this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025

604 points (90.7% liked)

Fediverse memes

1183 readers

899 users here now

Memes about the Fediverse.

Rules

General

Be respectful
Post on topic
No bigotry or hate speech

Specific

We are not YPTB. If you have a problem with the way an instance or community is run, then take it up over at [email protected].
- Addendum: Yes we know that you think ml/hexbear/grad are tankies and or .world are a bunch of liberals but it gets old quickly. Try and come up with new material.

Elsewhere in the Fediverse

Other relevant communities:

founded 6 months ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

604

Comment threads, on the default lemmy-ui. (lemm.ee)

submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

299 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Apologies to the mods.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I don't want the Republicans to win, but if disciplining the Democratic party or building an alternative to it causes that outcome, it is an acceptable risk.

Exactly. Fascism was an acceptable bargaining chip. That's the difference between you tankies and actual leftists: we care about people, and try to avoid subjecting our fellow people to fascism as a gambit.

people still reject $1 offers. It's not really a difficult concept to grasp.

Yes. Game theory experiments have a different set of conditions and consequences than elections. They refuse because that doesn't cost them anything. They leave the exchange neutral. There is no neutral electoral state, refusal does not fulfill the same function in the game as in elections. Refusing to vote doesn't mean no one wins. The rules of the game do not functionally map to the rules of elections, the strategies of the one do not apply to the other.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Exactly. Fascism was an acceptable bargaining chip. That’s the difference between you tankies and actual leftists: we care about people, and try to avoid subjecting our fellow people to fascism as a gambit.

And by refusing to take that risk, you turn fascism from a risk into an inevitability. If you were actually a leftist like you say, you would understand the material conditions that gave rise to Trump and the fact that the democratic party is never going to address those conditions (at least without significant, genuine pressure). That is one of the primary reasons why we need to pressure the democratic party in the first place and why they are fundamentally unacceptable. It just guarantees fascism at a slightly slower pace.

The only ones advocating a strategy that has any possibility of averting fascism are us "tankies." Also, I find it hilarious that you're attempting to take the moral high ground, as if you're the ones who "actually care about people" when you happily accept the sacrifice of countless Palestinians right now, rather than taking an approach that could potentially save them. You have already written them off as an acceptable sacrifice on the alter on which you worship the democratic party.

Your liberalism is showing again by the fact that you think the Dems winning is a perfectly acceptable outcome that doesn't involve sacrificing anyone and doesn't just let the crises we're facing fester and get worse. As a "leftist," you ought to understand how fucked we are regardless of who's in charge at the moment, and that the capitalists aren't going to come down from on high to save us.

Yes. Game theory experiments have a different set of conditions and consequences than elections. They refuse because that doesn’t cost them anything. They leave the exchange neutral.

This is a completely arbitrary distinction. Not getting a dollar you could've gotten is no different from losing a dollar you could've avoided losing, change the experiment to where they lose $50 by walking away as opposed to losing $49 by accepting a one-sided agreement and you'll get the same results.

This is just nitpicking. You're trying desperately to find any reason to avoid accepting the obvious truth. The game is only one example, in any negotiation, the same principle applies.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If you were actually a leftist like you say, you would understand the material conditions that gave rise to Trump and the fact that the democratic party is never going to address those conditions (at least without significant, genuine pressure).

Uh, yeah. Obviously. Never said that wasn't the case.

It's just guarantees fascism at a slightly slower pace.

Yeah. Exactly. I said this back at the beginning. A vote for Democrats is a vote for more time to prepare a functional progressive movement. The sole reason to vote for them is to keep fascism developing at the slower of the two inevitable rates, while building the material capability to apply significant political pressure.

The only ones advocating a strategy that has any possibility of averting fascism are us "tankies."

According to you. It's a baseless claim unsupported by history or theory.

rather than taking an approach that could potentially save them.

Did you take that approach? Did it save them? Did you get close? That "potentially" is straining the limits of logic. It could have "potentially" saved them the same way I could "potentially" win the lottery tomorrow, and I didn't buy a ticket. It was a bad plan, it was never going to work, and now the bodies are stacking even faster.

As a "leftist," you ought to understand how fucked we are regardless of who's in charge at the moment, and that the capitalists aren't going to come down from on high to save us.

Yup. And as a materialist, I know that ignoring the mechanics of elections doesn't get you closer to a solution.

Not getting a dollar you could've gotten is no different from losing a dollar you could've avoided losing

Categorically false. Arithmetically, psychologically, just plain incorrect. Maybe if you're a gambling addict, but in the general population we generally find losses are felt much more strongly than equivalent gains. You're just making up poorly constructed psychological experiments, claiming what those hypothetical results would be, and extrapolating that to national politics.

You haven't supported any of your divisive nonsense with anything more than your say-so.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

A vote for Democrats is a vote for more time to prepare a functional progressive movement.

Right, "buying time." While sacrificing the opportunity to push for progressivism in the present. That's just called procrastination, and we don't have time for it. Actually, procrastination generally involves actually doing the task later on, whereas you've admitted (even if you baselessly contest the specific phrasing) that you'll continue supporting the democratic party unconditionally and indefinitely - until this progressive alternative magically materializes out of thin air, without anybody doing anything to actually bring it about! Absolutely ridiculous, absurd on it's face.

The only way to effectively build such a movement is to publicly challenge the democratic party and lay out demands and to be genuinely willing to break from it if it refuses those demands. And if any demand is reasonable to make, "don't do genocide" indisputably is.

while building the material capability to apply significant political pressure.

Uh huh. Sure. And you got a timetable on that? Can we start applying political pressure in 4 years? 8 years? 20 years? Or is it "whenever it's ready," which will of course be never, since previous election results inform our readiness and refusing to deviate from the democratic party means they will never reach the point of being ready? You don't have to answer that, I already know. There will never be a "more convenient time."

Categorically false. Arithmetically, psychologically, just plain incorrect. Maybe if you’re a gambling addict, but in the general population we generally find losses are felt much more strongly than equivalent gains.You’re just making up poorly constructed psychological experiments, claiming what those hypothetical results would be, and extrapolating that to national politics.

You haven’t supported any of your divisive nonsense with anything more than your say-so.

You're trying as hard as you possibly can to not understand the effect that the experiment demonstrates. I don't need to "prove" any of this because it's extremely obvious and self-evident. If you demonstrate that you are potentially willing to walk away from a mutually beneficial agreement, you are in a better negotiating position. If you lay out from the start that you'll agree to anything as long as it's better than nothing, you are putting yourself in a weak negotiating position.

The reason I laid out the experiment is not to prove that approach is to correct, but to demonstrate and explain a very simple and basic concept that you either don't grasp or are pretending not to grasp. You can invent some hypothetical and pretend negotiating principles wouldn't apply there, but that's entirely your say-so.

Again, either you are an absolutely terrible negotiator, or you just don't really care about negotiating because you're content with what the party offers.