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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for the straw man and for tirelessly advocating that people don’t vote. It definitely helps and is definitely not a Nazi thing to do, it’s super LEFTIST.
Your straw man is a misread. The critique isn’t “don’t vote!” It’s that voting in a rigged system isn’t enough.
The “lesser evil” argument you defended is exactly what enables the cycle. Fascism grows when politics is reduced to choosing between harm and complicity. For what it’s worth me pointing that out isn’t pro-Nazi, it’s the basic leftist critique of a broken system. Real change requires power built outside it, not just a ballot every four years.
You’re the only one “flooding” my inbox and you’re free to stop anytime.
But let’s be clear: you’re not arguing against a point anymore, you’re just policing packaging. If you reduce “the system is broken and voting isn’t enough” to “DEMOCRAT EVIL,” that’s a failure of your own comprehension not the message or mine. When you’re ready to engage with the substance instead of your own caricature, you know where to find the thread.
Until then, enjoy the view from that very high horse.
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.
There are only 2 scenarios with these people. Either they are chaos agents and trying to cause division or they are purists that don’t understand nuance and refuse to understand how the world works.
The choice isn’t between voting and doing nothing. It’s between trusting a corrupted system and building power outside of it. Critiquing the system isn’t inaction, it’s the necessary first step toward meaningful action.
Still waiting on that quote where I told anyone not to vote. You won’t find it, because it doesn’t exist.
My point (which I’ve been consistent about) is; that voting alone isn’t enough, not that people shouldn’t do it. If you’ve got a quote that says otherwise, I’m happy to address it. Otherwise, this is just an (intentional?) misreading of the argument.
You say that like voting means “trusting the system” but that’s clearly extremely incorrect. voting means being connected to reality and giving enough of a shit to go do it.
Voting is an act. Trusting the system is a strategy. You can do one without the other.
But when you treat voting as the only proof of “giving a shit,” you’re doing exactly what my original point warns against: funneling all political energy into a structurally limited mechanism. Real power is built between elections, not just at the ballot box.
Not once have I said people shouldn’t vote. If that’s your takeaway, you’re either arguing in bad faith or you’ve fundamentally misunderstood the point.
The argument is straightforward: voting is necessary, but insufficient. Believing it’s the only meaningful political act is what keeps power concentrated and change out of reach. Criticizing the limits of electoralism ≠ telling people not to vote. It’s telling them not to stop there.
If you can’t (or won’t) engage with that distinction, then this conversation has nowhere left to go.
You’re getting downvoted, but I wish people could understand how multiple things can be simultaneously true.
It’s not “both sides.”
It’s “one side is nazis, and the other side is robber barons wearing the skin of leftist ideals, preventing legislation for the people, and trying to profit off of the nazi stuff.”
Like, with the fascist takover going on you have chuck going "I hear the will of the people, who want us to focus on funding Israel. Don’t worry, I hear you, the sick, hungry, and educators can absolutely tough it out for Israel. "
Democrats have shown direct complicity with the republican actions, largely through people incentivized to actively kneecap any effort to help regular people instead of the wealthy.
Look at and review on legislation vs public preference vs corporate preferences.
But no, the only way to cooperate in changing the system is investing more deeply into the inevitable pendulum of the two party system pushing the overton window towards oppression with each swing. One slower but more discreet. The other is Nazis being nachos Nazis.
Neither is the solution to the problem, but systemic and socialized changes in how we act and react to the systems we are in, as bottom up networks.
People have to interact with the political reality and put energy into it, but we’ve already socialized that shame and laziness is a failure to participate in the socio-economic hierarchy, rather than a lack of spending energy on basic ethics and epistemic hygiene.
We need new tools and behaviours to interact with new problems. This takes energy, which makes it socially unpopular. But we all die if we don’t find basic cooperation to fix a feedback loop that lost the plot.
People shat on “don’t look up” for being too “on the nose and snobbish.” yet here we are, with people living in socialized framing bubbles that are just as aggressively ignorant.
But bringing that up is cringe.
Yes vote against the nazis, but don’t let people believe that means we are not still in existential danger.
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.
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.
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.
Even without trump, ICE is designed to be abused like this legally speaking, it needs to be abolished.
This isn’t the point that was made prior though. This is an okay take It’s just stapled to a bunch of bad ones prior.
It sounds an awful lot like you don’t want people to vote.
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)
If voting doesn’t work, why does the Right work so hard to stop people from voting?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_efforts_to_restrict_voting_following_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election#%3A~%3Atext=The+bills+are+largely+centered+around+limiting+mail-in%2C"under+the+radar"+approach+to+achieve+their+goals.
Keeping up appearances maybe. I mean, how hard have Democrats fought back against this mess? Can’t really say they fought hard
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
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.
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.
Current affairs do not explain this height in party division.
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.
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).
Crayons are yummy, don’t you think?
I actually never ate the crayons when I was a kid. But if you want to go out and buy them and eat them, then I respect your right to choose
Enjoy your crayons. Never had them myself.
“I don’t particularly like the other guys, so in practice I’m fine with Nazi’s in power”
– smartest .ml user.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for the straw man and for tirelessly advocating that people don’t vote. It definitely helps and is definitely not a Nazi thing to do, it’s super LEFTIST.
Your straw man is a misread. The critique isn’t “don’t vote!” It’s that voting in a rigged system isn’t enough.
The “lesser evil” argument you defended is exactly what enables the cycle. Fascism grows when politics is reduced to choosing between harm and complicity. For what it’s worth me pointing that out isn’t pro-Nazi, it’s the basic leftist critique of a broken system. Real change requires power built outside it, not just a ballot every four years.
If that was the message, no one would be flooding your inbox. But it wasn’t. It was DEMOCRAT EVIL.
You’re the only one “flooding” my inbox and you’re free to stop anytime.
But let’s be clear: you’re not arguing against a point anymore, you’re just policing packaging. If you reduce “the system is broken and voting isn’t enough” to “DEMOCRAT EVIL,” that’s a failure of your own comprehension not the message or mine. When you’re ready to engage with the substance instead of your own caricature, you know where to find the thread.
Until then, enjoy the view from that very high horse.
deleted by creator
“the brown people would still be dying, but who cares”
– the regular Dem
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.
There are only 2 scenarios with these people. Either they are chaos agents and trying to cause division or they are purists that don’t understand nuance and refuse to understand how the world works.
How is he worse?
Let me paraphrase, how are the Dems not fascists?
Now who’s building a strawman.
They argued against doing anything to help And apparently so are you.
The choice isn’t between voting and doing nothing. It’s between trusting a corrupted system and building power outside of it. Critiquing the system isn’t inaction, it’s the necessary first step toward meaningful action.
Could building relations with other non-MAGA Americans be considered part of building power?
Also, could voting for the lesser evil buy you time to build said power?
Excellent questions, and the answer to both is yes.
And yet, here you are telling people not to vote.
Still waiting on that quote where I told anyone not to vote. You won’t find it, because it doesn’t exist.
My point (which I’ve been consistent about) is; that voting alone isn’t enough, not that people shouldn’t do it. If you’ve got a quote that says otherwise, I’m happy to address it. Otherwise, this is just an (intentional?) misreading of the argument.
You say that like voting means “trusting the system” but that’s clearly extremely incorrect. voting means being connected to reality and giving enough of a shit to go do it.
Voting is an act. Trusting the system is a strategy. You can do one without the other.
But when you treat voting as the only proof of “giving a shit,” you’re doing exactly what my original point warns against: funneling all political energy into a structurally limited mechanism. Real power is built between elections, not just at the ballot box.
You’re telling people not to vote or at minimum that they should not vote for Democrats. That speaks for itself.
Not once have I said people shouldn’t vote. If that’s your takeaway, you’re either arguing in bad faith or you’ve fundamentally misunderstood the point.
The argument is straightforward: voting is necessary, but insufficient. Believing it’s the only meaningful political act is what keeps power concentrated and change out of reach. Criticizing the limits of electoralism ≠ telling people not to vote. It’s telling them not to stop there.
If you can’t (or won’t) engage with that distinction, then this conversation has nowhere left to go.
That’s assuming the only way to help is to vote for the fascist enablers. And it isn’t! I feel like you’re not engaging the argument in good faith
You’re getting downvoted, but I wish people could understand how multiple things can be simultaneously true.
It’s not “both sides.” It’s “one side is nazis, and the other side is robber barons wearing the skin of leftist ideals, preventing legislation for the people, and trying to profit off of the nazi stuff.”
Like, with the fascist takover going on you have chuck going "I hear the will of the people, who want us to focus on funding Israel. Don’t worry, I hear you, the sick, hungry, and educators can absolutely tough it out for Israel. "
Democrats have shown direct complicity with the republican actions, largely through people incentivized to actively kneecap any effort to help regular people instead of the wealthy. Look at and review on legislation vs public preference vs corporate preferences.
But no, the only way to cooperate in changing the system is investing more deeply into the inevitable pendulum of the two party system pushing the overton window towards oppression with each swing. One slower but more discreet. The other is Nazis being nachos Nazis.
Neither is the solution to the problem, but systemic and socialized changes in how we act and react to the systems we are in, as bottom up networks.
People have to interact with the political reality and put energy into it, but we’ve already socialized that shame and laziness is a failure to participate in the socio-economic hierarchy, rather than a lack of spending energy on basic ethics and epistemic hygiene.
We need new tools and behaviours to interact with new problems. This takes energy, which makes it socially unpopular. But we all die if we don’t find basic cooperation to fix a feedback loop that lost the plot.
People shat on “don’t look up” for being too “on the nose and snobbish.” yet here we are, with people living in socialized framing bubbles that are just as aggressively ignorant.
But bringing that up is cringe.
Yes vote against the nazis, but don’t let people believe that means we are not still in existential danger.
are you claiming you are not?
my least favourite type of typo, appreciate the note!
Gotta love the geniuses that chime in with this infinite wisdom then fuck back off to do anything other than provide real solutions.