Summary
Ahead of the 2024 election, Generation Z has sparked a trend on TikTok, “canceling out” family members’ votes by voting opposite their Trump-supporting relatives. Many young women post videos showing them voting for Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, contrasting with family members supporting Republican nominee Donald Trump.
Although Gen Z voters lean slightly toward Harris, a significant portion supports Trump. With over 47 million early votes cast, polls show a tight race, especially in key swing states.
Very good way to frame voting to make it obvious it matters.
One person litters, you see a water bottle on the ground. Everybody litters, your town sucks. Tragedy of the commons takes an extra mental thinking to act on in day to day life.
Yes and/but you might be interested to know these things about the “Tragedy of the Commons”:
Elinor Ostrom, awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2009, fundamentally challenged the “tragedy of the commons” theory, which Garrett Hardin popularized in 1968. Hardin’s theory argued that shared resources—like grazing land or fisheries—inevitably suffer from overuse because each user, acting in self-interest, seeks to maximize personal gain. Without external regulation or privatization, Hardin claimed, such resources would degrade irreparably.
Ostrom’s work provided a different perspective based on extensive field research across diverse communities managing shared resources, such as forests in Nepal and fisheries in Turkey. Through these studies, she found that local groups often developed effective, self-governing systems to sustain and share resources equitably. Ostrom identified eight core principles, such as clear resource boundaries, community-devised rules, local monitoring, and graduated sanctions for rule violations, which contribute to sustainable communal resource management. By documenting these successful cases, she demonstrated that, under certain conditions, communities could avoid the “tragedy” without privatization or top-down control.
Ostrom’s insights reshaped economic thinking by showing that cooperation, rather than competition alone, could lead to sustainable resource use. Her findings emphasize that real-world communities often solve commons problems through trust, local knowledge, and shared governance, challenging the idea that only private ownership or government intervention can manage common resources effectively. Ostrom’s approach has since inspired policies and frameworks for resource management across environmental, urban, and even space governance contexts, as her principles underscore the potential of collective, decentralized solutions to common-pool problems.
Her work offers an empowering view of human capacity for self-organization, contradicting the inevitability of Hardin’s “tragedy” and suggesting new possibilities for addressing global commons issues like climate change and biodiversity loss. This impact has encouraged rethinking in fields ranging from political science to ecology and economics.
Sources:
• Inside Story, “The not-so-tragic commons”
• Resilience, “The Victory of the Commons”
• Space Foundation, “The Commons Solution”
Also Hardin was a white nationalist and pushed his “tragedy of the commons” theory as a justification for eugenics.
So every time someone references his pseudoscience, they’re breathing life back into a dead fascist’s racism. Yaaaaayyy…
The concept of the tragedy of the commons existed centuries before Hardin. He just uses that concept to justify an unsound conclusion and the concept would exist whether he wrote his paper or not.
Every time someone references it, they’re referencing that concept that really does affect communal resources, and probably have no idea what argument Hardin ever made based on it.
The beginning of the paper lays out the idea very well and I use it to teach people to treat shared resources respectfully, but tell them not to bother reading the conclusion.
The distinction between “government regulation” on one hand and “community-devised rules, local monitoring and graduated sanctions for rule violations” on the other seems entirely artificial to me. In both cases rules and enforcement are set up to avoid the tragedy. The latter just uses more feel-good words to describe local government.
The Tragedy of the Commons is a capitalist myth just like the Myth of Barter.
We as a country need to mentally prepare ourselves to owe an absolutely massssssssssive debt of gratitude to The Women.
Saving our dumb collective ass again. As usual in elections at least within my fucking lifetime, women and ethnic minorities prove that they understand the values of America better than the ultra-fragile white conservative men who think they own this place by virtual of sex and race.
It’s easier to get behind and push for those American values when you realize you aren’t really equal – not because of anything you did, but because you simply exist. It’s hard to not feel bitter about it, especially when part of the population wants you dead and is actively trying to persuade everyone else to get on board.
But we see our allies, we know who is standing up for us. We stand with you, for everyone’s sake. Together we can overcome this.
Up here in Canada as well. Almost exactly half of men, across all age groups, say they play to vote for the Cons. Last I saw it was 20% of women voting Con. I am incredibly embarrassed at my fellow men.
Polievre wants to defund the CBC, build more oil pipelines and continue the expansion of city suburbs. No way I’d vote for that guy. The only good thing I’ve seen him say is that there should be more competition in the telecommunications market, but it does not take much effort to point out a problem.
There are so many issues with a Con government–like not even admitting climate change exists, that’s not great–and you mentioned many others.
I’m honestly tired of women bailing us out in these elections though, so I cannot imagine what it’s like for them to have to keep doing it.
The only good thing I’ve seen him say is that there should be more competition in the telecommunications market
The Conservatives didn’t do anything last time about this despite it being a big discussion point, and they had years of majority to do it. I don’t see them changing tack since they don’t seem too bothered by any of Canada’s other oligarchs.
All that said, the Liberals barely took a step forward on this either, right before taking a huge step back allowing Rogers and Shaw to merge. These damned neoliberals just refuse to help anyone.
I have been a Liberal since I was 12 years old. I have never voted conservative in 30 years of federal elections. But with Trudeau refusing to step down I have no choice but to vote conservative. The backbenchers know they’re not going to get re-elected with him in charge and that’s why most of them have been relegated to the back benches. He’s surrounded himself with sycophant MPs, and is delusional enough to think the majority of the country is happy with him.
I’m willing to let Skippy axe the carbon tax and hopefully make living in this country affordable again. Ontario generally elects a provincial party that is in opposition, provincial liberals will get in and reintroduce cap & trade which will save us when the next liberal government is elected and tries to save the world again.
But with Trudeau refusing to step down I have no choice but to vote conservative.
NDP, Green?
I’m willing to let Skippy axe the carbon tax and hopefully make living in this country affordable again. Ontario generally elects a provincial party that is in opposition, provincial liberals will get in and reintroduce cap & trade which will save us when the next liberal government is elected and tries to save the world again.
When we’re voting on abortion again, I hope the women in your life have a chat with you about how your vote effected them.
Wasn’t there a large percentage of white women who said they’d vote Trump even if he wanted to ban women from voting?
My parents would vote by absentee ballot. Dad would have them do it together at the table at the same time. If my mom wanted to vote differently, she’d never have been able to.
My father use to send me into the voting booth with my mother to make sure she “remembered” who to vote for…no election officials ever stopped me from going in there and I was too young to understand that I was a spy. My father’s not violent but I’m sure I wasn’t the only child spy being used by men who were.
Ah yes. Cops the the rescue.
They literally couldn’t enact a fully passed bill preventing domestic abusers from owning guns because the police are full of them.
I was raised with the very strong belief that my vote was private, and I never had to tell anyone. I think it probably came from my father’s own experiences as a hippie during the War in Vietnam, and voting differently than his conservative family…
Unfortunately, he’s seemingly forgotten all of that in an angry pro-Trump haze, to the point where I’m convinced that he would do this to my mother now. If he had to. I think he’s already got her conditioned to not have a political mind of her own. So no need.
Seems clear now that it was always just the typical boomer mantra of “me me me.” The only reason he had any concept of being ostracized by family for voting a certain way, is because it happened to him. Now it doesn’t matter because they all know he’s a fucking nutter, so no need to hide it I guess.
In other words, if I were being raised by him right now, he’d be saying something completely different (and probably demanding to see my ballot). Just like every other value he instilled in me, then immediately ignored for the rest of his life.
Let this be a lesson to everybody - don’t marry a Republican.
Fuck. Gen Z should not “lean slightly toward Harris”, Gen Z should be an overwhelming progressive and inclusive force.
Fuck Twitter and TikTok that fried men’s brains with shit like Andrew Tate and similar things.
I don’t think you can blame Twitter and TikTok for that. People who like Tate’s toxic masculinity incel garbage will find somewhere that feeds into their preferences.
Well the following is my unscientific belief:
Social media algorithms are studied to make you see always the same kind of beliefs and everything opposing them is discouraged. They incentive inflammatory, divisive and hateful content in order to obtain more engagement, especially on Twitter.
If they used Mastodon or Lemmy, those people would be less tense.
If they used Mastodon or Lemmy, those people would be less tense.
If they had more normies on it, maybe. But Lemmy seems to be composed primarily of the tensest people in the world to me.
