Flippanarchy
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to [email protected]
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
view the rest of the comments
it's not. what's objectively true is that he has not been stopped, no matter how hard you vote.
It's not objectively true that Trump was voted out of office in 2020 and remained out of office until 2024? Forget fascism, you can't even agree on objective reality. Get a grip.
that didn't stop him.
Nothing in the world is permanent champ. Voting blue stopped him for 4 years, not voting blue broke the streak and brought him back. My strategy stopped him for a while, yours invited him back in. I have no idea why you would think that's an endorsement of your strategy. It definitively proves that my way is effective, and yours wasn't.
Even during that time he wasn't stopped. he was still pulling the strings in Congress. he was still shaping the national narrative.
And not voting Dem was going to change that, how exactly? Where I'm sitting, it looks like you saw all that indirect power and thought "He should have the power of the executive too :)".
It's like saying "Hey, that sandwich doesn't have every single necessary nutrient in it, might as well eat fishtank gravel instead". My strategy being limited in scope doesn't make yours any less impotent.
so you know your strategy is impotent
The intended effect was to keep Trump of the Oval Office. It was quite effective in 2020.
but it failed twice. it has a 33% success rate, and even when it supposedly succeeded he continued to weild power.
33% > 0%, so still the most effective.
it was the least effective strategy, since he seized power twice. it totally failed twice.
For it to be the least effective, there would have to be strategies that were more effective. You've yet to present even one.
every other society that has kept trump-like figures from seizing power....
They used the strategy I'm advocating.
there must be some difference, since they didn't get the same result
Well they didn't let their leftists splinter into ineffective factions for one. Maybe you could provide a specific example so we can do a proper methodological analysis.
I haven't endorsed any strategy, have I? I'm saying yours is ineffective
It's presently the most effective. It being imperfect doesn't mean it isn't better than every suggested alternative.
from my perspective, it is the same strategy that created a political climate in which trump could be effective, and has failed twice now to stop him from seizing the presidency.
Never said it wasn't flawed, but even with the flaws it's still the most effective strategy so far. When you have a more effective strategy, your criticisms will be worth considering. But since you didn't, they aren't.
other societies have prevented trump-like figures from seizing power. we could look to them for the kinds of things we could try. or you could keep feeding the same machine that made trump in the first place.
Correct: they voted for the major party not dominated by a Trump-like figure. That strategy works. Why would you think this point helps your case?
tehy also weren't stuck with trump-vs-trumplight for 60+ years as their only options. voting for trumplight and getting trump seems like it should be a probable outcome, and having better options to begin with seems like a better strategy than hoping full-fat trump isn't selected. of course there's also the problem that the democrats have been complicit in concentrating power in the executive for that entire time, so when someone gets in and uses the power in a way they don't like (or pretend not to like), tehy really only have themselves to blame.
I couldn't agree more, and when we have a better option with the popularity to win, I will be more than happy to vote for them. We don't have that though, so it isn't an applicable strategy.
Not really, that has been overwhelmingly a Republican effort.