deleted by creator

It’s the concepts of a plan.

Next 4 years are going to be a wild ride.

I’m not scientist, but I wonder if the can feels cooler.

Also, I definitely have been pavloved into thinking the sound of a can opening is refreshing.

But you can’t have “everyone” reject war without including warmongering fascists in the category of “everyone”.

Seeing as you acknowledge how difficult that is, are we on the same page about how unrealistic your original solution is?

No it’s not easier than everyone making the right decision for anything else, but it is the right decision.

I’m going to propose something.

The most idealistic, “right” decision, done in the wrong context, is the wrong decision.

For example, let’s say all of Ukraine rejects war. They no longer resist Russia.

Did we save the world? No. That is appeasement, and that didn’t work out to well with Hitler.

Again. Prove the worth and viability of your ideas by encouraging the ones throwing the punches to reign it in first, before applying such lofty and naive ideals to those trying to defend themselves.

EDIT: I’m not going to bother. You believe that all it takes is for everyone in the world to reject war, with no viable plan instead of hand waiving “education will fix things”. Wishful thinking at best, forced indoctrination at worst.

No shit there would be no war if everyone was against war.

Tell you what, you manifest your dream with the Russians first to get the invading forces to be against war and I’ll take you seriously. Until then, the real world will go on, with or without you.

The solution is for everyone to reject war.

Aw shucks, is that all it takes? How’d we overlook that?? We’ll get cracking on that right away.

In the meanwhile it makes sense for a country being invaded to do whatever it can for self preservation, especially in a defensive manner.

Not OP, but I believe this is in reference to the election, and the “both sides”-ing of genocide.

But when the ones we oppose, the ones who are carrying out the war of genocide, and the ones who stand to directly benefit are absolutely enamored with a decision, it can give pause to those of us sitting in our ivory tower armchairs as to the impact of our decision to those who face the consequences more directly.

EDIT: removed a block of text that took all too long to type out because I’m not going to spend more time further arguing the interpretation of someone’s comment as if it were religious script.

Quite frankly it hardly matters. You asked for proof of folks politically engaged yet not voting, I shared what I thought constitutes proof. You believe it doesn’t qualify, but other folks reading this can draw their own conclusions.

Thanks for keeping the conversation civil - have a good one!

If you’re a wage earner in this country, your life does not change in any significant way based on who we elect, so why skip a badly needed day’s pay to vote? There’s just no point.

You’ll notice that’s different from

If you’re a wage earner in this country and you think your life does not change in any significant way based on who we elect, so why skip a badly needed day’s pay to vote? There’s just no point.

The former is an assertion that all wage earners lives aren’t affected by voting therefore they shouldn’t bother voting. IF you’re a wage earner THEN there’s no point in voting".

The latter is understanding a scenario from a potential perspective of a wage earner who doesn’t see change being discouraged.

Like you said in your own post,

someone who thinks both party’s won’t help

Can you point out where they say “if wage earners think both parties won’t help”?

If not, then you’re the one selectively interpreting this…

someone who thinks both party’s won’t help

I don’t read it this way all - there was no conditional on party efficacy and it in fact was an assertion that their lives won’t change due to who was elected, which changed the overall statement to read like the working class shouldn’t vote.

Tbf the 50% that voted for trump aren’t here, plain and simple, so that’s why you don’t see engagement with them.

The only political engagement you’ll see here on Lemmy shifts overwhelmingly left for all parties, so you’ll see mostly squabbling between various left factions.

Well here’s a comment from someone I was talking to that was politically engaged yet arguing that folks might as well not vote.

I’m not going into the thinking behind it, but it’s certainly happening.

Being politically “engaged” on Lemmy doesn’t mean much in terms of ensuring voter participation. I’ve seen plenty of folks with a “democrats have to earn my vote” sentiment. That very much seemed to play out given the much lower voter participation for Democrats this year.

My parents sent me a video from a Chinese “practice English” channel about the negatives of Kamala.

It was fucking insane, the channel was mostly “this is what you say at the doctor’s office”, “let’s practice ordering food”, and then hard conservative talking point videos casually thrown in. I’ve always told others that non-english speaking communities in America are especially prone to conservative radicalization because they’re so isolated from the general public.

I love them, but I was furious when I replied. It’s a little sad honestly, I’ve given up hope on them politically. Had to make it very clear that if they talk to me or our kids about politics we will not engage and will just leave.

He has the concepts of a plan

Holy shit I forgot about Stella “demon semen” Immanuel. Bruh this timeline.

As others have said, every time this gets brought up, the counterpoint is that we already pay more for healthcare than other countries, and there is 0 response.

At some point it’s just old man yells at cloud.

Carrier has arrived