The kids are alright.
Young women are alright, right wing support amongst <35 y.o. men is surprisingly high…
Agreed. I’m a teacher and see it in my classrooms. I often feel that they’re not taught how to have healthy community, so they become lil fascists…
If they’re like my nephew, the “manosphere” gives them easy answers as to why everything seems to suck.
It’s also the only answer. Society has really neglected boys for a long time now.
Yup. Patriarchy did them dirty. Society told them they had to be strong, stoic, and without emotion. And when that butted up against the realities of being a human we didn’t have any community to lead them towards living a good and healthy life.
You can fault the Right for a lot of things but they got there first on this one. They have a story for why things suck and they’re pounding the drum on it relentlessly. It doesn’t matter that this story is full of holes when the alternative is not compelling.
Yup. The propaganda machine moved quick when they realized this population could be manipulated into action outside of message boards.
Calling it “patriarchy” is thinly-veiled victim blaming, implying that men suffer primarily because of other men’s decisions. Everything you describe is perpetuated and maintained by both sexes. The social fabric of modern society, its implicit rules and conventions, is not a male establishment.
Western society is not, at all, a “patriarchy”.
Patriarchy did em dirty, but feminism also left them behind. It’s not just patriarchal society that forces men to be strong and stoic, it’s also self-professed feminists, especially women. Feminists say men should be more in touch with their emotions, but when they do so women have no interest in them. That’s one of the realities of life you mentioned.
That’s still patriarchy, my guy. They’ve been raised to be complicit in a system that doesn’t benefit them, and they’re perpetuating it because they don’t like how it feels to step outside of it.
You need to hang out with better women, my man.
when they do so women have no interest in them.
Personally, I find my experience to be much the opposite. But, I’m also in my late thirties so, experiences may differ.
Every single woman I know wants a guy in touch with their emotions. And those who found them, married them.
Tell your friends to stop trying to date under 25 year olds. We get over that shit at about this age.
It doesn’t help that every time we point out how society failed boys, there’s always someone who says it’s misogynistic to show men any concern…
Being a guy is no cake walk, and if anyone can say that with a straight face it’s me.
lights up a cigarette They say women like a bad boy, well, I was so bad at being a boy I became a girl.
Yup. And it’s always women and brown folks.
Don’t forget LGBTQ and furries. 🙄
The amount of times I’ve had to address the “students using litter boxes” schtick is absolutely mind boggling.
It’s always a school two towns over, and it’s always someone who has no attachment to the school attempting to push it.
Tell your nephew that Trump just said he’ll ban video games if he wins.
They know this shit isn’t working, so they’re siding with the ones who give them someone to blame… It’s that simple…
right wing support amongst <35 y.o. men is surprisingly high…
The media is flush with fascist attitudes in a country where going on the computer and listening to fascist rants is all you’re allowed to do with your time.
“in a country where […] all you’re allowed to do with your time.”
Eh… The same phenomenon is observed all over first world countries and all of those countries you’re allowed to do mostly whatever the fuck you want with your free time…
you’re allowed to do mostly whatever the fuck you want with your free time…
You’re free to do what you want and the police are free to rough you up for loitering.
all you’re allowed to do with your time.
If you stopped listening to fascist folks you could step outside and see that you have a lot more options.
Sorry you’re in this rut!
I have great hope that they’ll be better than our generation, just as we were better than our parents. Fuck the ‘fuck the kids’ mentality.
I’m a classroom teacher, and I find that you’ve gotta sometimes have both “fuck them kids” and “for the kids” in different measures. But overall, I feel like they’re doing a lot of cool things.
That’s a good point. I think that one of the myths that needs to die is that if the cherubic, sweet, innocent, and pure child. Many children, without guidance, are sociopathic assholes. We’re not born “good” then corrupted by the world, we’re born with some personality traits that may or may not help us as social creatures and need help to learn how to handle our emotions and cooperate with others in a manner that is pro-social.
Yup. Like John Green, I’m generally in favor of humans, but we’ve got some perfectly natural tendencies that can really harm others if left unchecked. I think kids want to do good, but they need to be taught how to, given the space to practice, and corrected with grace when they fuck it up.
A side effect of me being terminally online is that you can predict the top comment of some posts
Removed by mod
A vote for Stein is a vote for Stein. Don’t try to bend logic.
Voting third party is viable when we change the voting system, to ranked choice voting for example. Until that time comes, the two primary parties will remain dominant.
That is never going to happen.
It’s sure not going to happen by voting for Stein.
It’s literally already happening. Locality by locality state by state at least take the time to look around you before you make any absolute statements. It’s going to take forever at the national level absolutely. Far longer than I should. But it can and will happen.
It’s more like throwing your vote in the garbage, with the electoral college, but thanks for revealing what you are so I can block you
If I didn’t get a good laugh from every stupid thing Index says on a regular basis, I would have done the same already.
Blocking people just because of who they vote for?! lol Ok…
No one owes anyone engagement. Especially someone like you. Who’s showing themselves repeatedly to be disingenuous and bad faith. You don’t have to like it. But there’s nothing you can do about it. Outside of act like a better person.
Oh come on. They’re a little overzealous about posting but it’s a major stretch to call them disingenuous and bad faith simply for disagreeing with you.
Sorry, I don’t communicate with people who support genocide enablers like Jill Stein.
🤷
If voting for a third party is throwing your vote in the garbage, voting for parties backing a genocide is throwing it into the toilet.
Nope, sorry. Since those parties can win, your vote will not be wasted.
Nah, you’re wrong.
Amen, brother!
Shouldn’t be hard to convince anyone not to vote for her who doesn’t hate minorities.
Just let him know that David Duke endorsed Jill Stein.
If that isn’t a literal mic drop on her campaign idk what more can be done. Just make sure everyone knows before they approach a voting booth.
She rejected the endorsement. Even if she is throwing the election don’t put that crap on her. She can’t control David Duke
Dick fucking Cheney endorsed Harris and she embraced it. And her poll numbers plummetted. That’s a bigger problem with an actual consequence.
Wait til you find out Dick Cheney endorsed Harris! Probably the chief architect of the “GWOT”, responsible for over 1 million dead. Fuck David Duke, but he’s fuckin small potatoes compared to Dick-Vader.
Duke endorsed Stein because she does not support Israel.
The Stein campaign called David Duke trash and disavowed him.
The dishonesty here staggering.
Ooh that’s some good /agedlikemilk
Duke is endorsing for Stein, because Stein does not support Israel and Duke is antisemitic.
Koch’s is voting for Harris, because she works for the billionaire class and he is a billionaire.
One of these two is not like the other.
Because as everyone should know by now. The only acceptable hypocrisy is leninist hypocrisy.
Stein earned the endorsement from a bad person by doing something good.
Harris earned the endorsement from a bad person by doing something bad.
Lmao bro David Duke is an overt white supremacist. The association alone is damning, despite the disavowal.
Your argument is that anyone who does not support Israel is a KKK member.
That is absolutely not what I am saying
If you’re saying that earning an endorsement from antisemites for going against Israel makes Stein an antisemite, by extension, for going against Israel, because that is why Duke endorsed her, then yeah that kinda is what you’re saying…
The association alone is damning
He just said he supports her. That’s not an association. He agrees with her on her policy towards Israel. Unless you think her policy towards Israel is unreasonable and only would be held by a white supremacist, then its a ridiculous position to try and maintain, because it basically says that anyone who opposes us support of Israel agrees with David Duke and thus is “associated” with him.
Removed by mod
I made my point and can defend it. You just hand waved it away with some empty accusation.
It’s clear who has more faith in their position. Both you and I know it too.
Now do Cheney and Harris
What am I supposed to do? Repeated that an endorsement is a one way thing?
Removed by mod
Lol in what fantasy world have I been defending David Duke?
deleted by creator
And she denounced him. So clearly she doesn’t want it either.
Oh okay, so they’re just ideological comrades…
The politician you like best and the former head of the KKK are ideological comrades
Say that out loud a few times.
Anything that helps legitimize trump (increase overall pop vote numbers, regardless of loss) or props up green party and stein with a stated intention to get trump elected, in fact “helps trump”
Considering a vote for Dr. Jill Stein? I’m open if you have some insight I’m missing, but in my experience the green party has some exciting ideas on the surface, as lip service, but the party doesn’t put in meaningful work in interim government outside of a presidential election cycle every 4 years. So it’s a meaningless party.
You may think, “I’m in a solid red or blue state where my vote can’t influence at the national level”, but I find it hard to support Green/Stein in any capacity with how blatantly Stein has, in my opinion, been knowingly running as a spoiler candidate. The Green party has a (now publicly stated) intention to have Harris lose Michigan specifically. Below is clip from a Stein rally in Dearborn, Michigan. A surrogate for Stein is about to introduce her and spells out their intentions very clearly during remarks,
"We are not in a position to win the White House, but we do have a real opportunity to win something historic… we could deny Kamala Harris the state of Michigan. And the polls show that most likely Harris cannot win the election without Michigan.”
I would ask anyone considering a vote for Stein, in any state, to consider that truth they speak openly - When they are admitting that they can’t win, stating a goal to defeat the Harris campaign and acknowledging that Harris likely cannot win the election without Michigan, the undeniable net of that is that they are working to directly secure a second trump presidency, in my opinion.
As I see it, we just cannot have it both ways in a two party system. If the green party was a serious movement working against two party politics (and I would personally embrace and support this) they would become THE platform for ranked choice voting with a green party candidate in every meaningful on/off year election to make that issue ubiquitous with green. They speak endlessly about the flawed two party system (with a clear bias towards shitting in dems), but in the current two party system we actually have, you can’t cast a protest vote without actually casting a vote for trump in this election - And that cannot be stated more clearly than this green party spokesperson states it at this event before Stein speaks.
Here is a link to direct feed of that green party rally in Dearborn Michigan if anyone wants to see first hand to consider. It’s a longer video, but it starts at the point discussed and surrogate makes the above quoted statement within about the first minute speaking. https://youtu.be/WKSm2FQ8z60?t=5153
And trump acknowledges as much directly mentioning Stein and green party campaign by name recently,
“Cornel West — he’s one of my favorite candidates, Cornel West,” Trump said. "And I like — I like her also. Jill Stein. I like her very much. You know why? She takes 100% from [Biden]. [West] takes 100%. Kennedy’s probably 50/50, but he’s a fake.”
https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/trump-speech-jill-stein-cornel-west-rcna158627
I’ve heard individual positions I like from West, Stein and others in the past, but in my opinion if they aren’t fighting to be the bridge to engage the flawed structure of elections in this country as third parties, these are just campaigns driven more by individual candidate ego than a motivation for systemic change.
Those are my thoughts.
I get the logic you put forth. Yet as someone who lives in a more diverse democracy (although it has been getting dangerously more polarized in the recent decades), I’m always baffled by this presumption that a candidate deserves someone’s vote by default.
In this case, let’s say there aren’t any other parties on the ballot other than the Democrats and Republicans. In Michigan specifically you have a voter group, that says that they cannot vote for genocide especially if it is against their own families or people that look like them. And both parties are either promising the continuation thereof or have been engaged in it and have been excluding anything related to addressing it, or people representing that voter group, from their campaign. So the presumption, that if there wasn’t a Green Party to vote for that they would be coming out to vote for the Democrats is imho just flawed. They might just as likely stay home.
What I find even more baffling is that this party can’t seem to clearly outperform the even more clearly dangerous candidate to democracy. The Arabic or Muslim population in Michigan should not be this decisive for the outcome, if the Democrats were able to actually persuade voters to turn out by delivering an attractive policy plan, thereby earning the votes, instead of just arrogantly thinking, they’re entitled to them.
Nobody thinks they are entitled to votes. This is about triage during an emergency.
To make it simple, let’s assign a number out of 100 - Likelihood that a second trump presidency enthusiastically and loudly helps Israel escalate and “finish” their genocide in Gaza: 98.9
Likelihood that post inauguration, a Harris presidency does something that doesn’t go as far as the above, but still does meaningful damage, just more quietly through diplomacy and weapons shipments: 32
Now it isn’t great that the Harris number isn’t zero, even negative, but the reasoning for her campaigns current position is likely a combination of election politics plus the vestiges of Biden’s outdated and misguided position on blind support for an Israel that’s in his mind and not in front of him.
So first up in a triage… You get Harris in because less likelihood for absolute annihilation. I’d then wager a likely softening at worst to full end of support at best once Biden and election are out of the active picture. Most importantly, we eject Harris because a Harris presidency will preserve your right to protest Harris. A second trump presidency likely leads to the end of American democracy and the freedoms Americans take for granted.
After a Harris admin victory she needs to be sworn in the following January, but on day one, I fully support that we FILL the streets across the country, a la Vietnam era protests. We block freeways and interrupt commerce until a Harris administration ends all US support of Israel’s genocide. We will have that right and that chance with Harris, you’ll get shot in the fucking eye and tackled into an unmarked minivan if you try that in a second trump administration.
Realize the weight of this decision, and listen to Stein’s own campaign telling you they are doing to get trump elected. Time to get WIDE awake and ADULT on the reality here.
I’m familiar with First-Past-The-Post voting and the spoiler effect. I’m also familiar with choosing to vote for whom you’d prefer to fight when elected. We are dealing with the crimes of crimes here and I can absolutely understand anyone whose family is affected to not want to take an active role in their killing. Especially since the campaign has not signaled to that voter block, that they are seen or heard. The best example is denying a Palestinian-American a shortened and cleared speech at the DNC. It could have been only a ceremonial thing, less weight than lip-service, but they opted for exclusion instead, i.e. the opposite.
My main point though: How can this party not be clearly ahead of that menace to democracy and its institutions? This one voter block should not be the deciding thing. Overlooking the agency of the Democratic Party in this and putting full blame on the people rubs me very anti-democratic. Implying them to be immature and other forms of voter shaming is not making a good case either.
If you’re in a poorly made boat that has a hole in it with two other people…
And you are all actively sinking in that faulty boat, about to die in the middle of the ocean…
And one of the people states they will make more holes so you all drown…
And the other wants to work to keep the boat floating enough to get to shore, but not to your ideal…
Who do you help in that moment, or do you fold your hands and sink on principle? And you understand that sinking is not a neutral, moral victory here, because you’ve effectively supported the person who wanted to make more holes and sink the boat.
If you don’t get to shore, you won’t live to attempt to sue that horrible boat company to hold them accountable and keep others from using their faulty boats. And if you don’t help the person bailing out water, the person making more holes will kill you all with less effort.
The “people” above are to represent general philosophies of the two “sides” in this discussion, not individual candidates. There is no option to truly stay neutral here, direct action or willful inaction, both have impacts that you are responsible for.
What do you do?
Look, I get what you are saying and even agree to a certain degree. Yet, the premise here is that one of both parties is opposed to genocide, which is false. For the affected voter group, who are getting shamed for making the crime of crimes their litmus test, both people are trying to make more holes albeit of different sizes.
So, what would you do? I would probably throw both of them over board ;)
The boat is already full of holes, so who put them there? Why didn’t they spend the last 4 years patching them, why haven’t they thrown the other guy off the boat already, and why have they adopted his boat-cutting rhetoric? Why do you have to deny the democrat’s agency in this situation in order to make your point? Their platform is not immutable, it can and should change to one that captures more voters, and the fact it hasn’t at such a supposedly critical point with such loud opposition should be a clear message to you: either this election isn’t as important as they say it is, or they think they can leave us behind and we will vote for them anyways.
This does not bode well for your future protests, which by the way have already been happening on college campuses and have been met with police violence, uncontested smearing in the media, and not even the barest minimum of defense or policy change from your candidate and current vice president.
You can sit here and try to convince me and the other guy all you want but ultimately we snd the rest of lemmy are a drop in an ocean. Nothing will change unless there’s a change in strategy at the top. Their strategy is actively working against your efforts to convince us and yet they urge you to believe that Trump is the most dangerous man on the planet and that they fear for the country if he wins.
If this is true, then why aren’t they running a more dynamic and broad-reaching campaign and making real compromises with voters that would split their vote if they broke away? Do you not see the glaring contradiction in their actions vs their words? Is that really a strategy you want to endorse? To promote fear instead of democracy?
Do you not see the value in demonstrating that their losing strategy is, in fact, a losing strategy? How it does you a disservice to cave so easily - to genocide, I might add - without first making demands? What should motivate them to meet your demands if you’re just going to vote for them anyways and you never exercise any of your bargaining power to make them sweat?
Yet as someone who lives in a more diverse democracy (although it has been getting dangerously more polarized in the recent decades), I’m always baffled by this presumption that a candidate deserves someone’s vote by default.
If you live in a democracy where the spoiler effect isn’t an issue, then just be happy, whistle, and move on.
If you live in a democracy with first past the poll elections with an electoral college, then you should understand how the system works and vote accordingly.
The spoiler effect is where you vote for someone (Jill Stein in this case) who you think better aligns with your particular set of policy goals, but since they have no chance of actually winning you help the candidate most opposed to your policy goals (Trump in this case) by subtracting votes from the less aligned candidate (Harris in this case) that actually does stand a chance of winning.
It’s an ironic outcome of voting in our system. By voting for the person most aligned with your preferences you actually help the person least aligned with your preferences.
Trump is worse on genocide and climate and will be assisted greatly by idiots voting for Jill Stein in swing states.
They’ve done research and provided these assholes aren’t on the ballot, people usually choose a ballot-present major party option instead.
I did say that I live in a democracy with more parties, not that it does not include elections where there is the “first past the post” principle, so I’m familiar with the spoiler effect.
Trump is worse on genocide Although that might be true in some sense, please try to understand the people affected here. If your family is the one affected, it doesn’t get more dead, than dead. I’m not saying, I would vote the same way, but I can understand not wanting to actively vote for killing your family.
In a US presidential election, your vote supports Israel no matter what party it is for.
If people are actually interested in choice on this and many other issues, they’ll have to organize to change the electoral process. But this is America so instead we will sit around in threads like these all day pretending that pissing away your vote with Stein will somehow change that when it obviously will not.
In a nutshell, the Democrats can’t convince people to vote against the dangerous candidate because right-wing populism inoculates people against facts and logic by making those things out-group markers, per se. Identity is powerful, and the human brain treats threats to identity in exactly the same way as physical threats.
And, on the other side, Democrats can’t recognize this and respond appropriately, because they’ve made not-recognizing-it a marker of in-group identity, and they are thereby unable to decode what would make an attractive policy plan.
The situation is thus there are so many white people especially white men voting essentially for Hitler no matter what anything in fact more liberal than Obama risks losing enough votes on the margins to plunge our nation into darkness and chaos. A US where 35% of white men wanted hitler instead of 55% wouldn’t have this problem.
Oh BTW Trump wants to help Bebe kill 2 million gazans and build condos. If you can’t distinguish between Trump and Harris positions or realize that Congress is who authorizes aid you might need help
If the dems lose votes to the greens it will be because of their own fucking policies including genocide. They could always change their policies. But instead they blame the public.
If the greens lose votes it will be because of their own lack of policy including untested bullshit lip-service that no one with a brain is buying. They could always do the work between elections. But instead, they’d rather play spoiler.
Green policies poll at 50 to 80% regularly. They also do work between elections, given 150 or so candidates are in office currently. Instead of paying attention to politics every four years so you can smugly pretend you were ever a good citizen, maybe pay attention between elections.
Pipe dreams will usually poll well with people stupid enough to believe them.
And the irony of a leftist thinking they have any podium to stand behind while accusing someone of not paying attention until elections…
fucking hilarious.
So every actually developed country and more than.50 developing countries don’t exist to you people now?
They’re non-existent because they accomplished in the 1970s what you people call impossible pipe dreams?
I’m sorry Reagan with a vagina just isn’t a good candidate.
Well Putin and xi genocided my ability to give a fuck what your husk of a soul thinks about it.
Enjoy your greenpartylossparty
You probably should care, though. The DNC should absolutely care. Stein is not wrong that the Greens might stop Kamala from winning Michigan.
Preach, friend!
Removed by mod
Gonna say, that assclown missed an article
I heard a piece on Here And Now today about a group of single issue voters in Dearborn that is actively working to disrupt and damage the Harris campaign. They are trying to get dems to vote for Stein.
It seems like they’re using multiple strategies in an effort to put pressure on the Dems. Some are saying that they are going to vote for Trump even though they are also anti-Trump. Their logic is that Kamala is actively contributing to a genocide, whereas Trump is not.
I doubt there is anything they can do to actually make Democrat politicians feel pressure, but I do agree with their sentiments. I’m not voting for some who is pro-genocide. Trump is both pro-genocide and fascist. I’m also not going to vote for a 3rd party candidate because most 3rd parties focus on the presidential race more than they focus on grassroots efforts.
Their logic is that Kamala is actively contributing to a genocide, whereas Trump is not.
This is literally the most braindead political take I’ve ever heard, and that’s saying a lot
It’s a classic “technically true, but not particularly useful” information tidbit. Harris is in office, Trump isn’t.
Of course, you could argue that Vance - as a powerful member of the US Senate - is participating in the genocide while Walz - a governor of a midwestern state with no meaningful role in foreign policy - isn’t. Equally true, but meaningless.
The problem Harris has isn’t that Trump gets innocence-by-default by being out of office for four years. Its that she’s doggedly clinging to the “both sides” framing of the Israeli genocide and scaring off Arab-American voters as a consequence. It doesn’t matter whether Harris is better or worse than Trump when the baseline of US policy is the mass slaughter of your friends and family.
It’s a classic “technically true, but not particularly useful” information tidbit. Harris is in office, Trump isn’t.
Harris is in an office that is entirely powerless (yes, she casts a vote in the event of a Senate tie, but no bill funding Israel has come down to that). She and Trump have nothing to do with the (current) Palestinian genocide.
Harris is in an office that is entirely powerless
Harris has enormous amounts of power by simply having access to the President’s phone 24/7. That’s before you get into how much authority she’s been delegated by a man whose brains are leaking out of his ears.
And you’ve confirmed that you don’t understand how the President works. He isn’t simply the King of America who can wave a magic wand and do what he wants.
you don’t understand how the President works
Tell it to Dick Cheney. He goes into this at great length in his autobiography
The problem that Harris has is the mountains of propaganda working against her.
Not saying she’s perfect, but in a practical sense the spin matters FAR more than the facts.
I agree that it’s a bad take. But at this point I think that they’re desperate, trying anything they can to get Kamala to change course. It’s an urgent issue that can be solved easily: just stop supplying weapons and aid to Israel. Four years from now, most Palestinians living in Palestine will already be dead.
That loses older uninformed democrat voters unfortunately
it’s not just uninformed voters, my grandfather is a retired history teacher and, he firmly believes that while Isreal is in the wrong, that it’s not in the US best interest to drop them. He’s worries that the destabalization of the area further will invite other foreign adversaries to invade it while also losing basically the only is friendly territory around. He’s worried it’ll be a repeat of the last time
I mean, that does make sense actually…
Voting is a strategic choice, not an endorsement. You should vote for the candidate who you would rather have in office.
I mean they’re naming an illegal settlement after trump and Netanyahu is explicitly advocating for trump. What’s crazy is polls show Kamala would get like a 6 point poll boost by breaking with biden on this and saying something a little more forceful about a peace deal, such as a deadline where arms deals are halted. It would almost singlehandedly secure michigan.
At this point, I wonder if opposition to Israel is dangerous for the lives of Western leaders.
I think its more that they’re afraid of being labeles antisemitic by the media and there’s pressure from the military to maintain status with Israel
Their logic is that Kamala is actively contributing to a genocide, whereas Trump is not.
Even though he literally is, has put the Israeli Embassy in Jerusalem, and has advocated for the deployment of nukes in Gaza…
“single issue voters” 🤣 🤣 🤣
“stop blowing up my family”
okay SiNgLe IsSuE vOtEr
Thing is, there is no “stop blowing up my family” vote in this election.
It’s “status quo, maybe some improvements but don’t hold your breath about anything major” vs “corruption, corruption, corruption, fuck everyone who isn’t a billionaire or has their lips firmly attached to billionaire assess, especially the entirety of Palestine” vs “I won’t vote for either of those options but will still need to live with the one everyone else votes for”.
G.R.E.E.N
Get
Republicans
Elected
Every
November
How do you do fellow young adults.
Uncommited movement: “Guess I won’t vote”
The Green Party thanks Lemmy for all the publicity it has given to the Jill Stein campaign
any news is good news
Who?
Some rando
hahahah, yep!
Removed by mod
Shill who?
Didn’t I read something somewhere about her being a Nazi or Russian spy or some shit?
What the fuck
they should probably focus more on voting for Kamala Harris
