I will preface this by saying I understand that I am more radical, revolutionary, and extreme of a leftist than most. Despite that, I still ask that you actually engage with this as I’m asking in good faith.

When is enough enough? We have elected a fascist into the highest office and handed the keys to him and his friends. Is now not the time to actually get organized, involved, and armed? In my opinion, the time for peaceful, democratic means of avoiding fascism was before the election. But we have failed to do so, and as such there will soon be a tyrant in power. Are we going to wait until troops are rolling down the street to stage any form of resistance, because by then it’s far too late. Now I want to be clear that I am not advocating for random acts of violence or an insurrection like January 6th. But is this not a point of radicalization? Is this not where we start organizing within our communities and getting involved in mutual aid and resistance? How much more do we need before people are actually ready to stand, fight, and maybe even die to avoid continuing down the path that we are on? Fascism is not on the horizon, it is here. Are we really to do nothing about it as a society except lay down and accept our fate? Because that doesn’t jive with me. That makes absolutely no sense to me.

ETA: To the people responding, I will admit that I was heated and frustrated when writing this post. Having had time to cool off, reflect, and get some differing viewpoints my stance has changed to focus more on what needs to happen first and what’s practical. You may have seen that in my responses. That being said, I don’t disagree with what I said here, and I’m still frustrated we’re at this point at all. I’ve linked a comment though that elaborates upon what I actually want to see done though, which is a lot more reasonable and is still inline with this post.

https://lemmy.world/comment/13305217

  • Goun@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Wait, did Trump win with 27% of votes!? How do you still use this system?

    • superkret
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      No, he got >50% of all votes that were cast. The voting system wasn’t the problem this time, the voters were.

      • Hildegarde@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        2 months ago

        If the voters are the problem every time, the problem probably isn’t the voters, it’s probably the system. The US always has bad turnout.

        • superkret
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          A turnout between 60 and 70% is actually pretty standard for a Western democracy without mandatory voting.

          The voting system wasn’t the issue, here. The people around you are.

    • Swordgeek@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      No, that’s a misleading number.

      27% of the entire eligible population voted for him. Less than that voted for Harris. About 45% of eligible voters didn’t bother.

      So Trump got more than 50% of the popular vote, as well as the majority of seats. First past the poll is a terrible system, but it’s not the system that’s at fault here, it’s the voters.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      This isn’t even a system issue (FPTP, electoral college).

      What you’re remarking on is the need for mandatory voting and a federal holiday on voting day