Dinosaurs voting for a meteor
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2025
346 points (97.8% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8235 readers
517 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Most of the Democrats are bought off by the same people as the Republicans. All this political theatre is just a show for the illusion of choice. Hopefully more people who can't be bought off get elected, but I doubt it.
Hopefully more people will realize that bourgeois democracy is working as intended, and that it cannot be reformed; it must be replaced.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Dumbasses
Is anyone understanding yet that the status quo is that elected officials report to a group of influential people who have selected them because they can be controlled and that is all?
It's true that the people with the power would rather their controllable opponent win an election than a candidate in their own party who has ideas of their own.
Until that can be remedied, democracy is truly afflicted by ophiocordyceps unilateralis.
Your vote means NOTHING
Your voice means NOTHING
CARRY ON AS DIRECTED
Yes, for centuries. Marxists and anarchists have long known this. That's why we advocate revolution.
They sure shut the fuck up about " blue no matter who" real fast.
Democrat leadership would choose Trump over Zohran.
They're lining back up behind Eric Adams, which is functionally the same thing.
load more comments
(2 replies)
now that's surprising /s
100% when the Democrats have full control it's all 'golly gee willikers' but the second the Republicans have full control it's like 'everyone loves steak now. EAT IT'
Damn, if you posted this six months ago, people would have tried to ban you for it.
Oh yeah, I've posted it before now and it makes some people really angry. It seems to be a very common idea that third party voters are somehow worse than Trump voters, as though the Democratic Party somehow have a right to all non-fascist votes.
Well, I'm glad Mamdani won in NYC and zionist liberals can finally put to rest the need to vote straight ticket Democrat.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The fact that liberals refuse to read just 100 pages of State and Revolution while insisting that they are having new ideas or that the political environment has somehow changed is by far the most frustrating thing about Lemmy comment sections. I'm an anarchist, someone smeared by Lenin in that book but at least I read it and understand. My disagreement is with the vision and form of the dictatorship of the proletariat and how we can build a new commune, not the need for revolution or insisting that somehow, some way after 175 years of the same discussion voting for reform will work.
I swear Americans have never read a book that wasn't Harry Potter in their lives.
I swear Americans have never read a book that wasnβt Harry Potter in their lives.
Nonsense. Some of them have read The Bible.
Nonsense. Some of them have read The Bible.
fewer than the ones who said they have.
Many current elected officials also are huge fans of Austrian autobiographies
Also Catcher in the Rye, though maybe that's a better example for reasons Americans shouldn't read books. Probably could've gotten a few more years out of Lennon.
As a coming-of-age book, particularly for American teenagers, "Catcher in the Rye" resonates for a reason. It does an excellent job of capturing the moment from a sympathetic point of view. And then you read it ten years later, thinking to yourself "Holy shit was I really like this?" only to realize you absolutely were.
load more comments
(1 replies)
That's not true, they've also read 1984 and thought all "adult" books are gonna be this fucking dreadful and boring so they don't read anymore, they just pretend ~~idiocracy was a documentary~~ 1984 is like, so true, man
Thatβs not true, theyβve also read [the wikipedia article about the plot of] 1984 [while furiously arguing about things on the internet they don't understand]
ftfy lol
theyβve also read 1984 and thought all βadultβ books are gonna be this fucking dreadful and boring
I gotta say, 1984 has a lot wrong with it. But it's pretty short and punchy as books go. Espionage, sex, torture, murder. Orwell was Tom Clancy before Tom Clancy was cool.
If you're looking for something that's endless, dreadful, and boring, you might want a copy of Atlas Shrugged.
It's short, but not punchy. It's a
hundred pages of diatribes, some misogyny, a story beat, another fifty pages raving about bureaucracy, a story beat, and 100 pages about brainwashing and how socialism fucking sucks. Then the most half-baked "how do I tie this bad essay together?" ending.
It's Atlas Shrugged for people who do take showers.
Itβs a hundred pages of diatribes, some misogyny, a story beat, another fifty pages raving about bureaucracy, a story beat, and 100 pages about brainwashing and how socialism fucking sucks.
The joke of 1984 is that Orwell neatly described the modern capitalist British State virtually to a T. Hell, it wasn't all that far off from the contemporary British State, given the conditions of paranoia and economic decline the island suffered during the postwar aftermath.
In the era it was written, a lot of the diatribes about the nefarious villains of socialist politics felt like a guy throwing on a big spooky ghost custom with a light under the chin. But in the modern moment... fuck it if cops busting down my door because my elementary-school son was tricked into accusing me of ThoughtCrime during a mandatory Two-Minute Hate doesn't feel like a thing that could really happen.
Then the most half-baked βhow do I tie this bad essay together?β ending.
The execution was a forced ending. But the psychology at the end - this desperate liberalist clinging to an individualized, compartmentalized psychic resistance - absolutely strikes a cord. I know plenty of people (hell, I regularly indict myself) over the reflexive meekness draped atop rebellious fantasy. This growling whipped-dog sentiment, where liberals will say everything in a loud whisper, but duck their heads in terror at the first whiff of authority or consequence... as we move further and further towards fascism. I see it everywhere.
Orwell very neatly diagnoses the failure of the liberal opposition in the personage of Winston Smith and his peers. And it is even further pronounced in the meta-textual narrative, as Orwell himself is an embodiment of Winston. A man who has rewritten history at the behest of his imperialist paymasters (after a career as a fucking Burmese cop and nark, ffs) goes to his grave subsuming the revulsion of his own country with a fear and antipathy towards a distant foreign land.
I do agree with your points. I think it's certainly an insightful book (just not in the way Orwell intended) but not a good book.
It's an early YA novel and propaganda piece. Very good at what it set out to accomplish. Obviously, not good for a material understanding of the world.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(16 replies)
view more: next βΊ