The first way sounds like the result of management training, tbh. Giving people space to reply instead of jumping right into questions allows them to give a reason for example. The conversation can go in that direction and is about the situation not defending against the manager’s assumptions about why something happened. Like “You clocked in late yesterday.” The person can be like, “yeah I couldn’t find my socks.” It needs to be about something that everyone agrees happened tho.

I don’t think the second way is great either, and puts people in the defensive real quick. Like, “Your coworkers said you were late yesterday, is that true?” You are probably wondering which one of your coworkers is a narc instead of paying attention to the convo. Or maybe you weren’t late to work, but there was a spill in front of the terminal and you needed to wait for it to be cleaned or cleaned it yourself. And then forgot to get it adjusted. And you have an asshole coworker who is trying to start shit.

Sorry your manager is an asshole. I don’t know if ‘thin skinned’ is a useful term. It’s not thin skinned to be upset about being told you did shit you did not do.

Okay, I can see why that’s how some people read it.

It don’t think people consciously support wars, or at least I hope they don’t?

The behavior I find offensive is how when people point out flaws with the Democrats or the US electorial system they are accused of being as bad at the Republicans and wanting the Republicans to win. That’s what I mean about defending the child crushing machine. I’d say the same thing about people doing this with Liberal/Conservative parties in Canada too, by the way.

They jump to the conclusion that criticism is telling people not to vote, even when voting isn’t mentioned. That’s such a jump that feels like it’s rooted in preserving the two party system because it shuts down any “what if?” or organizing around the specific criticisms.

To an outsider it feels like they think the US system is so precious and special and that anyone who criticizes it must hate freedom. It feels like they take the criticism personally which is confusing. I don’t get defensive when people talk shit about the country I live in and it’s government. I don’t need to chime in. I’m not proud of everything I’ve done in my life so it’s not like I don’t mind because I’ve got nothing to be ashamed of. I just don’t need to make it about me, you know?

There are lots of countries that do imperialism but I think the two party system is unique in that the Dems hold the country hostage by saying “Vote for us or the bad guys will win!” and won’t be convinced to be a little less shit themselves. That seems like something they should be talking about more, especially when the Dems position themselves as being progressive and then either quietly support some heinous shit or walk it back when it comes to election time to appeal to more people. There is a constant bombardment of news, busy people might not be aware of just how awful they are if they only see the election ads and don’t hear about the voting records etc.

I also think opening deciding what the lesser evil is online is awful. Talking about these things like abstract concepts when there are people who are actively being harmed by the choices reading it and then pushing back on the people who point that out is wild. It makes it sound like it’s harder on them to have to vote for the lesser evil than to get bombed or starved by sanctions. I regret using the term child crushing machine myself because it’s so flippant. It was not something I should have participated in.

To be clear, I’m not saying they need to prove they are “doing something about it”. I’m not interested in interrogating people in a purity test to see if they meet my moral bar because who the hell am I? I’m also an abolitionist and I’m not interested in labeling fellow working class people as good or bad because I think we are more than our worst days. Don’t read that as I think harmful behavior is okay and should be ignored. True community and caring is holding people accountable and working to undo harms not just throwing people away when they fuck up. These people are not my community.

I hope that helped clarify my meaning.

I can see why my wording was confusing when taken out of context. If you go up a few levels you can see that we are saying the same thing. Or at least I think?

I asked when do people get to push back against the lesser evil, and someone said the primaries. What you were responding to here was me saying I don’t see how that’s possibly true if the primaries keep spitting out people who have no interest in being even slightly less evil.

I don’t think it makes sense for me to try and prove my sincerity as much as maybe explain why I don’t think this meme is useful if it’s only about elections.

Let’s make this about Ds and Rs so there is no ambiguous “they”. The meme shows the D party being asked to be slightly less evil. The D party says they are not willing to be nudged to be less evil and they would rather the Rs win then to give up on what they want to do.

Why would people think that means that not voting for them is an effective means of pushing them to be less evil? It wouldn’t make sense for this meme to continue with “and that’s why you shouldn’t vote for them!” What’s that going to change?

It’s a description of how they operate, not an instruction manual.

This is a good way of putting it. I like that you specified what this dynamic serves.

This is also super helpful on a personal level to understand why people keep reading memes like this (and the ratchet) as saying the good cop and bad cops are the same. Yes, one of their goals is the same (upholding capitalism/imperialism) but they have different side quests they want to do along the way.

However, if you see the world as only being cops, either from agreeing that capitalism or imperialism is something that should be protected (Group A) or not being aware that this is an intentional dynamic meant to serve the common goal (Group B) then I can understand why the conclusion is that these memes are saying there is no difference.

I know the message I want to share in this meme isn’t going to reach group A. While I hope they change their mind, I am not trying to be the one who does it. People who support capitalism/imperialism have values that harm me and my community and I don’t want to waste my time on that.

My goal with this meme is to reach group B and hope they can use this framing to decide what is best for them and their community so that we can get to the “fuck the police” stage.

How can people fix a problem if they are discouraged from talking about it (ETA: or are told they are helping fascists by talking about it).

I guess what I don’t understand is how the candidates in the general election can be so unpalatable if the primaries are the place where people can ask for what they really want.

I disagree but I don’t think anyone will accept that my interpretation of the meme is correct because I didn’t make it. So I made a different one where I can say with authority what the intent is.

Does this avoid the flaws you see here?

There is something about the US collective unconsciousness that reads “one side uses the other side to make themselves look better” as “they are the same” and I don’t know if I will ever understand.

I made this meme to highlight the difference between the “more evil” and “less evil” groups and how that difference is the mechanism that prevents things from getting better. Seeing them the same doesn’t explain why the situation doesn’t improve. To be extremely specific, the difference is that one of the two groups uses the other as a threat to get the public to accept a situation they do not want as the best option.

I don’t think it’s exclusive to the US or two party systems, but that’s off topic for this reply. I think what I want to say will be easier to follow if I specify R and D instead of % evil.

The Ds say “accept this imperfect approach or you actually support the Rs, which makes you the bad guy”. The Rs also use the idea of the Ds being in power as a threat to their base, but it’s more “you need to vote for us or these guys will do all these bad things you don’t want!” It’s not the same at all, which is what I am trying to say.

Maybe you (or others) can help me understand how this could be presented to be about the general relationship between the public (the guy with hat) and the Ds. What makes this appear to be about a general election between R and D and not about the efforts to make the D less evil? Maybe there is an implication I’m missing with the format that I’m not aware of. How could this meme be made more general?

How detailed does a meme have to be?

I decided against continuing the convo you are replying to because it felt like the other person and I had both explained our points of view and anything further might feel like trying to convince them to adopt mine but I had wanted to bring up primaries.

Doesn’t this same thing play out in the primaries? Otherwise how could the lesser evil stay evil?

Work all year to improve the choices at the voting booth and make the best choice you can once you’re there. Rinse and repeat.

The meme isn’t intended to be specifically about elections.

I do not think this. Why do you ask?

When I initially read this I thought the reply was describing the system and saying it’s normal and good actually rather than comedically pointing out the flaws.

What I wanted to communicate with this meme is that the 20% evil group uses the 100% evil group as a threat to allow them to do the 20% evil.

It’s a message about the mechanics not a suggestion about what should be done or what could be achieved.

No?

Holy shit I thought this was a serious reply for the first few lines and I was AGHAST

It’s easier to stomach typing out than examples 😬

I am bad at reading user names 😅

When else can people put pressure on the lesser evil to “tone down” the evil? Or take the opportunity to ensure folks know about the evil? Isn’t it when things look their worst they say “well actually we need to be slightly more evil to get those swing voters”?

Maybe I don’t understand the US system but I believe platforms are individual to candidates and that there are no overall party platforms that the candidates are expected to adhere to. How is there no shift to less evil under these conditions? So many individual elections for individual people and a whole lot of wack people getting elected.

and they’d rather fight the lesser evil than the greater one.

I think this is my point: when do they fight the lesser evil?