Three wolves and six goats are discussing what to have for dinner. One courageous goat makes an impassioned case: “We should put it to a vote!” The other goats fear for his life, but surprisingly, the wolves acquiesce. But when everyone is preparing to vote, the wolves take three of the goats aside. “Vote with us to make the other three goats dinner,” they threaten. “Otherwise, vote or no vote, we’ll eat you.” The other three goats are shocked by the outcome of the election: a majority, including their comrades, has voted for them to be killed and eaten. They protest in outrage and terror, but the goat who first suggested the vote rebukes them: “Just be thankful this is a democracy! At least we got to have a say!”

-Crimethinc

  • Lena@gregtech.eu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 days ago

    I don’t get this false dichotomy, the sheep can both vote and do organized self-defense.

    • jwiggler@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Don’t you think the goats made a mistake granting legitimacy to a process that would see their own demise? They had a say, after all. For them to organize defense would be to violate the law, which, after all, they participated in creating.

      • quediuspayu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        How do I differentiate the goats that didn’t vote because they didn’t want to grant legitimacy to the process from those that didn’t vote because they didn’t give a fuck and are OK with whatever outcome?

          • quediuspayu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            Why not? I think it is a very good distinction to make, they are two opposite stances. One of rebellion and one of complacency.

            • jwiggler@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 days ago

              Well, I don’t think you’d be able to parse through the intentions of non-voters in such a way. A non-voter may be a protest non-voter, a non-voter who thinks their vote is worth nothing, a non-voter who was actually unable to vote, or a non-voter who thinks the two candidates are functionally the same for them, or any and all other reasons for non-voting. Just because a non-voter may not view their non-vote as a protest non-vote, doesn’t mean they don’t give a fuck and are okay with whatever outcome, is my overall point.

              With that said, I don’t think a protest non-vote is the opposite of a complacent non-vote. Functionally they’re the same. I guess if you wanted to judge a person by their non-voting intentions, you could do something like that. But I’m not sure its worth the time.

              I guess its worth noting that even though I agree with the sentiment of the meme and the goat story, it doesn’t map 1:1 in the real world. I don’t think someone is necessarily foolish to vote, for example. I did. But generally I agree with Henry David Thoreau when it comes down to it:

              All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or back gammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obli­gation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority.”

              • quediuspayu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                Exactly, since my protest non vote is indistinguishable from all the other non votes I don’t think it is a useful way to protest. I’d prefer to have my voice heard even if faintly and easily ignored. Where I live, the best option right now is to cast an invalid vote, they make it to the final statistics and don’t go to any candidate unlike the blank votes, that get proportionately distributed.

                • jwiggler@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  I gotta get back to you tomorrow more in depth but on the whole I agree that a single protest non vote is practically useless

                  But I also think that an invalid/inconsequential legitimizing vote may be more harmful than good…

                  Course the same could be said for protest votes, see: previous US election

                  I gotta think about it more

      • Digit
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Hold their own votes on what’s to happen.

        Open, all options.

    • Rhaedas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 days ago

      The analogy also isn’t accurate with the hidden threat. It’d be closer if the wolves convinced the three sheep that they could wear wolf clothing and be part of the pack if they vote with them.

      • Lena@gregtech.eu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        Why not use the little power you’re given? I’d rather live in a country with a center-left president than in one with a Hitler wannabe.

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          Because liberal democracy enables fascism. Capitalism condes nationalism as legitimization. When the people emiserate, they look for a reason outside of the nation as culprits instead of focusing on class.

          You’re not enacting power, you accept that the only input you have on a system can be conveyed with a simple X.

          • Lena@gregtech.eu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            5 days ago

            You’re not enacting power, you accept that the only input you have on a system can be conveyed with a simple X.

            You can do multiple things, you know. Voting doesn’t bar you from burning down a missile factory or something.

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              5 days ago

              It conveys the message that you actually had a say in politics.

              Voting doesn’t bar you from burning down a missile factory or something.

              Neither does drilling a hole into your knee and pouring warm milk through it.

              Vote if you want. But don’t act as if it actually solves anything.

              • Lena@gregtech.eu
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                5 days ago

                Neither does drilling a hole into your knee and pouring warm milk through it.

                It does, you’ll have a hard time walking.

                Do you genuinely think all politicians are the same and that it doesn’t matter if you vote?

                • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  5 days ago

                  It does, you’ll have a hard time walking.

                  Way to go taking a joke literally.

                  Do you genuinely think all politicians are the same

                  No. But their degrees of freedom are limited by the way the system is set up.

                  and that it doesn’t matter if you vote?

                  Yes. Btw: remember rule 6 and 7.

                  • Lena@gregtech.eu
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 days ago

                    remember rule 6 and 7.

                    Oh, I see. I know what anarchism is. As for the 7th rule, alright then.

          • Tinidril@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            Liberal democracy doesn’t enable fascism. It’s when liberal principals are abandoned that fascism rises. America hasn’t had a liberal party since FDR. The Democrats (and, to a large extent, Republicans) use the vocabulary of liberalism, but it’s just a facade.

            Even now though, it’s the lingering scraps of liberal democracy that keep tripping up the fascists.

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              POSIVID

              Fascists and repression are on the rise in all of europe, including the “socialist” northern countries. Stop looking at the world purely in an American way.

              • Tinidril@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                Aside from the specific parties, the story is very similar in Europe. When a country gets apathetic about liberal principles, that’s when fascism rises.

                Liberalism is generally positive, but it isn’t sufficient. Liberal principals are a good starting place, not an endgame for Utopia.

                • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  When a country gets apathetic about liberal principles, that’s when fascism rises.

                  Even if I’ll humor you and accept that: That would still be correlation, not causation.

                  Liberalism is generally positive, but it isn’t sufficient. Liberal principals are a good starting place, not an endgame for Utopia.

                  Right from the moment liberalism was conceived, there were already voices that wanted a more egalitarian world. You make it sound like liberalism is a necessary requisite for a more egalitarian world. I disagree. It’s a local minimum which humanity is yet to escape.

                  • Tinidril@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    That would still be correlation, not causation.

                    As if you have demonstrated evidence of any sort?

                    I disagree. It’s a local minimum which humanity is yet to escape.

                    Yes, we have established that you disagree. Not that you have provided any evidence whatsoever that a lower minimum can be reached by another path. And yeah, the totalitarian path to a better minimum has been tried multiple times. It didn’t work out so well.