1. Mod of !anarchism@slrpnk.net posts a great Greta Thunberg quote, but then tries to use it to justify not voting in the upcoming US election
  2. Multiple people point out that’s very clearly not what she meant
  3. Removed by mod Removed by mod Removed by mod Removed by mod

Using your mod powers to decide who is allowed and not allowed to speak is not very anarchist of you, @mambabasa@slrpnk.net

  • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    In my country’s present institution, you have to either support evil or be filthy rich to live. Revolutions don’t happen spontaneously; they build in the back corner while evil is prospering before a great ambush. As a non-white anarchist, Trump will quite possibly kill our movement if he wins. Thus, I unfortunately indulge in activities that will help us in the long run. In the dark, we help build strength. In the light, you’ll help arrest the momentum.

    • Mambabasa@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      But do you have to justify evil? Do you have to defend evil? To justify and defend is a different choice than choosing to shitty option.

        • Mambabasa@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          2 days ago

          It’s an understandable choice. It’s a choice stemming from lack of agency and power. Choosing to defend the lesser evil and justify the evil is a different. It is a more powerful, wholly conscious choice. THAT is itself evil. You should be unhappy and outraged that you have both choice but to choose evil, to choose genocide. Yet these people, they are not. Rather, they want to wholly support the program of Harris, wilfully ignoring or downplaying that this program is evil and genocidal. That is providing ideological cover for genocide, and that is never justified.

          • bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I don’t think you really are willing to understand that most people are viewing that election as a hostage situation. I’m Canadian. It’s plain as day. Forced participation is not consent, and you should know that!

            • Mambabasa@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              2 days ago

              You’re correct! But defending Harris and her program is a different choice. You can vote, but you don’t need to CHOOSE to defend Harris, you don’t need to CHOOSE to defend her program, you don’t need to CHOOSE to provide ideological cover for genocide. Vote if you want, but defending Harris is a different choice from voting. And doing this in an anarchist space? Why in our space? Can’t you do that in the hundreds of other Lemmy communities? Don’t use our space to soapbox. Do the ideological cover for genocide elsewhere, thank you very much.

              • bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                I did not do that. I said this:

                You do know that Trump is a racist idiot, and will likely do things or neglect to do things, and that will result in higher civilian casualties everywhere? Dude handled COVID in a way that increased deaths. You think an armed conflict will be handled better? You have a choice between two things. Abstaining just favors one thing.

                IDGAF about Harris. Abstaining favors the choice that represents an existential threat for MORE people. Recommending martyrdom instead of reducing losses makes you a saboteur for anarchism. Stop it. Accept that people have a risk profile that won’t tolerate uncompromising principles. We need people to participate, rejecting moderate allies is a bad choice.

                • Mambabasa@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  I have never argued for abstention. Stop putting words in my mouth. And do you honestly think, I, a non-American in not-America, can affect the most influential election in the world? Get over yourself. I know people aren’t listening to me. But anarchists must say what only anarchists can say.

                  • bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    You do have an insignificant effect on the world. It’s not nothing. People read your words and hear you, and form opinions.

                    Decrying the choice of paying the ransom is arguing for abstention.

          • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Isn’t “we lack agency” the exact argument you removed? Casting others in either black or white is unnecessarily flaming and often used by power-grabbers to divide the electorate and drum up perfervid support. Nobody’s wholly supporting Harris or supporting her stance on the war here. I saw the thread before it was removed.

            • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              2 days ago

              Something Awful forums apparently have some sort of sitewide account ban for strawmanning, saying that someone said something which clearly isn’t what they said, so you can get upset at them about the thing they didn’t say. The longer I stay on Lemmy, the more I think that kind of rule is a great idea.

                • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  I’m not sure if it’s a permaban. Apparently their system is that accounts cost $10 for the lifetime of the account, but you can’t get out of line in certain ways, strawmanning being one of them, or you might get a temp ban or lose your account entirely and have to pay another $10.

                  I don’t know that much about it but I think it sounds great. I don’t know how you could ever bring that energy to Lemmy, but it sounds a lot better than the “let’s invite all the mysterious new accounts with strong opinions about the Democrats to come and play as hard as they want, oh also we ban because today you disagreed with a mod” philosophy.

                  • Blaze (he/him)
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    With that hypothetical system, who would be in charge of deciding the strawmanning? Seems hard to implement in a federated system

            • Mambabasa@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              2 days ago

              No it wasn’t. They were justifying and defending Harris and defending voting for Harris. Anti-anarchists don’t get to use anarchist spaces to push anti-anarchist talking points. They have literally almost every other Lemmy instance to push their voting agenda, why should they use ours?

              • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                How were they justifying Harris’s genocide policies? Isn’t defending voting for Harris defending the shitty choice?

                • Mambabasa@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Defending the shitty choice is defending the program of your vote. You can vote for the lesser evil, but do you need to defend the evil? Do you need to justify the evil? No. Just vote. You don’t need to defend or justify evil.

                  • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 days ago

                    Then how may I explain that voting for the lesser evil is the best course of action in my state’s scenario? And again, how were they justifying Harris’s genocide policies?