd vote the other. But what they don't factor in is that if EVERYONE voted, those margins are small.
For me, I go through the motions under the assumption that the other side is going to show up in droves, and am then pleasantly surprised if they don’t and it’s not that close. But that’s the nature of voting - you don’t really know whether YOUR vote will “make the difference” until after the fact.
But realistically, it really doesn't matter in more than 3/4 of the country, due to how the Electoral College works. If your preferred candidate lost by more than all third party votes combined, there's zero way your vote could've changed anything.
And that's the situation I live in. My state (Utah) almost always gives 65%+ of the vote to the R candidate. In 2016, Trump won w/ only 45% of the vote, but that's because the other 20% or so went to Evan McMullin (Hilary got ~27% of the vote). I even tried voting Biden in 2020 because I figured people hated Trump enough (he got dead last in the primary here in 2016, below candidates that had already withdrawn), and I guess I helped because Trump only got 58% of the vote to Biden's 38%. Excluding McMullin (basically a conservative), third parties got 5.5% in 2016 and 4.2% in 2020. I'd be very surprised if Trump gets less than 60% of the vote this election.
It really doesn't matter who I vote for, so I make my vote count by voting third party. If they get enough votes, people will take them more seriously and politicians might take some of their policy positions.
If they get enough votes, people will take them more seriously and politicians might take some of their policy positions.
Eh, the best way to be taken seriously is relevant experience. Flight simulator enthusiasts don't immediately become fighter pilots, frycooks don't immediately become Michelin star Chefs, nurses don't immediately become neurosurgeons.
President is a high level job with high complexity and high skill requirements. When a candidate's highest office held is "community organizer", that's not a serious candidate and their policy positions don't carry any credibility.
I'm absolutely for progressive policy, I just didn't think voting 3rd party in the presidential election helps, even in shifting sentiment. What will help is relentlessly voting for progressive down ballot and locally. Get those community organizers into real political offices where they can build real experience and forward real policy.
Politics is a long game, trying to skip the middle stages is shooting yourself in the foot.
Oh absolutely. But you only get so many options for each position, so it's best to maximize the utility of each of those votes.
In my case, pretty much every office will go to the GOP by a 20%+ margin. We used to have a competitive House district, but they gerrymandered that away and now every House seat is uncompetitive. In fact, many seats have no competition at all (my State House rep seat hasn't been contested since I moved here, and the State Senate seat has been contested once). So I leave those uncontested seats empty or write-in (if write-in is an option), and I vote for the best candidate for the job for the other seats. What ends up happening is that my ballot looks something like this:
- 50% - biggest third party
- 25% - Democrat - occasionally a decent candidate runs
The rest are uncontested (e.g. State House) or non-partisan seats (e.g. school board).
And yes, it's a long game, hence why I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils when that lesser evil has zero chance to win.
I wouldn normally agree with you, but I think there are several red states that could be a lot more competitive this year.
Sure, I know Texas could be more competitive, and there may be others. That's why I point out the vote spread, if it's bigger than 10% in the past few elections, it's not going to flip this year.
It takes a lot of personal discontinuity to say that either the KKK or the SS would be voting for a black woman.
And yes, personal discontinuity is meant to be a nice way to say: you dumb.
Who votes for Mark Robinson and Tim Scott?
view more: next ›