this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
762 points (94.7% liked)

Political Memes

8159 readers
1735 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 18 points 6 days ago (22 children)

Anti-Conservative

There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.

There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.

There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.

For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.

As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.

So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whatever-the-fuck-kind-of-stupid-noise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.

No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:

The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

Also, those who insist on political purity tests reveal themselves to be temporarily-inconvenienced-dictators-in-waiting.

[–] BlackRoseAmongThorns@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 days ago (12 children)

Also, those who insist on political purity tests reveal themselves to be temporarily-inconvenienced-dictators-in-waiting.

I hope this isn't about leftists refusing to support biden/kamala in the US.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

You didn’t have to support them. You just had to use your brain and choose the lesser of two evils. Like which one of these people is more likely to illegally deport me for exercising my first amendment rights? I think you’ll find the answer to that question soon.

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The problem with "lesser of two evils" was that it traps you in short-term thinking.

In 2020, the lesser of two evils would have actually been Donald Trump. Looking back with 20/20 vision, it's unambiguously clear that between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, voting for Donald Trump in 2020 would have been, on the whole, a better outcome for the country. Voting lesser of two evils in the short term gave us the worst long-term outcome.

How can this be? Because Biden winning in 2020 guaranteed that Trump would win in 2024. Biden was never going to hold Trump accountable. He was never going to push through meaningful reforms that could prevent a second Trump term. Every vote for Biden in 2020 was a vote for a Trump 2024 presidency. And I knew this at the time, and held my nose and voted for Biden anyway.

And Trump winning in 2024 is far worse for the country than Trump winning an election in 2020. The first Trump term was incredibly disorganized. They didn't know how to govern. They had four years out of power to figure out what went wrong and how to do it right a second time. If Trump had won in 2020, then he wouldn't have come in on a second wave, with complete control of government and Project 2024 and its organization behind him. Trump in 2024 is vastly, vastly more dangerous than a second Trump term in 2020 would have been.

But "lesser of two evils" is meant to be a thought-terminating command. We're not supposed to ask what lesser evil we're supposed to consider. Are we only supposed to look at the immediate evil, or the long-term evil? Because by default, just using "lesser of two evils" simply causes you to myopically focus on only the election in front of you.

Again, lesser of two evils gave us this outcome. We would have been far, far better off now if the liberal third of voters in 2020 just refused to vote for Biden. Because again, a Biden victory in 2020 guaranteed a Trump victory in 2024. And Trump in 2024 is a lot worse than Trump in 2020 would have been.

Before reflexively recommending people vote for lesser of two evils, you should first ask, "have my previous judgments of the lesser evil actually been correct?"

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

That’s a totally fair take, but it’s all ridden with hindsight bias. Trump has always been a wild card. I suspect he doesn’t know what he’s doing at this point. There was no telling we lose both houses and have the worst possible cabinet members sworn in.

If we were just gonna vote the lesser of two evils than I still stand by my opinion that I would’ve rather voted for Joe Biden‘s corpse held up by his cabinet in 2024. I would’ve rather had Kamala step up to president after he passed.

Instead, we pretended like Joe Biden had dementia for four years and then actually elected an old man with dementia

[–] irmoz@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Or maybe support someone who isn't one of the two evils

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

Yes, like good old Jill Stein. Sponsored by Russian disinformation. Brought you Donald Trump by a margin of the vote. Very wise may you always waste your vote.

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 days ago

I keep doing this hoping the centrists will get the message and enact PR or else risk losing to the Big Bad which threatens us all. But so far I've been disappointed...

I only have my one measly little vote. They determine the entire platform and what policies get proposed. It's so unfair. I just want to vote for the representative who actually represents me without risking fucking feudalism. I'm not even asking for direct democracy here…

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Our (U.S.A.) best option for that in recent history was Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election.

[–] irmoz@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Thats still one of the two parties

Bernie is certainly a diamond in the rough - but don't ignore that rough.

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

He is an independent as a Senator. But you're correct in that he ran as a Democrat in 2016.

[–] BlackRoseAmongThorns@slrpnk.net -3 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Here you are protecting conservatives that have a vested interest in the genocide of palestinians.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

Here you are protecting conservatives by attacking and dividing the liberals. Focusing on a country you’ve never been within 2,000 miles of while the conservatives turn us into Palestine. Enjoy bitching while you can. We’ve already seen the pro Palestine kids are the first ones on the to go list. So the conservatives are actually helping us here in the long run. Enemy of my enemy is my friend type shit.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

Dude, I’m just waiting for this actual genocide to happen so we can stop talking about it. Anyone who’s wage a genocide for 100 years and not accomplished the goal of genocide….. I’m guessing in 100 years your brain dead grandchildren’s will still be crying about “genocide”. After 200 years of being waging a genocide against a non peer neighbor at what point do we decide it’s just a war used by the people in power to stay in power.

You will never get me to Care about that fucking conflict because I’ve been watching it happen for 30 fucking years. You’ve been watching it for a year.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)