Some people out there seem to be confused, but I always vote in every local and every national election for every office and every ballot initiative since I was 18 years old. Some of my greatest civil rights heroes have fought and died so that we can all vote and I honor their memory in the ballot box every single time. 

To some of us, especially those of us like myself who have been scheduling secretaries for US senators, it often seems like a morally reprehensible choice between compromised corporate Democrats and fascist-minded Republicans. Where I live in California, I have the luxury of voting my conscience for president for third-party candidates that better align with my ideas of justice and equality. 

But in any and every contested race, as my mom Mary Morello always said, we have to fight the fascist every which way we can, recognizing that even if there’s but an inch of difference between two candidates, there are a lot of vulnerable people who could be greatly harmed in that inch. So vote your ass off, but don’t just exercise your right to vote. Exercise your right to fight for, organize for, struggle for, and manifest the kind of world you’d like to really see without compromise and without apologies before, during, and after election day. And let’s stop the fascists every which way we can. Power the people.

  • jj4211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Well here he is applying nuance. He can vote that way thanks to the realities of California. He is trusting the audience to understand that nuance of that stance.

    It’s a tricky one, since on the one hand he may be overestimating the electorate, but on the other folks inclined to listen to him may internalize the nuance and not get alienated by assumptions that he is selling out. I’m leaning towards the latter since he at least is calling people to vote instead of some blindly anti electoral take, which is fairly prominent in the online discourse.

    • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’ll be honest, most of the people I see critiquing elections or candidates like Kamala have nuance to their views. Which makes sense, because it takes reflection and thought to break with the normal for most people.

      On the other hand, I see tons of binary “any criticism is anti-electoralism and literally fascist” takes online that totally lack nuance. Which also makes sense, because when confronted with a break in normality, most people tend to react emotionally, not logically.

        • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Sure, that’s a hard line for many people who vote with their conscious, and probably most protest voters agonized over the decision, knowing that in our system it could help Trump (although, as it turns out, even if every single third party vote went to Kamala, it still would not have been enough for her to win — protest voters are a tiny demographic).

          That’s still more nuanced than “Blue no matter who” or “nothing but genocide on their minds.” (As if genocide isn’t a huge fucking thing that should break every politician who supports it, but that’s a separate argument.)

    • Omgpwnies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Yes and no? There’s a lot of chuds who listen to RATM and somehow don’t get their message; but they’re not necessarily listening to Tom Morello, and very likely may not even know his name (or Zack, or Tim, or Brad). The people who listen to RATM and know who Tom Morello is, are far more likely to understand the nuance here.