Do you think the mostly limited range of political views is a strength or a weakness of Lemmy? (For example, in terms of attracting new users.) (feddit.nl)

submitted 1 week ago by crimeschneck@feddit.nl to c/fediverse@lemmy.world

257 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Sure, there are always outliers and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's just the overall impression I have.

(I wasn't sure if !asklemmy@lemmy.world or this community would fit better for this kind of question, but I assume it fits here.)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Gabadabs@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago

Did you even look at the votes in the election? Not enough people voted third party to make a difference in the results of the election. But sure, try to blame people that oppose the genocide in gaza. Sure..

[-] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 0 points 1 week ago

That's true. However, I think there was a massive propaganda effort, quite successful, to get people to follow certain antipatterns of logic to help get Trump elected:

"I care deeply about the genocide in Gaza, so I won't vote for Democrats, even though Trump will make the genocide much worse and also create new ones."
"I care deeply about inflation and working people, so I'll vote for Trump, even though Trump will make inflation much worse."
"I care deeply about crime and illegal immigration, so I'll vote for Trump, even though his insane policies will mostly punish the innocent and create much more of the underlying conditions that lead to violent crime."

And so on. It happens that foolish people on the left who thought that refusing to vote for Democrats was a way to help the Palestinians were one of the target audiences. But in the aggregate, I think the combination of those diverse populations getting suckered in their individual ways absolutely had a big impact on the election.

And please don't say I am blaming the people that oppose the genocide in Gaza. I oppose the genocide in Gaza. Everyone on Lemmy opposes the genocide in Gaza. Because I oppose the genocide in Gaza, I didn't want Trump to get elected, because he is about to make things much, much worse. If you have some tactical disagreement with how I want to oppose genocide, because you also oppose it but in some different way, then fine. But pretending that I have an issue with people who oppose genocide is just a dishonest strawman engineered in some think-tank somewhere, to help get Trump elected.

[-] Gabadabs@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago

Yeah, there was certainly a lot of propaganda and lies to help elect Donald, but let's be very real here - leftists not voting or voting third party over Gaza wasn't a major part of his victory. Kamala Harris had a very weak campaign that didn't address the concerns of young, white male voters. Personalities like Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, and others really do appeal to those people, telling them that they're just fine and pointing their fingers at an endless list of targets to keep these people angry and afraid - and ultimately to vote for people like Donald who claim they'll fix everything. I wasn't trying to strawman but I have seen a lot of online comments purely blaming leftists for this election, and it's frustrating.

[-] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 0 points 1 week ago

What did I say, in my comment, to address exactly what you just repeated?

Specifically I'm interested in this part:

Yeah, there was certainly a lot of propaganda and lies to help elect Donald, but let’s be very real here - leftists not voting or voting third party over Gaza wasn’t a major part of his victory.

That had a very specific answer in the comment you're replying to.