this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2026
241 points (98.4% liked)

Atheism

5941 readers
246 users here now

Community Guide

Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.

Statement of Purpose

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.

Inadvisable

Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.

Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.

 ~ /c/nostupidquestions

If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!

Connect with Atheists

Help and Support Links

Streaming Media

This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.

Orgs, Blogs, Zines

Mainstream

Bibliography

Start here...

...proceed here.

Proselytize Religion

From Reddit

As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
241
Christian Nationalism Has Captured the Republican Party (www.friendlyatheist.com)
submitted 1 day ago by ThefuzzyFurryComrade@pawb.social to c/atheism@lemmy.world
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't see what your point is here. I'm not saying that things are going great in the US and they shouldn't be changing their approach to things. I'm literally just saying that when you're faced with a ballot where there are only two viable options (as is the case under the American electoral system) then you should pick the less evil option. Even if it has elements you don't like, such as also being captured by Christian nationalism. Your only other option is the greater evil, why would you vote for the greater evil?

As I said, that doesn't make the lesser evil a good option. If you want a good option then sure, keep working on that. In the American system that means vote in primaries, participate in local elections, get involved in various other ways. Try to influence what shows up on that ballot. Do that between-election organization as well.

And then when the election rolls around, hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil. I literally can't fathom what else you think should be done at that point.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If you keep picking lesser evil, then they keep getting more and more evil. This isn't going to change by any mechanism other than voting differently - we don't actually use this time between elections to organize more, especially not while moderates are out to brunch. If a party's primary system is undemocratic, then your only choice is to vote for another party - even if that party is currently losing very badly.

The American left is losing so hard that we consider blatantly pro-corporate controlled opposition to be on our side at all. They're not - they support FPTP because they'd rather see Greater Evil win than see Actually Good win. This has been obvious since 2000. So obvious that we say only two parties are viable, but for some mysterious reason the Democrats don't support fixing it. Why should they?

Every national election, we're encouraged to hold our noses, vote for the immediate short term goal, to "buy time". We've squandered that time consistently and here we are now, after 40 years of iterating the ratchet effect. What should be done at that point, and every election thereafter, is to vote for someone who opposes FPTP. A vote for FPTP is a vote for Greater Evil winning in the long term, and that's exactly what has happened.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

If you keep picking lesser evil, then they keep getting more and more evil.

When you go into that ballot booth there are exactly two options in front of you. Well, technically, three. They are:

  • Pick the greater evil.
  • Pick the lesser evil.
  • Throw your vote away and let the outcome fall where it may.

So, you're crossing out "pick the lesser evil." I assume you're also not advocating for picking the greater evil. So you're saying just abstain?

If a party's primary system is undemocratic, then your only choice is to vote for another party - even if that party is currently losing very badly.

Ah, you're suggesting voting for a third party. Under first-past-the-post electoral systems that's part of the "throw your vote away" option.

Every national election, we're encouraged to hold our noses, vote for the immediate short term goal, to "buy time".

Yes, because by the time you get to the election itself those are the only two options left. It's been winnowed down to that by the electoral process and it's too late to have any other options by that point.

Lesser evil, or greater evil? That's it.

What should be done at that point, and every election thereafter, is to vote for someone who opposes FPTP.

In primaries, sure. For local candidates and so forth. It'd be awesome to get rid of first-past-the-post. I've pushed for it in my own country, where there's at least a little chance it might happen.

But at the end of the campaign when it's voting day and you're standing there in that voting booth, and there's the D vs R choice sitting there in front of you, there's no "get rid of FPTP" option as an alternative. Just D and R.

Yeah, you don't like to hear that. Tough, it's reality. Believing in a preferred reality and insisting that it must be real simply because you want it to be real isn't really our thing here, is it?

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

You're usually a pretty smart person so I'm not going back and forth reiterating that lengthy explanation. Please consider my words in earnest before the next time you vote for someone who wants you to have this dilemma.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 7 hours ago

As I said, I've pushed for getting rid of first-past-the-post in my own country. We're fortunate to have not entirely slid into two-party politics here yet, though of course there's an endless "gravity" pulling things that way due to FPTP. I'm well aware of how this works, the game theory behind it is quite clear and obvious.

But wishing the dilemma would go away doesn't mean you're not faced with it anyway when you step into that ballot box. In the 2024 election Donald Trump got about the same number of votes he did the previous time he ran, but Harris got significantly fewer votes than Biden did. The election went to Trump because people decided to pick option three - they either abstained or threw their votes away. That's the solid, real, actual, practical outcome that you get from that kind of view towards voting in an election like that. And so that's why I'm so strident in recommending that you hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil. Kang and Kodos were right, you only have those two options at that point.

I'm involved in local politics where I live. I volunteer, I pamphlet, I survey. There's stuff to do when there isn't an election going on and that's the stuff that contributes toward determining which two options are present. But it's a lot more work than just going into a room once every two or four years to punch a card or however you do it, so most people don't. That's why you never seem to see any change in those two options. If you don't like those options then that's what you have to do.