> Greta Thunberg > @GretaThunberg
[https://x.com/GretaThunberg/status/1852331823428247927] > > #UsaElection
#USA2024 #StopArminglsrael #FreePalestine #ClimateJusticeNow > > This year we
have seen many defining elections all over the world. On November 5th, It is
time for one of the most powerful countries in the world — the USA — to go to
the polls. It is probably Impossible to overestimate the consequences this
specific election will have for the world and for the future of humanity. > >
There is no doubt that one of the candidates — Trump — is way more dangerous
than the other. But no matter if Trump or Harris wins, the USA — a country built
on stolen land and genocide on indigenous people -will soll be an imperialist
hyper-capitalist world power that will ultimately continue to lead the world
further into a racist, unequal world with an ever increasingly escalating
climate- and environmental emergency. > > With this in mind, my main message to
Americans is to remember that you cannot only settle for the least worst option.
Democracy is not only every four years on election day, but also every hour of
every day in between. You cannot think you have done “enough’ only by voting,
especially when both those candidates have blood on their hands. Lets not forget
that the genocide in Palestine is happening under the Biden and Harris
administration, with American money and complicity. It is not in any way
'feminist.” “progressive” or “humanitarian” to bomb innocent children and
civilians — it is the opposite, even It it is a woman in charge. And this is of
course one example among many of American imperialism. I cannot for my life
understand how some can even pretend to talk about humanitarian values, without
even questioning their own role In further deepening global oppression and
massacres of entire countries. > > So, Americans, you must do everything in your
power to call out this extreme hypocrisy and the catastrophic consequences
American Imperialism has on a global scale. Be uncomfortable, fill the streets,
block, organise, boycott, occupy, explicitly call out those in power whose
actions and Inaction lead to death and destruction. Join and support those who
are resisting and leading the change. Nothing less will ever be acceptable.
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
Multiple people point out that’s very clearly not what she meant
Removed by modRemoved by modRemoved by modRemoved 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
Sir/Madam, you started a conversation quite−closely-linked to the election in an anarchist community in the first place. Saying “it’s much better to vote for this candidate instead” is not the same as supporting the election; I don’t see why lesser-evilism is bannable at all. I’m a beginner anarchist myself and there’s nothing I found about working on other things/lesser evils when certain things aren’t feasible.
Lesser evilism is bannable because it’s still supporting evil. If you support the lesser evil, you’re supposed to be ashamed at your choice, not provide ideological cover for evil. Choosing to provide ideological cover for evil is a bannable offence.
Lesser evilism is bannable because it’s still supporting evil.
I’m not going to weigh in on the original bans (contrary to the purpose of this community, I know). However, this is a pretty distinct third-partyist talking point. The “vote swapping programs” thing from your comment further downthread is also straight out of the third-party playbook.
Don’t you feel kind of weird to be pushing the third-party stuff as aggressively as you are, as an anarchist? Like, I’m not big on anarcho-purity tests, but you do understand that all our arguments against the effectiveness of electoralism apply just as much against supporting third parties, if not more so, right?
It seems like maybe Lemmy’s cadre of third party cranks and tankies may have warped your perspective a bit. Personally, I think we should be trying to avoid antagonizing the liberals unless it’s going to result in some sort of concrete benefit. They’re our largest pool of potential recruits, and even short of that they’re amenable to a number of our ideas. Catch more flies with honey etc etc.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Sir/Madam, you started a conversation quite−closely-linked to the election in an anarchist community in the first place. Saying “it’s much better to vote for this candidate instead” is not the same as supporting the election; I don’t see why lesser-evilism is bannable at all. I’m a beginner anarchist myself and there’s nothing I found about working on other things/lesser evils when certain things aren’t feasible.
Lesser evilism is bannable because it’s still supporting evil. If you support the lesser evil, you’re supposed to be ashamed at your choice, not provide ideological cover for evil. Choosing to provide ideological cover for evil is a bannable offence.
I’m not going to weigh in on the original bans (contrary to the purpose of this community, I know). However, this is a pretty distinct third-partyist talking point. The “vote swapping programs” thing from your comment further downthread is also straight out of the third-party playbook.
Don’t you feel kind of weird to be pushing the third-party stuff as aggressively as you are, as an anarchist? Like, I’m not big on anarcho-purity tests, but you do understand that all our arguments against the effectiveness of electoralism apply just as much against supporting third parties, if not more so, right?
It seems like maybe Lemmy’s cadre of third party cranks and tankies may have warped your perspective a bit. Personally, I think we should be trying to avoid antagonizing the liberals unless it’s going to result in some sort of concrete benefit. They’re our largest pool of potential recruits, and even short of that they’re amenable to a number of our ideas. Catch more flies with honey etc etc.
This ^^^^
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.
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.
I’m confused. Do you now think choosing the shitty option is justifiable or not?
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.
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!
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.
I did not do that. I said this:
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.
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.
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.
That sounds a bit too extreme if it’s a one-strike
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?
How were they justifying Harris’s genocide policies? Isn’t defending voting for Harris defending the shitty choice?