Ken Jennings on Doomerism/Nihilism
A lot of replies here (obviously from people not already aware of The Discourse on this point) were genuinely confused variants on "But why, they're right, that's a valid concern." Let me leave a short thread for future readers explaining why that stuff is always unwelcome on here. (1/n)
It's totally understandable if you're dooming about any facet of the American experiment right now. So your feelings are "valid" in the sense that they represent real anxiety, and I get that. But to vent that anxiety in other people's spaces is wrong for three reasons.
First, it's factually wrong. There will be elections in 2026 and 2028 under Trump, just like there were elections last year under Trump and during his first term. This despite one of the two major parties now harboring a lot of anti-democratic elements and ideas.
I'm not particularly interested in convincing anyone on this point and won't try, the future is the future. But if the left side of the political spectrum is still the domain of scholarship and expertise, take note that you don't find scholars and experts you worrying about canceled US elections.
Second, and probably most importantly, it's tactically wrong. "No point discussing political opposition to fascism, there won't be elections anyway" cedes victory to your enemies. It's defeatism and nihilism.
Finally, it's wrong AS A MATTER OF ETIQUETTE. Entering a total stranger's discussion and leading with your private anxiety is as off-putting in social media replies as it would be in real life. If you wouldn't interrupt a stranger at a party to announce that America is doomed, don't do it here.
If you are anxious and sad about the state of the world, that's fine, and there are plenty of strategies for dealing with that. But I think you already know that drive-by online dooming isn't a strategy. It's selfish and adolescent. It's a contagion that only spreads the worst of you, not the best.
Take a second and think before posting the easy Eeyore reply. You might have something substantive to say instead. Or, even better, you can say nothing at all.
https://bsky.app/profile/kenjennings.bsky.social/post/3mbuedepurs2x
I do believe there will probably be elections (and that they'll do everything they can to make them unfair).
But to think there's a 0% chance Trump could move to cancel elections is naive at this point. Add it to the mile-long list of things "he'll never be able to do" that he has done. He's literally already threatened to do it.
If Trump calls to cancel elections, and some red states don't hold them, the.correct response is "ok, you have left X seats vacant in congress.", which would be worse for Republican power than a 20-point D swing. (Especially since it makes the 2/3ds vote for removal after impeachment correspondingly lower.)
If Trump rolls out ICE to physically stop elections, then we're in a state of violent civil war. Which cannot be collectively planned for.
This isn't abortion or gay marriage being overturned by the court. It's a very straightforward bright line whose precedent was set during the US civil war, and there is zero benefit to spending any time spreading the presumption that cancelled US elections mean MAGA peacefully stays in power.
Trump has already called for cancelling elections. He use his normal prevarication bullshit like "People say I should cancel elections. You should cancel elections, but I'm not going to say it" or some doublespeek nonsense.
There is no such thing as a given "correct answer" in this scenario. While it is constitutionally true that elections are up to the states and 100% within each state's purview to manage and control, what there will be is chaos.
Complete chaos at every level, including all the seats up for grabs that do or do not see their individual powers and responsibilities transferred peacefully, and the states that want to have elections now having to wage an inner political battle just to carry on in the face of some sort of presidential cancellation.
You write as though red states are red and blue states are blue and they can be expected to act that way, and you're dead wrong. Red states have solid blue urban centers and blue states have large unbroken swaths of rural red, and every election is a surprise in this regard. Even hard red areas in Florida have been going solid blue lately. Who even knows where the lines are anymore?
Add to that the fact that this is not just about who goes to Washington: it is also about judges and coroners and water board commissioners and county taxes and boards of education and everything else from local to federal, and the people who are due to vacate those positions, and those who would like to have those position or at least keep others out of them.
So for every state that actually tries to have an election after some kind of election-canceling fuckery from the orange pedo, there will be an in-state battle over when and how and for whom, which some states will win and some will lose, and the line between winners and losers will NOT fall neatly between red and blue. The line may not even fall at all, meaning that this scenario could easily start political battles that never end and simply play out in court for decades to come.
To reiterate, EVERY item to be voted on in the 2026 mid-term elections has a battle ahead of it: referendums that need direct resolution, bonds that need approval, taxes that will be levied or not levied, candidates at every level that want to gain power or stay in it, as well as other forces that will absolutely want to make a meal out of the situation, not to mention propaganda (much of it foreign) that will seek to control the entire public narrative for its own ends.
The ONLY certain outcome of cancelling these elections is chaos. It is literally impossible to say how any of that will shake out at this point.
Your "correct response" take is incredibly naive. If you want to believe that what will be left after the orange shitheel sabotages elections is some central force that ignores everything else on the ballots while it calmly divvies up local, state, and federal positions and somehow neatly keeps the empty seats empty for those who would have been elected but were not, feel free. But it's a total fantasy.
You're jumping the chaos a whole generation of facts early. And mangling two distinct foot-guns from the American right.
Sure, Trump could trigger a violent civil war. But so can King Charles. And just like with Parliment, the game for what happens is entirely known--and makes his own gruesome death more likely than any other action he could make
Either MAGA participates in an election they might lose, or they trigger a civil war they would likely splinter over. Whether that civil war is against a nominally elected Congress of non-MAGA states or against the governors of non-MAGA states is almost a moot point.
The only thing that makes any chaos possible from Trump calling for an election delay is internet chattivists insisting that his blathering would have some chaotic effect.
Elections of non-local jurisdiction aren't ran by local areas. If Florida or Texas cancels elections their blue urban areas go as unrepresented as their red ones, and if red localities in California or New York try the same they wind up with Democrats winning a bunch of seats they otherwise wouldn't.
Sure, you might have some members of the current Congress try to retain their seats, but absent an election 100% of the House and 1/3 of the Senate become private citizens in January. They could fuck around and help Trump start his civil war, but there's no "chaos" there. It's a very short constitutional crisis, that either ends in the unelected losers going home or the same violent civil war Trump could start tomorrow by claiming that the DNC is a terrorist organization.
And a violent civil war would have plenty of chaos, but none of it would be electoral.
All of that presupposes the existing order continues uninterrupted in the event no elections are held, with a whole lot of other suppositions and ridiculous assumptions thrown in.
Let me list a few, such as "unrepresented" areas because current seat holders would just go home: even the Virginia AG who is not an AG and has been ruled as such by the appropriate court hasn't gone home.
And "Democrats winning a bunch of seats" in elections that do not take place. How does that work?
And assuming that winners of Congressional elections would even be sworn in and seated by a speaker or Senate leader who stands to benefit by not having enough members left for quorum, as Mike Johnson has already done with Adelita Grijalva: why not just swear in some and not others, or none at all, since there is no rule book anymore, as they are already doing?
Or even that there would be the political will to treat the situation as a "constitutional crisis" that can be legislated out of, when in fact there is NO adherence to the Constitution anymore anyway and they are doing whatever they like, again as we are already seeing today.
Thinking that critical parts of the system will hold when others are torn down the middle, or even more bizarrely that there is direct line from your version of a canceled election to an outright "civil war" is nothing short of delusional. If you want to go find people to kill because elections have been sabotaged be my guest, but actual civil war, with civilian armies bearing arms and leaving their homes to go and shoot each other, takes far more provocation these days. It's not 1860 anymore.
It's far more likely people will remain at home because any civil war will NOT be geopolitical, another concept you seem to struggle with: there are no lines on the physical map anymore where, when you go there, you know what they believe. You just think you do.
As I said in my prior comment, believe what you want. But you write fantasy well, and this is more of the same.
Blocking you now on the grounds of sheer insanity. My reality may be shit, but at least it's tangible.
Wow. What a committed dooner.
Since this very depressed person says they've blocked me there's no reason for me to respond to them, but if you're casually reading this I would like to point out that the poster demonstrates some dramatic ignorance about US politics. Specifically:
It's an unelected US Federal Attorney who is refusing to vacate their position. There is a federal AG who is a member of the President's cabinet, but the state of Virginia directly elected theirs in off-cycle years, and Democrat Jay Jones was just elected for a term starting Jan 14. It's entirely ordinary for the lame-duck incumbent to still be in their position, and even to be a bit of a nuisance on the way out.
Each two-year Congress starts when a simple majority of elected reps meets literally anywhere,.with the first order of business as swearing in new members and establishing the rules for the new Congress. There's very solid precedent for what to do if some don't show up or even if there are no house re-elects: the recent days-long impasses over Republicans picking a speaker, for example.
While MAGA does appear to be a fascist group willing to ignore rules, it's also one built on a theory of constitutional authority and American democracy. There is no precedent for them ignoring elections, even the ones they don't like -- just the various traditions and courtesies that are entirely outside the constitution. If Trump tries to cancel the 2026 or 2028 elections, expect that some currently-MAGA allies and voters would harshly react against them. (Especially with the already-apparent fault lines over the Epstein Files.)
I think that it's much, much, much more likely than civil war or cancelling elections to just expect the sort of harassment and bad-faith shenanigans that has already been done, both in pseudo-aoarthide states like Texas and in "purple" states where Republicans hold jerrymanderrd legislature but lose statewide elections.
You are of course free to make up your own mind and even be a doomer like @[email protected] . But I don't think obsessing over the eminent breakdown of American democracy is either health or useful.
Please for the sake of the rest of the world just collapse already, this farce is getting pathetic. And preblaming "doomers" is laughable.
Trump thanks you for your dedicated service.
It's not about "there's no point discussing opposition because there won't be an election anyway," it's about "don't wait until 2028 to act and hope on voting your way out of fascism."
That might a valid way to feel, but it's definitely not what's being said here. This is a mound of doomerism with no additional context and no take away that people need to be prepared to act. In fact, it makes it seem like there might be no point to acting
I think we should at least be prepared for him to try to suspend elections this year and in 2028 (if he’s still alive). Now that the violence is ramping up and they’re threatening military action against the entire Western Hemisphere, the only way they stay out of prison is by staying in power through force.
Absolutely - it doesn’t take a genius to see the through line from their recent actions to suspending elections. Not to say it definitely will, but that it is a definite possibility
I think staged elections with rigged results is even more likely. That's the typical dictator modus operandi.
Apparently the microblogging format has made people so socially dysfunctional that they've forgotten what a conversation is.
The entitlement is bizarre. It's the whole fucking point of a forum. "They're invading my space" is a rich god damned thing to say online.
This is such an interesting point to me (the third one) because it has no true IRL analog and both people are correct.
If you are Ken Jennings or someone reading his posts and comments, and a random person posts on his post with a derailing comment, it is like why should anyone tolerate that? Times 1000x for all the people who reply to popular accounts.
If you are the random person who follows Ken Jennings and his post comes up on your feed, and it feels like he is personally posting on your feed, and it is starting a conversation with you, and you feel strongly about it, why wouldn't you respond? (Without a well-developed sense of internet etiquette that is not universally agreed on).
This one-to-many communication which allows publicly viewable replies is such interesting technology for humans, with a lot of nuance and shades of gray.
Yea, I've never used Twitter, but doesn't the same general etiquette apply as forum posting?
If I post something on a public forum that says something about US voting, how is that not inviting other people to continue the conversation? If you don't want people to respond, make a blog.
I think it's important to note that he's saying all that in response to people asking why he'd block or mute someone jumping on his post with something like that.
You can reply to public posts all you want, just don't be surprised if saying dickish things gets you blocked by the poster. Ken is just offering his 3 reasons he's blocking them.
With something like a completely valid point that doesn't, from all the text I see here, shut down the conversation at all? A comment that points out a real possibility that we would all do well to be prepared for?
It's somewhere in between, though, right? On a traditional forum, you can create a thread, where being OP on that thread doesn't give any privileged moderation powers within that thread.
On a traditional blog (or, like a newspaper's website where they allow commenters on the articles), it's well understood that the comments attached to the blog post or article are subject to moderation, and that the person who posted that has strong moderation powers.
With social media sites, the platforms have all given the users the power to post freely, and then moderate their own reply threads from there. It's obvious on platforms like Facebook or Instagram, where someone posting a comment on someone else's post is understood and expected to be subject to the moderation decisions of the original poster (including the power to just disable comments entirely). But on microblogging sites, replies often are considered on more equal footing, and are posts of their own, instead of being clearly subordinate to an original post/comment relationship.
In the end, I think the power to mute or disable replies (even on an ad hoc basis, even after the fact) gives the impression that replies are a semi-private space subject to the original poster's own moderation decisions.
None of that would apply to someone commenting on the substance of the post on their own chosen space (writing a new post with the screenshot), but going off platform doesn't actually ping the original poster within that platform. In a sense, the power to ping that user's inbox also carries some level of responsible etiquette.
"Entering a total strangers discussion" - They posted it on a publicly accessible forum, my dude.
Also, you are probably right the US will have elections, but will they be fair? Will they be free of federal tampering? Will ICE be posted at polling booths and arrest anyone brown who tries to vote? A rigged election is not a legitimate election
Will voters stay home for fear of that because of what ICE is doing now, even if ICE doesn't actually interfere on election day?
The chilling effect of ICE, dang.
Yes, but there is a qualitative difference between posting an original top level post, versus posting a reply under another user's post. Twitter-like platforms generally give users the power to control replies to their posts in a way that is less than perfectly open public access. It's probably somewhere in between a forum where everyone can post (and where moderation rights are generally independent of who created a post) versus a blog where the blog owner can moderate the comment thread under their own posts.
He lost me at "but to vent that anxiety in other people's spaces...".
It's not "your space", it's a public forum.
Don't want people commenting on your opinion? Don't air it in public, or just block and move on.
No need to write a book about how they're wrong to express their opinion in the same way you just did. It just comes off as sanctimonious.
Fell free to point out my own hypocrisy and we can go in circles.
I'd argue there's a spectrum from a totally public forum to a totally private forum, and replies to social media posts on platforms where users are followed are somewhere in the middle.
It's kinda like comments on a blog post. The blog owner still controls the space, including the power to block users and delete their comments from that page, and enjoys a privileged position with respect to what is essentially publishing and moderation powers in that particular space.
It's within that particular accountholder's powers to block, ignore, or mute other commenters' ability to interact with the content posted (including simply turning off replies for certain users or all users). So in that sense, the platform itself is public while that particular user's profile page and the feed of that user's posts is curated by that user.
And perhaps most importantly, these commenters are leveraging Ken Jennings' account popularity to magnify their own comments' visibility. They could post something on their own, but they also know that their replies to Ken Jennings have a much higher reach than their own original posts would.
In other words, there's a fundamental difference between capturing a screenshot and posting a reply somewhere else, versus replying on platform.
It's a quote post, not really a reply. That is very normal for popular accounts on bluesky/twitter. One is sharing something with one's own, likely smaller audience while adding context, not necessarily really replying to the famous OP (viz. Jennings), as one can't expect an answer. It's an easy way to interact with and share posts from larger accounts on micro-blogging sites.
Jennings is on a micro-blogging platform, he should know to expect this (ironically, know the etiquette). Idk, him then going to such an extreme extent of publicly humiliating the other user (though the username is not visible; at least he does that), especially given his large fan-base, feels unnecessarily harsh.
That's true. Definitely more public facing, and more on the "fair game to discuss" side of the spectrum, probably between normal replies and full blown screenshot: probably triggers an inbox item in the original poster's place, invites commenters to follow the link to the poster's page, possible for original poster to delete and break the quote tweet, but not an actual reply that can be seen on the default view of the poster's page.
In a sense, that's even further down the "fair game to discuss" end of the spectrum. Replies to the substance without identifying that particular source or providing a link to that profile (but not actually hard for someone to find). Even further down would be a simple paraphrase "I'm getting a lot of people saying something to the effect of X and I want to respond to that point" without a screenshot.
But my broader point is that these interactions do exist on a spectrum, and on-platform interactions on Twitter-like platforms is less than a full blown public forum.
Touche, I see your point. Ultimately, I think his claim about etiquette is still nonsense, though, especially given your latter point. But I won't hold this against him, you've convinced me that his may be an authentic perspective.
You've got a point. I'll copy and paste my reply (editing pronouns) directly to his bluesky.
Gotta disagree with Ken on this one. First, as other have pointed out, there is a very real possibility that Trump may find a way to cancel the elections. Laws do not matter to him or his base, and to ignore this fact is leaning too far toward "optimism" that you land in "gullible" territory.
Second, Ken is not the Arbiter of Conversation. I mean, have you seen him make small talk on Jeopardy? For crying out loud, the guy is one of the worst conversationalists on TV today. He's a fucking genius, but not somebody I'd like to spend more than 2 minutes with at the bar. People can input whatever they want, especially when you are having an open conversation. As he mentioned, their thoughts and anxieties are valid, so fucking stop trying to invalidate them.
If you don't want to see doomerism in your feed, I totally get that. I'm tired of it, too (even though I regularly contribute to it). You can totally just block or mute people if you don't want to see that, but to suggest that they shouldn't be saying it to begin with is crossing a line, IMO.
No, he's right about the etiquette. You might not realise it if that's how you genuinely feel, especially if you talk mainly with like minded people, but it's true.
The closest I've come in actual conversation is when someone has a habit of bringing up horrible things from their life or past on the most tenuous of connections. I don't want your depression to depress me, I'm sorry.
But more important, he's right tactically. Doomerism is the wrong tactic.
thats the thing, though, if you only ever want positive engagement with your fellow man, where do we form empathy towards strangers? Where the hell does society occur, if we are filtering all language through a vibes-based pachinko machine?
if our leadership's best take is, 'plug your ears, forget about the horrible violence, just wait for years....'
that is the opposite of leadership. you are irrevocably inculcated in failed liberal ideology
That's not what I or they said though. You can express displeasure or concern without injecting misery into a conversation. Or, most people can. It's actually ok if some people can't but really those people should have the good grace and good sense to keep it to themselves if they're not able to moderate themselves.
This reminds me of the people who only are around when good things are happening in thier life, and dip at the slightest discomfort.
This mindset you have, to have good grace and good sense to "keep misery" from conversation feels a bit like putting ones head in the sand.
"In polite society we don't talk about dark things that make people uncomfortable" is exactly how we got here. Get some courage and face reality. This reads like all conversions should be bubble wrapped so the misery of reality doesn't touch you in your feely feels. Thats what's juvenile to me. Heaven forbid you face hardship's misery. Oh no
The family in the film, "The Zone of Interest" sure knew how to keep polite society didn't they?
I'm not saying it's never appropriate to say how you truly feel, but it's genuinely important not to contribute to the doom-mongering, so doing it on social media I'd say is not appropriate.
Talking about your childhood trauma is not something you should bring up on a first date, to take an obvious example. It's not nice to spring that on your date for one, and it's also just not a good idea for reasons of self-interest. Even if it's really on your mind and you really want to talk about it.
talks about childhood trauma on a first date
We wouldn't be friends, and that is okay.
Camus said: "Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
I happen to agree. I don't judge, nor does it make me uncomfortable, when people need a space to talk about whatever. If it's painful, I empathize, for I know pain.
The US may not have free and fair elections again. This is a valid concern, hiding behind your social intellect or whatever, isn't going to change the reality. Doesn't change a public forum from being public.
If you're genuinely concerned that the US may not have free and fair elections again, you shouldn't be talking about it in the way exemplified here, because it makes it more likely to happen. Simple as that.
Great, but the purpose of conversation or online discussion is not solely about seeking what is true. The purpose of political discussion is often to obtain the political changes you think will bring about a better society. The purpose of going on a date is to find a partner (well, that's a main purpose.)
Bringing about positive political change often requires speaking the truth, but it doesn't require speaking every truth. Some are irrelevant. Some are relevant but distracting. This particular one (if it is true), when presented in this way, is defeatist. The fight against fascism is a fight and if you need to be economical with the truth to win it, that is better than losing, at which point there will be no truth except that which the neo-Gestapo permit.
Finding a romantic partner requires finding out true things about each other, but it also requires not violating boundaries. If I were to go on a date and the other person trauma dumped, or told me about their last bowel movement, it matters not one iota if those things are true! They are in fact red flags because if they don't understand that those are violating boundaries, it's likely they don't understand or will transgress other ones. Now, I'm not likely to go on any dates any time soon because I've been with my partner for years, and so it's now appropriate for us to talk about any such thing because we're very close.
Maybe you're a saint, and willing and able to listen to trauma anywhere, any time. I actually doubt it though; few people are. So I think more likely you understand that you can't just dump that stuff on people at any time and expect good results. I think you won't even have to dig deep to think of a time someone has said something true that nevertheless upset you.
If you truly can't think of a time, then I think you'll have an even easier job thinking of a time it happened to someone else, because it's extremely common. If say you can't even think of that then I'm afraid I don't believe you're trying.
I get that you're depressed or whatever, but like ew. Just be happy!
Do you think it's not OK to want time off from a depressed person's conversations about unhappy they are (for example)? Because it sounds like that's what you're saying, even if it's not what you mean.
Ohmygawwwduh, can you just like stop talking about how you're sad? Just stop whining and smile!
Every time I see you in a comment section you are the most based motherfucker and I just wanted you to know I appreciate seeing you on lemmy /gen
I see, you're too brain damaged to read a reply and say something in response
I'm not sorry that people who are suffering aren't pretending to have perfect lives for your precious comfort.
Don't be. Instead you should be sorry that you're continuously mis-representing what I'm saying with no effort to understand.
I hope every person you meet trauma-dumps on you constantly until you get your head out of your ass.
I don't really see how bringing up the possibility of elections being cancelled is more of a downer than planning on voting for whoever is willing to "prosecute the [current] regime at every level". The whole point is that the Republicans have genuinely, actually, for real turned fascist. That's horrifying and depressing on its own and I don't think it's out of line to at least assume that they would absolutely cancel/rig the elections if they think they can get away with it. Because that's what fascists do.
Yeah this isn't an example of springing a downer on someone who's having a normal conversation, but it's a similar vibe: someone has something on their mind all the time gnawing at them, so they can't help but bring it up, even if it's not a good idea, even if it's not true.
The tactics part is the infuriating one here, to me at least. Even if you genuinely think that there won't be elections, if you act like there won't be, all that does is further make it harder to find those voices pushing for democracy.
The regime will be less willing to pull elections if everyone keeps talking like they're going to happen. If doomers let them be de-facto "cancelled" then the regime doesn't have to do any work to rig them on their own.
Not to mention that it's a quote post, not a direct reply. Quote posts on twitter or bluesky are not really intended as replies, but rather someone adding context to something they want to show their own following. Jennings is on a micro-blogging platform; he should know the etiquette. His post feels like an immature attempt at revenge and makes him seem very unpleasant and rather self-centered.
I would totally tell that to a stranger at a party, if he talks about the next election. You are technically correct though. There will be "elections" just not free, equal, democratic ones.
Let me ask one question: Do you expect there to be ICE officers at voting locations?
that answer alone constitutes the difference between free elections and a something you would expect in russia.
The entire point of saying there won’t be (fair) elections is to plan what the fuck to do it that proves true.
God damn these people for blocking those on their side because they aren’t saying what they want to hear.
There are plans in place to split this country and to destroy 100 million Americans.
Doomerism is burying your damn head in the sand and pretending they aren’t legally starting to set up their split in LAW (which they are starting with Texas right now). Come on!
Blocking anyone for disagreeing with your point of view is such narcissistic and self-important behavior that only serves to show that you are not prepared to actually stand up for your beliefs and that the purpose of your online discourse is to create a masturbatory safe space for people to jerk each other off without opposition. I hate that it's a function and that it's being weaponized, it's quite literally cancel culture.
The US ruling class and the economic elite sided with a psycho they could no longer control, but kept doubling down and down.
They made the same mistake elites were making for ages across the world. Wonder where this mistake will make the US go?
This is a pretty bad take.
I don’t think so. If someone has nothing more to add to a conversation than "No point discussing political opposition to fascism, there won't be elections anyway”, it’s like ignoring climate change because “we’re already screwed and there’s no way to help ourselves.”
Denial and doomers never help. They just give people an excuse to be complacent with whatever we’re given, and disempower those who are trying to improve our situation. I refuse to let the fascists win by laying down and accepting them.
It’s your projection onto the words doing that.
“We aren’t going to have elections” isn’t them saying give up and don’t do anything.
“We aren’t having elections” is them saying… we are past this and we need to plan for the next thing.
Except now you're literally projecting onto the words they're saying.
And that's the problem... They are making an off-hand comment without substance and a ton of negative space. It doesn't add to the discourse, it sets it off in wild tangents as everyone fills that negative space with whatever they want to project onto it. And from what Ken said somewhere in his replies, he gets 100s of comments like that.
I agree with that but I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why is it a bad thing to remind people of the possibility? If nothing else, hopefully the feeling of dread will stick with them for many elections to come and prevent us from having to deal with this every 80-odd years.
Oh, I see what you’re saying. It’s an important distinction, and I’m glad you brought it up.
Acknowledging a problem is sensible, and that’s not what I’m arguing against. I’m not telling people to bury their heads in the sand. I just don’t think that surrendering immediately is the answer.
Oh, then we're in full agreement. Defeatism is never the answer.
OP didn't say anything like "No point discussing political opposition to fascism"
IMO they were discussing an important part of that opposition - realizing the Regime is going to tamper with elections, and discussing the effects and potential remedies.
The post that OP is responding to says that exactly. Scroll up if you don’t believe me.
I'm looking at it right now and the response shown to Ken Jennings post was:
"If there's even an election in 2028"
Are you're saying there is further context not communicated by this post, and that the person responding to Ken said that there is "no point discussing opposition"?
Is there some kind of technical glitch? Are you not seeing the text under the pic? Anyway, here it is:
You are just repeating shit that was already posted and debunked in this very thread.
Did the person replying to OP say there is “no point discussing opposition”? If not, then all this stuff you posted in completely non sequitur.
So… you were upset when I was quoting something that you didn’t think actually existed. Now you’re upset because I AM. I don’t think you understand what “debunked” means, either.
Go pester someone else.
If you actually think the current American regime is ever gonna get prosecuted then I have a bridge to sell you.
"Just vote out Hitler next election"
Good luck with that, we will see how that goes for you. I am preparing my thoughts and prayers.
praying RN for u <33
You don't have a right to privacy or your "own space" in a public forum, and the fucking self importance to tell people what they may or may not say online because you personally feel morally superior to them is straight up juvenile. You can always leave.
They don't need to cancel the election. All they need to do is install a few armed ICE people outside every polling place in Democrat areas.
They’ve been rigging elections for decades and we’re at the endgame now. There will always be the appearance of elections, but it will be performative. Even North Korea and Russia pretend to have elections, even if the outcomes are predetermined. That is how the US functions now.
to stop all the non-citizens who don't have voting rights from voting?
Sort of. Corpses aren't citizens anymore.
Not strictly true in all states https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/counting-absentee-ballots-after-a-voter-dies
I've been saying that all along. These people who say we can't run on punishing Trump, we have to have something to vote FOR, need to understand that until we crush MAGA, and purge it from our government and society, we can NEVER move forward. MAGA is a SERIOUS National Security Threat, and if they aren't dealt with decisively, they'll keep destroying any good in this country, until they are.
I've got a list of improvements America can make, including Medicare 4 All and Campaign Finance Reform, but right now, crushing MAGA is absolute top priority. The time for diplomacy is far past. We need Warriors to be candidates, not appeasers. It's time for LEGAL retribution for their CRIMES, not their politics.
Democrats ran on that once already but were unwilling to actually do it. They have no credibility now.
Centrist democrats won't crush MAGA. They're ALLIES. Schumer and Jeffries just fucking proved it.
Oh, yeah, if the Dems can get the majority in the House, the first rule of business needs to be to fire the MAGA comedy act of Schmuck & Jeffries. We need to meet toughness with toughness, and we need leaders who are willing to do that.
You act as if anyone is actually running on punish Trump. They aren't. They're running on "ignore all the bad things about me or we'll force Trump on you again."
Simple: We need to punish MAGA, but it can't be what we run on.
Remember: Trump did not mention annexing Canada once on the campaign trail. It was literally the day after the election he first mentioned it.
I can't take a chance on a candidate, only to find out after he's elected that he wants to follow an appeasement strategy, like Obama. At the time, I said that if we didn't slap down the Bush administration for their crimes, things would only get worse, and here we are.
Nope, they can talk about all the other things they want to do, but their priority has to be dealing the the serious National Security Threat that is MAGA. Anybody that doesn't take a strong line on that issue is t going to have my attention for anything else they want to do.
Ken Jennings is not prepared for the possibility of no elections, emotionally, so he tries every trick in the book to shut down that topic. That or he's being paid off.
If you find the subject distasteful, translate that into action rather than whining about words.
Wow that's a lot of projection from someone terrified that erudite and well reasoned civility politics might not actually be a good assumption to just carry forward.
Oh, really Ken?
Its that simple huh?
https://theweek.com/politics/america-competitive-authoritarianism-trump
Yeah try maybe actually catching up with the experts on how fucked the situation actually is.
Yeah yeah there are likely to technically be elections, but they're likely to not really be legitimate or actually serve truly democratic (small d) purposes.
This is a cope turned into a scold about Ken's little fantasy hugbox reality not being respected by actual reality.
Grow the fuck up.
Hugbox is the right term. The line about invading someone's personal discussion, that you posted yourself in the fucking internet, reeks of so much entitlement. This wasn't a good take by Ken at all. Very out of touch.
What a fucking waste. You will all deny the reality of the situation until the last second and go, "who could have known?"
Dont be a pussy and block the people who are issuing you a warning. Realize this is the world you are living in right now and stand up.
"Trump said multiple times he wants to cancel elections. We know he's literally incapable of joking and has no respect for the constitution, so we have no reason to think he's not serious"
"Just a distraction from the Epstein files! Vote in 2028!"
I have kinda given up hope Americans know what "tyrannical government" means, let alone fighting against it
This is gonna age like milk lol
Maybe, but saying that there wont be elections helps ensure that there wont be elections.
Its the climate doomerism side of climate action. The doomers and the deniers are part of the same coin that gets us no closer to a solution.
Paul Revere telling people the redcoats were coming actually was what brought the redcoats?
Yeah, you lost me here. You posted it ON THE FUCKING INTERNET FOR EVERYONE TO SEE. Heaven forbid someone comment and interact. Oh no! Woe is you!
What a load of entitled bullshit.
Suck an egg.
This is a well thought out explanation of an amorphous feeling I would always get when discussing stuff with my now ex-wife. We'd be talking about some terrible thing that the republikkkans were undertaking, and she'd always, (always) inevitably point out "...and it's even worse for black and brown women."
And while, yeah, it is. It's a true statement, but it also kind of shuts down the conversation, ya know? So now are we only allowed to discuss the plight of black and brown women? Do bad things not happen to the rest of us?
I don't know, every time it happened, it's like she was trying to make me feel bad for thinking about anything BUT the plight of women of color, and I couldn't really explain why it wasn't adding to the discussion, but this write-up gave me the words.
Couldn't you just acknowledge that fact and move on with the conversation? Or does she try to turn the entire conversation into a discussion about minorities?
No any time she mentioned it I yelled and hit her. Of course I acknowledged it, mate, what kind of question is that? She made that point during every conversation about anything, there was nothing that we could talk about that wasn't, evidently, worse for women of color. It's an invalidating response that tells your partner that you don't actually care about their troubles, because someone else has it worse.
Because some people will actually just yell and hit her, or ignore her points or whatever, then get on the internet and tell sob stories to get people to sympathize with them.
yeah, there are also people who go on the internet posting... actually it's not worth it, enjoy your day.
Sure Ken, that's because all the scholars and experts on fascism have already fled the country.
I don't see these "scholars and experts" offering much of anything besides telling us to roll over and take it while Trump admin crashes this country into the ground and ruins millions of people's lives. If they think we can wait until midterms to put a stop to this they are part of the problem.
Wow all of them? Not a single scholar left in the entire country?
'Scholar and expert on fascism' is a subset of all scholars. Not that its not a bad claim, or that them leaving the country wouls stop them from commenting... it would free them to do so
This is the juice for me. Worried about the next election? Me too! What are you going to do about it? Dooming in the comments isn't action, and if you're trying to get me to act, then insisting that there's no point in any of this is a weird way to do it.
If you believe that and don't think there are any action steps, fine. But don't slather that despair everywhere. We don't need it; we've already got enough despair. Some of us are trying to do something about it.
Have a plan, try to get people on board with it. But just insisting that everything is doomed is just as useless an online activity as insisting that everything is great.
If you think you've already lost you're guaranteed to lose. Hope is NECESSARY to make a successful attempt.
its hardly pointless dooming when trump has literally expressed vivid interest in getting rid of elections because he is terrified of losing and facing accountability.
That's not what people are saying when they say that. They're saying we need to start fighting harder NOW. If we wait until midterm elections do or don't happen we are fucked. There's no guarantee the outcome will be favorable anyway and Trump has already alluded to fucking with elections.
"There's not going to be an election in 2026" is defeatism. The message to fight for it is, "We need to make sure there's still an election in 2026".
As things stand, defeatism is justified. If Dem leadership don't get their shit together and start taking action that's where we're headed. Based off their performance so far there is no indication that they intend to do so. We are stuck with a 2 party system so it has to be them. If you want us to stop saying defeatist shit stop letting us get defeated.
There will be no midterms. Notice how every single fucking day for years has been "I cannot believe this is happening", and that the breadth and depth of that is only increasing?
This horrible chapter in human history will close, for the better, like every other horrible chapter in human history: with a lot of bloodshed. Should there be political opposition to fascism? Of course. Will that be enough to turn the page? Absolutely not.
Shit give Ken Jennings a position in the next administration. I have no idea what he's qualified for, but I do know for a fact he's good at trivia so he knows some things, and going by this tweet he believes in the rule of law.
Bam, yuh hired. Based on those 2 qualifications alone he's already more qualified for the highest office than 100% of the Nazis in the current administration.
He's a game show host. Apparently that qualifies him for the top of the ticket.
True, I guess if it's a prerequisite we only elect U.S. TV celebrities, Jeopardy is going to be the closest we could hope for to provide somebody remotely qualified. He may be humanities last hope.
I don't think hosting Jeopardy gives any kind of special status, but I'd argue that being one of the greatest contestants in the history of the show counts for something.
But honestly if you absolutely had to choose between putting your own life and the lives of the entire country in the hands of the host of jeopardy vs any other American game show or talk show host, or reality TV star, who would you assume is most likely to fuck things up the least?
I’d feel better if it was Trebek
He's super smart, and has morals. He could do anything better than 90% of the current politicians of either party. Hell, I'd vote for him for president over whichever tokens the parties put up on 2028.
"Ethical dilemma" of blocking or muting, what a weenie.
Try not caring enough about their opinion to do either, toughen up buttercup
I don't see how it's rude to comment on a public discussion, but yeah I guess if you want to feel like a martyr on social media go right ahead with that.
"Oh my word, another stranger commenting on my commenting about someone else commenting. I have the vapors!"
Take your own advice and say nothing at all. See? No comments about your no comment. Peace will descend upon you, gentle soul.
I agree with Ken, but disagree with his reasons (in particular I think hiis first point is wrong) Here's mine:
Lily white rich cishet celebrity throwing toxic positivity at everyone nearer to the business end of the "then they came for" list than he is. Surprised he's not singing "Imagine."
I don't think it is toxic positivity to identify a problem, wants a course of action to fix it, and pushes back on people saying don't do it because it is too hard.
I think it's toxic positivity to tell people to just not be scared of fascism because it won't be a problem for Ken Jennings personally.
I'm not a doomer about having elections. We repeat the same dismal spiral and the shitshow that is election season is an important part of making me hate living with all of you even more every year.
I find it helps to ask what is the intention. If it is to just unload negative feelings and there is no effort to build something after dumping those emotions, then the intention is to dissipate energy. IMHO it is better to hold those emotions and unpack them in a space where the energy can be harnessed into something more useful than venting. Even a rage room is healthier and more productive for instance.
It's amazing how angry people get when someone reminds us that we don't have to take the extreme position on everything all the time
I'm mildly interested in the prosecute the current regime candidate, but I would rather vote for the make all of their delusions of persecution real candidate.
There's a typo in the title, Null. And thanks for the post. Agreed.
Thank you, fixed
"Entering a total stranger’s discussion and leading with your private anxiety is as off-putting in social media replies as it would be in real life. If you wouldn’t interrupt a stranger at a party to announce that America is doomed, don’t do it here."
this take is why this guy is invalid. To these people, everything is a party, don't step on my toes, don't interrupt my vibes, etc etc liberal in-group flailing vapid futurisms to maintain legitimacy this country is over
wow ken jennings is a price of shit
This should really be the only point that needs to be made. You can say the elections will be fraudulent or a sham but you can also say they've been that way for a long time. Its just a shallow and juvenile understanding of the situation.
You think there is a 0% chance trump suspends the election under a war he starts?
I'm not wasting my energy guessing what form their evil plans will take.
How? how??? Through what process will he "suspend" an election?
How? Through what process will he just barge into a country and kidnap their president??
Through the War Powers Act and his role as commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in the world, next question.
That doesn't answer my question.
The answer is there doesn't need to be a process. He just does what he wants and the government lets him.
Its apparently incredibly difficult for a lot of people to realize that:
You can, in fact, just do stuff.
If there's no actual system to stop you... ???
There's no system to stop you!
... very, very difficult concept for a lot people, apparently.
So what you're saying is that he'd... Send in the military to do what exactly? Close polling places? Any court would give an injunctive order against that within tje day.
Yes, he would send ICE in to close or "monitor" polling stations.
Anyone not white, christian, conservative enough gets arrested. They can beat the rap, maybe, but meanwhile they don't get to vote.
Also, he ignores court orders. Like, recently and continuously
Did you ever think “we aren’t having elections” and “the elections are shams and dangerous with ice that’s all around them” are basically the same fucking thing.
To be honest cancelling them would be better than fucking flat out cheating again. It would get through to way more people than the cheating he is doing. So you can call it fucking optimism on some of our parts. Doomer.
They've already 'successfully' got one judge with ice. Do you really think he wouldn't, one, ignore anything a judge says with full support of all his minions, and, two, not simply get rid of the judge by that point? He's had one year for his lickspittles behind the scenes to set the stage, and now we are seeing constant escalation by ice.
The military complied with orders to commit war crimes, from top brass to the lowest grunt. We. Are. Fucked. They would absolutely shut down elections, especially if it's claimed that they are 'protecting from fraud.' Talking about who to elect is good, we shouldn't stop, but we also need to be seriously considering what to do at each other point as we descend fully into our hell made of fascism, and not bury our heads in the sand about elections being the only (or most likely) win.
Where did say he would need the military? All he has to do is pass an executive order saying no elections. Is that legal? Nope. Does that matter? Also nope.
I'm not even American but he's already "floating" the idea of cancelling the midterms and I feel pretty confident that's exactly what he's going to do. Every single abhorrent thing that Trump does starts with him basically outright telling everyone what he's going to do. For some insane reason, nobody ever takes it seriously because it's always "it's just a joke" or "he can't legally do that" but he's always serious and he will do it because nothing and nobody is stopping him
Yes I'm sure that him having thoughts is a meaningful argument for him being able to execute those thoughts.
What thoughts has he not been able to execute? He wasn't allowed to invade Venezuela but he did it. He wasn't allowed to tariff most of the world but he did it. He wasn't allowed to rename the Gulf, rename the DOJ, or anything else but he did it.
Courts have injunatively unfired a lot of people, given injunctions for deploying national guard to Chicago, etc.
For sure, but the damage is always still done and the injunctions are really just buying time in that when they reach the higher Trump-aligned courts, they'll just rule in his favour and allow him to continue whatever bat-shit thing he wants to do
By "declaring it". Then a bunch of red states play along and just don't do elections.
Then everyone is like "Only half the states had elections, this is unprecedented!"
Then Trump declares the election void. Everyone in power just goes along with it.
Dems in congress file lawsuits and Clarence Thomas buys a yacht, meanwhile Dumbtits just does whatever he wants.
Then congress wouldn't have any people from red states.
Sure.
And then Trump tweets that this Congress doesn't count because it got taken over by radical leftists. Then the entire executive branch will refuse to even acknowledge the laws passed by congress, the laws that they are the enforcement arm for.
Meanwhile, Clarence Thomas will buy another yacht.
Whatever "process" anyone had to keep Trump in check has been dismantled consistently over his two terms. The checks and balances don't work, no one is held accountable.
From my perspective in different western country, I'm shocked you still believe there are things he COULDNT change, ignore, replace, or destroy in any part of the government.
Bb,.. If trump had literally zero checks on his power the U.S. would look a LOT different. He still has checks on his power. It's just that.
This does not suddenly mean that states have no power, etc.
They made him fucking king.
China would have to occupy the west coast for full suspension of elections. So no, you're right, its, not absolute 0.
He may have ICE agents at the polling stations but there will be elections. Look at the dictators around the world, they still have elections. Having the ritual preserves the legitimacy.
"I think my argument is superior, therefore you may no longer hold contrary opinions, and if you do we will collectively silence your voice."
Classic entitled professional victim behavior.
Word salad
Tell me what you think would happen, for instance in Texas, if Trump issued an executive order saying "election is suspended"?
Are you certain that there wouldn't be any states that would go along with this? The election can't happen if the states don't participate, and if only some do, then you are entering into an unprecedented situation which potential gives Dumbtits the ability to make precedent.
They have been, they will be too, but I'll also say it's gotten a lot more blatant over time. Jan6 should have been the moment where people really woke up
It'll be even more blatant as the next election comes closer, assuming they don't pull the "martial law no election" shit which seems to be the current aim.