this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
2033 points (97.6% liked)

Science Memes

12696 readers
2854 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
2033
fuck this (mander.xyz)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Suppose there are 10 people eligible to vote.

3 of them are known to support a fascist and will vote, no matter what. They have religious figures reminding them and pressuring them to vote for the fascist and watch propaganda daily that maintains their outrage and support.

1 of them is a big supporter of the neolibs and will vote for them no matter what.

1 of them is a pragmatic leftist who grudgingly will vote for the neolibs because there is no other viable choice.

1 of them is undecided either because they don't think fascism is that bad, or think it won't impact them, or don't consider how it could impact people who are not as privileged as them, etc.

The other 4 are:

  • 2 who are too filled with apathy to care about voting

  • 1 who the fascists keep setting up artificial barriers for in order to prevent political engagement

  • 1 who is thoroughly indoctrinated in the cult of anti-electoralism

That's 6/10 eligible voting (in line with the proportion of eligible voters that voted in 2024).

Further, historical data shows that when fewer people vote, the fascists win because of their dedication to their cause and authority figures coaxing them to do so. This data is readily available in terms that are easy to comprehend, even for those without technical or scientific education.

So, the breakdown is:

Fascism: 3

Neolibs: 2 or 3

Coin toss on whether the fascists win, because, of those deigning to engage in the electoral system, one of them is not convinced that opposing fascism is really that big of a deal.

What about third parties? They don't matter in this but because it is first-past-the-post and only a majority of participating voters is required.

But, the majority of polled people support left-of-center policies! Why are we forced to vote for neolibs?! Doesn't matter. 4 out of 10 eligible voters are going to vote in support of right-of-center ideologies. If more eligible voters voted, that wouldn't be an issue and the voice of the majority would be heard. But, between apathy, voter suppression, and the anti-electoralist/accelerationist cult, 40% are not voting. And that's still "good" compared to the last half-century.

So, there you go. Barely even scratching statistics and simple to digest as to why voters who refused to do their duty to oppose fascism share the responsibility with the neolibs.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

this isn't proof. it's storytelling.

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That is literally how the mathematics of elections work, whether you wish to believe in reality or not.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)
[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Simplified: 3 > (1+1) but 3 < (1+1+1+1)

Questions?

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

when will you accept that there are an infinite number of possible outcomes, including no one taking power at all?

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

It is vitally important, not just in elections but also in life overall, to recognize that not all possibilities are equally likely and to use available data to evaluate them.

For example, it is possible that a white rhinoceros might come down the hall and join me for a spot of tea and biscuits. I can, however, safely say that that is almost definitely not going to happen, based upon these data points:

  • I do not keep any white rhinoceros in my home.
  • White rhinoceros are not native to this continent and are classified as near-threatened (a major improvement from their previous near-extinction).
  • White rhinoceros average between 1700kg and 2300kg. My home was not designed and built to support that kind of moving mass. Any white rhinoceros walking down my hall would likely fall through the floor.
  • White rhinoceros, while generally docile and gregarious, are not known for enjoying tea and biscuits.

Yes, this is a exaggerated caricature. However, data with even more clarity is available surrounding election outcomes. Betting on a possible outcome without any evidence to suggest that it is likely is foolish and betting on an outcome that one knows is unlikely, while increasing the likelihood of an outcome known to be harmful to vulnerable people is detestable.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 hours ago

no one is talking about betting but you. the discussion is about ethics and voting.