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
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
~~The first Bluesky user user’s post includes an assumption [there will be an election]. The second comment refutes the assumption [an election is not guaranteed].
How is the second user wrong and why do you consider it doomerism? Based solely on the two messages the first user could just as easily be construed as the more apathetic one, talking about hypothetical indirect action in the future. Operative word: construed.
The two don’t even seem to disagree (in fact it’s strongly implied they both think members of the Trump regime are worthy of punishment). They just argue against strawmen, conjured from the unspoken parts of the other’s argument – as always on those microblogs.~~
Edit: Nvm, I’m confused by the format of the Lemmy post