The most accurate thing about this is the liberal allowing the fascist to get on its back in the first place.
Because, you know, it would just be SO RUDE not to.
Or rather, they really hope the scorpion isn’t lying yet again.
Can’t wait to laugh my ass off when washington DC is split into east and west.
North and South? Mason-Dixon line pt. 2?
East and west
“lol”, said the Scorpion, “lmao”
But you know in this story, the frog was actually taking the scorpion to safety, not waging wars and funding a genocide. Maybe next time if there is no bureaucracy in the party, and you see Mamdani against Trump , you’ll see actual support from the left.
lol “Just one more purity test bro, then I promise I won’t support the fascist”
People with no standards really hate people with standards.
lol made up purity tests you use to justify supporting facism aren’t standards.
It doesn’t really matter what excuse you use for suppressing leftist voter turn out, you’re still doing work for the facists which makes you a fascist.
You’re supporting fascist, and I hate that most center people don’t see it. Either die slowly or quickly. I’m willing to at least attempt to change things, you should too.
The only thing centrists don’t conveniently see as “suppressing voter turnout” is enthusiastic agreement with the worst actions of centrists.
What’s really baffling is that even the fascist is doing a better job in the context of wars. And if I’m not wrong, those lefties targeted in the meme are just choosing not to participate in the vote, not to support some one. Forcing someone to choose least of two evils might just not be liberty.
lol
It’s refreshing to hear “leftists” just come right out and say they suport the fascist. Thanks for that.
choosing not to participate in the vote, not to support some one.
“leftists” just come right out and say they suport the fascist.
If you don’t understand how first past the post voting works you can just say so. You don’t need to waste a bunch of electricity and storage space with a vapid meme.
So you understood it, and thought that you can vote your way out of late stage capitalism like this?
Why would it be mamdani vs Trump? I get the whole trump 3rd term idea and breaking the law to install a dictator but why would the Dems run Mamdani? As a Uganda born individual, he’s not eligible to be president.
just an example 😅
I was literally going to reply to this pointing out that “protest voters” fit better as the scorpion than MAGA people. The MAGA people didn’t know that Trump was an objective disaster. They just thought he would make a disaster for their enemies and leave them alone. The “I’m too left for Kamala” people did know, and they still decided Trump wasn’t worth resisting, because they wanted to make their point. Or, as the scorpion said, it’s in their nature, and they just felt really strongly that that’s what they wanted to do.
And hey, now we’re sinking! Thanks. Great.
now we’re sinking!
Always have been.
Center people are a psyop
You just hate me cuz I’m right.
No we haven’t. FDR put in place universal healthcare, universal retirement, jobs for people that want to work so that they’re not subject to whims of the economy as to whether they can feed themselves. Postwar Britain guaranteed housing at reasonable rates to its people. The EPA, the CDC, clean water in your house, all this stuff happens because somebody makes it happen.
Democracy works, if you make it work. All that FDR stuff happened because people had spent decades fighting for their labor rights in the streets, harder than the wealthy were fighting to keep them down. That’s it. That’s how it functions. If instead of that, the labor movement had been filled with strategically incapable losers who said “MAN THE WHIGS DON’T FUCKING REPRESENT ME” and then fucked off to do something else, we’d still be working weekends and getting our arms pulled off in the factories.
This is why people think the whole “protest voter” thing is a psyop: Because it makes so little sense as a strategy for producing positive change. As a way of making sure things get ten times worse and the worst people in the world get to profit, though, it’s a fucking fantastic strategy.
umm, that’s 40 years ago you’re talking about, and it was Harry Truman who came after, so I say it was sinking gradually since then. In any case voting for warmongers is kind of an approval to them, people have every right to distinguish themselves from warmongers.
I don’t really care about labor rights that much in this discussion, but I strongly doubt that you can achieve any by “voting blue, no matter who”, you’re not really voting here imo, you’re just showing the lobbyists that you’re accepting anything blue they offer. The example of FDR only shows that your party has been infiltrated and needs a purge of some kind, instead of unconditional support.
umm, that’s 40 years ago you’re talking about, and it was Harry Truman who came after, so I say it was sinking gradually since then.
Yeah, pretty much. Because things got good and people stopped fighting.
This whole model where “the assholes in power are doing corrupt things and don’t look out for the people” is this shocking surprise, and leads to us needing to disengage from the whole system even more, is wrong. Fight for what you need. That is the way.
I don’t really care about labor rights that much in this discussion, but I strongly doubt that you can achieve any by “voting blue, no matter who”
Good thing I never said that. What I was saying is that “Vote no, no matter who” is a bunch of garbage probably equally unproductive to this elaborate strawman of “vote blue no matter who.”
The example of FDR only shows that your party has been infiltrated and needs a purge of some kind
Yeah, pretty much. If we could start with Schumer and Pelosi that would be great.
Tell me, does “the leftest end of the party refuses to vote anymore” leads to the party moving left? Or right? I can’t remember. Is that a good way to purge the centrists, by withdrawing the leftist input? Maybe there is some kind of history from 1968 - 1992 that I can look to. Or maybe the history of the Democrats since 1992?
If you meant that you wanted people in US to vote for someone like Bernie Sanders then I’m not your opponent. I only discard the idea of “vote Biden to prevent Trump” which evolved to “vote Kamala Harris to prevent Trump” even when both are clearly not standing for you really, but “just do it cuz they’re the candidates of the party”.
I’m pretty sure the meme is blaming those who didn’t vote blue in the last American elections, “resulting in Trump winning”.I’m not discarding the idea of practicing the democratic procedure in your country all together or participating in votes, but rather only the idea of “vote for the lesser of two evils”, as it has only proved to sink the boat so far. I’m arguing against extreme loyalty for the party, for life.
I only discard the idea of “vote Biden to prevent Trump”
Then you are… well, I won’t say you’re my “enemy” exactly. But I think you’re making incredibly stupid decisions, and then being dishonest (“just do it cuz they’re the candidates of the party” when the logic was literally pretty much the opposite of that).
If the house is on fire, then leaving the house is urgent. Preventing Trump was urgent. Saying it’s not worth leaving the house because you don’t like the weather outside is ridiculous, and framing this past election like preventing Trump was not urgent, even now with the benefit of hindsight, shows some really remarkably bad strategic ability, and I don’t think I really want to listen to your political wisdom as to how to look at things or how we can get out of this mess now.
only the idea of “vote for the lesser of two evils”, as it has only proved to sink the boat so far
My point bringing up 1968 and 1992 was that refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils, thus opening the door for a much much greater evil to reset the bar downwards and also motivating the Democrats to move to the right since the left isn’t voting for them anyway, is precisely and exactly what has been sinking the boat.
The “I’m too left for Kamala” people did know, and they still decided Trump wasn’t worth resisting…
Citation needed. I saw them actually resisting, unlike the liberals who paved the way for Trump’s facism. But they claimed it was OK this time, but cause it was the “good guys” doing it.
I’m mostly talking about the people on Lemmy. This kind of stuff is what I’m talking about:
https://lemmy.world/search?q=kamala&type=All&listingType=All&creatorId=5466182&page=1&sort=TopAll
https://lemmy.world/search?q=biden&type=All&listingType=All&creatorId=5466182&page=1&sort=TopAll
Compare to:
https://lemmy.world/search?q=mamdani&type=All&listingType=All&creatorId=5466182&page=1&sort=TopAll
Mamdani had to kiss the police boots but he gets a useless endorsement in its place.
He has started compromising with Democrats and abandoning his principles. We are halfway Bernie Mamdani already.
https://lemmy.world/search?q=no+kings&type=All&listingType=All&creatorId=5466182&page=1&sort=New
When it’s time to not vote for Democrats, they’re all yelling and super vigorous, activists with all kinds of passion. When a pro-Palestine, pro-worker candidate comes along, they start shitting on him. When it’s time to get in the streets, it’s fucking crickets.
That’s why I don’t like them. Surely that makes sense. If I saw them actually “resisting” or at least encouraging other people to resist, I’d be a lot less contemptuous of them.
This is perfect
Early 20th century Italian fascists had a popular slogan “Me ne frego”, meaning “I don’t care”.
People don’t really change.
“Me no frogo”
Don’t be the frog.
Portland has taught me to actually be the frog
Hmmmmm
What did Melania have on the back of her jacket that one time
Some say Epstein’s cum
You win, everybody pack up and leave.
Me ne spoogo
I dOnt ReAlLy CaRe, dO yOu??1
The original Maga hat!
based on a true story
I always dislike this story because of the biological essentialism it implies and that allows racists and sexists to use it.
Do you also dislike stories with talking animals because animals can’t talk?
It’s a parable, and you seem to be taking it too literally and simultaneously not literally enough.On the one hand, it’s saying not to trust people who want to hurt you even if your interests are aligned. The soviets trusting the Nazis not to attack them just because they both gained by dividing eastern Europe and not fighting a war on multiple fronts. No amount of shared interest will keep a fascist from hating a communist.
On the other hand, you actually really shouldn’t put scorpions on your back. It’s actually fine to reduce the agency of an insect to a stereotype of their biology.
Not sure why you’d getting downvoted here but it’s absolutely been used (a lot) to push racist ideas. I first heard it from an antisemite.
I think it’s just a shit message - “people will betray you on surprising ways, trust no one”
Ofc you misunderstood the message.
They got upvoted but should have been downvoted because they’re just inventing a weird new sensitivity that you have to strain to even believe can exist in another person’s mind.
Unfortunately, alot of us lived to see that message play out irl. Not in the racist ways obviously, but still
Isn’t the message that people will betray you in _un_surprising ways?
Scorpions would never sting my back
Said the person who just voted for the “Scorpions stinging backs” party.
I guess it’s both. You wouldn’t expect someone to sabotage themselves
I never took it as bleakly as don’t trust anyone.
Frog knows the scorpion is untrustworthy but ignores his intuition and gets burnt for it. I take it as don’t get involved with someone that would drag you down with them.
For anyone trying to prove anything with it, it’s a parable, so it’s advice, not a research paper! 🐸
Speaking of frog parables pretending to be research papers: the whole “a scientist did an experiment and if you boil water slowly enough the frog won’t jump out and just sits there until it dies”. It turns out that’s bullshit. The scientist was trying to figure out brain stuff, so he removed the brains from the frogs and they didn’t jump out when he boiled them. The frogs that still had their brains jumped out of the water around the same temperature as a person would step out of a too-hot shower (25°C).
I’ve always preferred the monk and the scorpion one, but I guess it could be used the same way. Never thought about it, honestly.
“Are you triggered yet, lib?”
dude… I’m the one who can swim for few minutes, you cannot…
“Don’t care, all I care about is triggering the libs. Is that triggering you? HAH! Triggeblub blub blub”
Bold characterizing Trumptards as something fierce like a scorpion. I guess they are predators though…
This applies to maga as well. Trump doesn’t give two shits about them.
Trump himself used a similar story about a snake in his own speeches. He was telling us who he is.
deleted by creator
This is what people don’t understand about humans. We want to be on top of somebody else. If everyone was equal then nobody gets to be the best. That fundamentally goes against evolution.
We also aren’t dumb monke. Those are the traits we need to cultivate.
I don’t think MAGA believes or cares about evolution. And absolutely no one is going for being “equal”. More equal and less extremes between wealth, yes, but not actual equality. I mean, running as fast as you can doesn’t mean you’re trying or expecting to teleport.
No, that’s not how evolution works. Humans are incredibly complex animals, and there are a ton of different evolutionary traits (some of which seem contradictory) at play that affect our social structures. Boiling it down to “humans want to be on top of someone else” is a huge oversimplification to the point where it’s potentially harmful.
It’s just straight up wrong. One of the reasons humans have done so well is because we’re extremely empathetic and cooperative. Selfish species tend to do poorly, with the majority of species being cooperative, even if not quite as cooperative as us.
That’s wrong af. Look at the civilizations on top right now. I’ll let you guess which ones are in charge. I’ll even give you a hint they aren’t the peaceful ones.
Depends on your idea of being “on top”. I for one could say Denmark is on top (and has been for some time) as they’ve been some of the happiest people on earth. Does that mean it agrees with your definition?
Wait, the people who raped and pillage? That is not the defense you think it is…
Well, in some sense, we DO want to be on top of somebody else. Or under someone.
Procreation is one hell of an evolution booster.
Being dishonest about all these civilizations that abused others is more negative and intellectually dishonest. All I said was that humans naturally try to conquer others once they reach a certain point. If you were correct about your assertions, well we wouldn’t be having a conversation about what if.
I don’t know who’s being dishonest about civilizations doing harm, but it’s certainly not me. I’m advocating for those civilizations to take the blame and responsibility for their actions, not absolving them of culpability in the name of evolution (which is what you’re doing, implicitly).
By blaming things on evolution, you’re taking the responsibility out of the hands of those civilizations doing harm. You’re blaming it on a “natural process”, making it seem like it’s an inevitable part of the human experience, a foregone conclusion. That’s dangerous. Humans are responsible for their actions. Humans can find better ways to do things. Humans have more control over their world than any other animal in the animal kingdom. Humans can even deny evolutionary instincts if the situation calls for it. Humans are more than just products of evolution, and to try and claim otherwise is harmful.
OK, but to say humans AREN’T a part of evolution is being intellectual dishonest at the very least. Not once did I claim that humans are merely a by product of evolution. If you understood my concluding sentence you would see that I make an argument for denying baser instincts. Furthermore you claiming that humans are not connect to these base instincts is causing tremendous harm in that were above nature. Which we are not.
People are shitty by nature and need to grow into conscious being. To try to argue against the betterment of man is asinine. :::.
Mkay cool, I’m not saying any of that. This conversation is over because you can’t stop putting words in my mouth. Goodbye.
Same you just lie about facts to make your point. Idk idc deep thinking isn’t your strongest suit.
Not shown on the shore: hundreds of other frogs watching with full confidence that any scorpion they give a ride across the pond won’t sting THEM.
