this post was submitted on 06 May 2025
428 points (98.2% liked)

World News

46426 readers
2362 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] piefood@feddit.online 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Maybe people wouldn't call him "Genocide Joe" if he hadn't backed a genocide. I always find it amazing that people blame the voters, instead of blaming the people with the power, the platform, and the money, who chose genocide over winning the election.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I always find it amazing that people blame the voters

I think people are blaming the people who didn't vote. They thought they were sending the message "I don't like genocide", but that was ignorant of them.

The message they sent was "Eh, either is fine. I'm fine with Trump or Harris. Whatever". And then they took the moral high ground for doing so.

[–] piefood@feddit.online 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Which I also find understandable. I disagree with non-voters, but if both choices are terrible, and fight against what you want, I understand why people wouldn't want to vote.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The proper way to communicate an opinion that "both choices are terrible" is to make your way to the polling station and either vote for something other than those two bad choices, or to decline or spoil your ballot.

Not voting says "I can't be bothered to make the effort; anything is fine".

People think it means "Give me something other than these two", but it takes more effort to communicate that message.

Political activism requires effort, and it requires effort the right way. Not voting is political inaction.

[–] piefood@feddit.online 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mostly agree with you, which is why I voted 3rd party, and I still recommend that others vote. But voting can take a lot of time and effort, which most people are short on. I think a lot of people would vote, if they thought their vote counted, but with the two major parties we have, it clearly doesn't.

I see it as less of "I can't be bothered to make the effort; anything is fine", and more of "Both of you fight against what I want, why would I bother"

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

why would I bother

Because voting is one of the least effortful political action that can be taken, and it can send one of the biggest messages.

Democratically-elected politicians get their jobs by people's votes. Their campaigns are based around getting votes. And they can look at numbers of how people are voting to adjust their platforms to capture those votes.

There's little benefit for them to try to capture the votes of people who don't vote because people who don't vote aren't likely to vote.

  • 77,302,580 people voted for Trump.
  • 89,278,948 people were eligible to vote but didn't.

That's enough to win an election. I know they wouldn't all vote the same way, but that's a HUGE population -- enough to potentially make a third political party relevant, for instance.

I know that you vote, and I know both major parties in the US suck. I think we're generally in agreement here, so I know I'm probably preaching to a member of the choir. I'm just less sympathetic about it because I know that if everyone in the US who was eligible to vote but didn't all voted with their intentions, upcoming elections would look very different. And I think it's a combination of learned helplessness/defeatism and laziness/apathy that's causing this.

As such, I will always advocate for the power of voting. And I will always admonish people who don't vote and complain about the result.

[–] piefood@feddit.online 1 points 7 hours ago

Yup, we are mostly in agreement. I will push back on this though:

Because voting is one of the least effortful political action that can be taken

For a lot of people, taking a day off work, to spend hours in line at a polling booth, while voter intimidation is kind of allowed, is a lot of effort. Especially when you factor in that they need to spend time researching the candidates and issues they'll be voting on. I've lived in places where even getting registered was a huge pain, and took a lot of time. Where I currently live, voting is super easy, and I appreciate that, and I think it's less of an excuse. But for a lot of people, it does take a lot of effort, and I find not voting in those circumstances more understandable.