This isn’t about immediately filtered content, like the disgusting DuffMan George Floyd meme, or Holocaust denial. That’s pretty well kept in check by mod tools. I’m also not talking about cogent or even pointed political discussion.
I’m not even talking about necessarily in this community directly, however in a lot of other spaces I’ve noticed a lot of accounts using divisive language and terms like “The ineffectual left” “single issue voters” “ignorant right wing morons”. Lots of straw man arguments, lots of willful ignorance.
I’m not a centrist, I’m very very very far left however I know well enough not to patently dismiss the talking points of others, outside of course calls to genocide. I know what dog whistles sound like, and I’m hearing a lot of them lately.
Most egregiously I’m seeing very long form post replies that read very much like what is generated from LLMs.
So I guess my question is, how’re we all fairing with what might be the largest Turing test ever?
OK, now a serious response.
What you are describing, to me, is how people should vote. It’s normal voting behavior. In realty, there are dozens of issues people care about to varying degrees, and you can assign values to each issue (how much it matters to you), add them up, and vote based on that.
My issue is that single-issue voters assign infinity to one issue and vote based on that, which is both usually lazy and stupid. There are cases where it’s reasonable, but they’re rare; if Trump supported Palestine and Biden supported the genocide (which tells you which side I’m on on that topic), then yeah; I think genocide is a reasonable single issue to make a decision. But in this case, Biden is pro-Israel, and Trump is pro-genocide (he’s said he thinks Israel isn’t going hard enough), so pro-Palestine voters should vote Biden.
Going back to your example: if two candidates do have the same position on issue X; and candidate A supports Y and Z; and candidate B doesn’t support Y or Z, then even if your single issue is X, you don’t just not vote. You have an opinion about Y and/or Z, so you vote for A or B based on that. And in your specific example, first: there is no candidate C in the US; there hasn’t been since Abraham Lincoln. Voting on the US is fucked up, and a vote for a third party is a wasted vote: not a protest vote, but a wasted vote, b/c C has zero chance of winning, and you’re taking your vote away from one of the other candidates, one of whom is more aligned - even if only slightly - with you values. Second, it would be unusual if you cared about X, Y, and Z equally, so one of those two candidates is going agree with you on one of those topics which is more important to you, and you should vote for them. Or - and this is the real situation in the US - two candidates are very similar about a half dozen issues, but widely differ about another dozen pretty important topics. And although that long tail of issues may not be your triggers, the weight of all those issues should make it clear which guy (and, so far, it’s always a guy) you prefer.
Biden and Trump agree on Palestine, although it’s clear Trump is the worse choice for Palestinians. They agree on big business. The differ about many other important topics:
and many other “lesser” topics. Saying that you aren’t going to vote because Biden is only less bad about Palestine is making a decision about a single issue, and it is a problem; it’s thoughtless, and lazy.