• force@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Shoot them

        We’re allowed to kill Abe Lincoln and JFK, why aren’t we allowed to kill these guys? Why does Reagan get plot armor out of all the presidents? Who wrote this shit?

        To be fair JFK getting shot was pretty epic though. He almost caused nuclear holocaust (although a more rabidly anti-communist president may have definitely caused nuclear holocaust), war crimed the South Vietnamese a ton, and stabilized Israel. RFK getting assassinated was less epic because that gave us Nixon

        • xthexder@l.sw0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          You have a very twisted view of the world. No one was “allowed” to shoot Abe Lincoln or JFK. It was very much not allowed, but murderers don’t usually care about what’s allowed and do it anyway.

        • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          so suppose you let trump win to spite the dnc. then what? what are you going to tell all the people whose rights are being taken away?

            • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              “If there were enough people who cared about trans lives to actually change the outcome of the election, you wouldn’t need the law to protect them – you could just make them do it.”

              Please God tell me I’m misreading this. People in Texas can just get fucked I guess?

        • corsicanguppy
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Sorry; what would be the alternative NOW?!?

          I don’t see all that happening before it’s time to vote, so isn’t what you’re saying now a bit of a distraction from the very real risk to the stability of the country?

    • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      When the American populace as a whole is brainwashed into believing the only choices are red and blue, you have to accept that whining about it and voting green (or not voting) is going to accomplish nothing.

      So make your colorful allegory and feel good about yourself on the internet. In the end, you are accomplishing less than the people you look down on who recognize the shitty reality of our situation.

        • Charapaso@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Voting for the slightly less shit option makes it easier for the things we do in parallel to have a positive impact: direct action doesn’t get slowed down much by voting once a year or so.

            • Charapaso@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              I don’t think it does much, but any tiny contribution to the fight against climate change is a good for the world, as is any slowing of the erosion of civil rights domestically, gutting of what remains of medicare/medicaid, etc.

              I also know a GOP administration will be worse in terms of fighting against leftist movements in the streets, if only slightly. They’re definitely worse re: labor movements overall, again: even if only marginally.

              So I’m not going to claim it’s a panacea, or even someone that will have notable effects, but I do think it matters at the margins, so the effort required is usually worth it, IMHO

        • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Being self righteous about doing nothing is worse.

          Despite your own brand of defeatism in insisting the outcome is the same no matter what, one side actually is better. Even if the metric of “better” pales on the grand scheme of what we deserve or should be doing.

          I’m not trying to project self-righteousness by recognizing that there are only two real choices. I’m asserting that advocating non-action or pointless action is such a tired trope that what you’re doing is circlejerking for dopamine instead of applying what little influence you have as an individual to work toward the avoiding the actual worst outcome.