Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes 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 misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow 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
There's two sides to this argument, and one is wrong and the other is right.
One says "Both sides do it, so it's okay that my side does it."
The other says "Your side does it. A few on my side do it, too. But it doesn't matter, we should stop both sides from doing it."
"It happens on both sides! you don't condemn it on your side, isnt that hypocritical?!"
"I... Actually condemn everyone doing it and I think me and you should look for and support people who don't support this heinous thing."
"..."
"So, do you condemn the people on your side doing it as wel-"
"But look at this person who has done it on your side!"
Both sides'd themselves into proto-fascism. And taking us along for the ride.
Fucking morons.
Why are you blaming leftists for Trumps win? We make up like 1% of the population, tops. You should instead point the finger at Republicans for voting for him. Or the Dems for running a totally weak and ineffectual campaign. (Or how about the oligarchs who only want to divide us so that they can rob us blind?)
Maybe there would be more than Side A and Side B if we had voting reform and Democrats didn't systematically sue third-parties off the ballot.
People (not just authoritarians) criticize Side A because they have way more tallies than most have been led to believe. Everybody who pays any amount of attention knows that Side B has a lot of tallies. What good comes out of specifically pointing out the tallies of Side B when literally everybody on non-conservative social media is blasted with the knowledge of those tallies? If you want somebody to preach to the choir or inform you about Side B's tallies, just ask. If you think people paying attention to or being informed about Side A's tallies is dangerous and harmful, just say so.
Side A tolerates third-world exploitation (labor, resources, goods) that the US economy still relies on, they tolerate the US economy still relying on slavery and child slavery, they tolerate or support US imperialism and regime change, they refuse to address or come up with solutions for the fresh water crisis (by 2030, demand will exceed supply by 40%), they refuse to properly address many issues that the US people face (the economy, the housing crisis, the health care crisis, etc.), they support harmful policies like fracking, they have allowed corporations/et. al to go out of control under their power, and they generally have not advocated for strong regulation and protections for the American people. Yes, Side B is undesirable, but Side A is insufficient.
If Side A's hands are always tied in a two-party system, then they should impeach the bad actor, push voting/election reform and term limits, and hold fair and democratic primaries and elections. Side A not propping up extreme right-wing candidates (like Trump) and telling the media to take them seriously would be nice, too.
1/3 of Americans don't vote and plenty of people only voted Kamala because they didn't want Trump (and there are other factors than Gaza, misogyny, and Jill Stein voters at play to explain why people didn't come out to vote for her). Plenty of people probably don't want Trump (or anybody like him) if they've been paying any attention and didn't fall for the propaganda.
Side A would get bonus points for not alienating progressives, for supporting the loosening of requirements for ballot access (and stop engaging in lawfare to restrict ballot access), and for supporting fair and inclusive debates on public property where they would have to address perspectives and topics that are potentially uncomfortable or inconvenient for them.
I realize there are plenty of unserious actors who run for president (like Kayne West) who would try their best to poison open debates and abuse expanded ballot access, but there has to be some fair mechanism to filter (openly racist and insane) people like him out. Perhaps a competency test of sorts with independent observation would be appropriate.
And I realize a lot of people find Jill Stein to be harmful (and individuals like her), but maybe we shouldn't arrest her (or any other presidential candidate) and put her in a black site, shackling her to a chair for 8 hours, because she wanted to be present at the presidential debate?
This is an unprecedented time for the American people, with human rights and due process in jeopardy. We are facing multiple serious crises with no solutions or progress in sight - voting and election reform, in addition to term limits, are all urgent and necessary.
I don't care if you want to vote for Side A no matter what — we can only suppress criticism and stay in denial of major issues for so long before (e.g.) the fresh water crisis hits us and humanity is completely and utterly unprepared.
I appreciate the depth of your response. You're right, critiquing Side A doesn't mean endorsing Side B. It means demanding better from those who claim to represent us. The meme calls out false equivalency, but that shouldn't silence legitimate concerns about the system itself.
It’s like this: if the house is on fire, I’ll vote to put out the biggest flame, but I’m also going to ask why the fire keeps spreading, and who’s refusing to fix the wiring. Reform isn’t a distraction; it’s how we stop the next blaze before it starts.
Thanks for adding a more nuanced layer to the conversation.
"Perfect is, in fact, the enemy of good, and if we can't have perfect then we shouldn't settle for good!"
I do so wish their fucking around would limit the finding out to just them, but alas.
People who refuse to vote when there is a clearly superior option deserve whatever the greater evil brings forth when they win.
In Sweden the far-right tried to play this game. They started chirping about the social democrats being rasist and made a list on like an A4 with names and events. Then the same was done to them, matching the font, their list was taken up a skylift and holding one end they folded it out to the ground in a television program.
Wait I'm lost, are we talking foreign invasions done by the US vs foreign invasions done by China? Or the number of victims of Hamas vs the victims of the IDF? What are we counting here? Military bases abroad?
What are we counting here?
Evil policies supported by democrats vs evil policies supported by republicans
Inb4 tankies go: "Abraham Lincoln was a racist, LiTEraLlY tHe sAmE as the southern slave owners" 🤡
Lately, they have been trying to tell me that North Korea is a democracy.
I mean it is in the name. The DEMOCRATIC People's Republic of Korea.
Dumb libs can't even read
"both sides"= a disengenious comment by conservative mainly also uses the same thing to say thier not as bad.