this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2026
1330 points (90.9% liked)

Political Memes

11461 readers
1530 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

2) No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

5) No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Anyone who pretends like these two things are mutually exclusive, is either a fascist, or the fascist's useful idiot.

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Or someone without any useful context who spend their entire day arguing on lemmy. That's the case with 90% of the people on Lemmy who tell someone not to vote.

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"That’s the case with 90% of the people on Lemmy who tell someone not to vote."

can you substantiate it or are you just vibe-commenting?

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You can isolate people's reasoning clearly enough.

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

it sounds like you're making it up

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

It sounds like it's something that's unfalsifiable in the absence of active disagreement and since it doesn't fit with your idea of the world you'd rather attack it.

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 0 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I never argued that you couldn't.

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 0 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

you haven't argued anything at all. you e made an unsubstantiated claim

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Also called an anecdote, an experience I was sharing with someone else, not to say I have conducted an experiment of scientific rigor and have arrived at this result but to say in my time here I have recognized this trend. Only I don't speak like that because it's plenty clear from context. Then you attacked it with your own anecdote. So I think the more interesting question is why it bothered you so much that I often find people engage in politics without useful context.

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 0 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

I haven't given any anecdotes. I'm asking you to substantiate your claim

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

edit: whoops didn't mean to reply twice thought the first one didn't post

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 1 points 20 hours ago

It wasn't a claim it was an anecdote, it's a mismatch in communication expectations and I understand the confusion. I stand by my lived experience and expect it to be treated as nothing more than it is.

That being said you shouldn't look for rigor in social media or get your facts from there if you treat the comments as you seem to, which is to say expecting scientific rigor that's bad practice. If I was making such a claim I would link to a primary source but again the is a casual conversation on social media. I think you expectations may be onerous for the medium.