This goes to all the peeps who support parliamentary voting as a valid political action.

If your society has been steadily progressing towards fascism for decades regardless of your voting (like the USA has been), is there any point, any action which will convince you that voting ultimately doesn’t work?

Is so, what is it? What would your government have to do for you to acknowledge that voting doesn’t matter? For many people, it was of course, supporting genocide (which is why so many states desperately try to deny a genocide is ongoing). But if genocide isn’t, what is yours?

Eventually a society which has been slowly progressing towards fascism regardless of voting, will become fascist. And we all know what comes after that. There’s always one thing where I think even the most hardcore parliamentarian will agree that voting ultimately didn’t work: When they’re personally being force-marched to the mass grave-sites.

Would that be your point? Or does it come earlier? If so, when?

  • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOPM
    45·
    22 days ago

    You didn’t say that. You said

    I think my voting red line would be when voting doesn’t make a difference anymore.

    Regardless, so there has to be a “big” difference? How big is big enough?

    Is “Gas Chambers for everyone except caucasian people” vs “Gas Chambers for everyone except caucasian and slavic people” OK? How much should I expand until the difference is enough?

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
      7·
      22 days ago

      That’s not the discussion we’re having. I want to know: What’s your red line?

      Climate catastrophe? Surely that one’s a red line, isn’t it?

      I mean, I’m happy to answer your specific question. Again.

      Is Gas Chambers vs Gas Chambers for everyone except white people OK?

      It’s not. In that case, I wouldn’t be voting anymore. That’s not our situation. As I already explained.

      I’ve noticed this about people who talk on the internet: It’s not enough for someone to explain what they’re saying. People have to keep asking the same question over and over again, pretending not to understand anything they don’t agree with.

      It’s okay if, me having explained myself, you don’t agree with me. But pretending that I didn’t say anything about what I believe, making me explain it again so you can pretend not to understand and then ask again hoping to get a different answer or something, is just a way to make us both waste both of our time.

      How much should I expand “white people” until the difference is enough?

      I’ll take this at face value and answer. It’s hard to give a hard-and-fast response. Probably the most critical thing that makes Trump vs. Harris is a no-brainer is that Trump wants to destroy a lot of the mechanisms that would enable fixing the system in the future.

      If you care about Gaza, then yes it’s incredibly bad that Harris isn’t willing to strongly condemn the genocide which, again, she is not doing. I can get wanting to take strong action on that. If your strong action is putting someone into office who is unequivocally worse on Gaza, that start to make less sense. But even more on the nose about it is that Trump wants to tear down a lot of the machineries of direct action that we can use against Harris, if she wins. He wants to ban newspapers that tell the truth about Gaza. He wants to imprison or kill protestors who favor Gaza. Anyone who’s trying to ignore voting, pretending that it doesn’t matter in favor of direct action, is all of a sudden going to find their direct action avenues to influence events ten times harder and more dangerous if Trump gets into office.

      If you care about Gaza, but you’re okay with Trump getting into office, you don’t care about Gaza. You just care about your little performative stand.

      So anyway: Climate change, not a red line for you? Emissions, destruction of NOAA, criminalization of the free press which might be able to even tell the truth about it? You’re cool with that, not a red line?