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.
Looking at the captions in the image…
How could you be married to someone who supports Trump if you don’t also support Trump. This just doesn’t make sense or even seem safe to me.
So is mine.
The funny part? He’s a union guy, doesn’t understand (despite repeated attempts to show) that Trump is anti-union. I’m sure the key component for him is really just some of that good old fashioned bigotry.
Which is also silly since he’s Cuban, and got some Testosterone shots recently (you know - gender affirming care).
He’s just clueless and won’t change his mind.
honestly mine is a pretty boy duche who would have completely fitted into frat life if he had went to university. Hes like a wannabe of the folks who might do well under trump (although history has shown even rich people do better under democrats as under republicans they get a larger percentage of a shrinking pie)
Shameful… The union members who fought and died for his right to be a member would be sickened by the idea of supporting someone like Trump (politics aside, even if you just look at his history refusing to pay workers and bragging about it).
I read that JD Vance crossed a picket line to do a rally or something a week or so ago. When I was younger, that shit would get you killed in a union town (possible hyperbole, they’d probably just break your legs and boot you out of town). Nowadays nobody bats an eye. It wasn’t even in the news, I only read about it in my union newsletter.
Abuse.
Religion usually plays a part.
Accepting the fundamental differences in viewpoint and pretending it isn’t there for the sake of kids
Etc.
My partners family comes to mind. Her mother is very liberal, her dad is a weird mix of liberal beliefs polluted by religion. They just don’t talk about it, everyone knows he’s wrong, he knows he’s wrong, he won’t change his viewpoints and his wife isn’t willing to collapse their family over it.
I know someone in this circumstance, and it comes down to exactly one issue: abortion. The spouse is Roman Catholic and cannot support abortion, so despite disagreeing with most of the republican platform, they feel obligated to vote with the party that opposes it. I had the same thing crop up in 2008 with a roommate who was Greek Orthodox and in every way one of the most progressive people I knew, but they voted McCain purely on this one issue out of religious guilt.
The spouse is Roman Catholic and cannot support abortion
That is bullshit.
They can support abortion as much as they want, they don’t want to support it.
I hate it when people say that they can’t do X because their religion, be honest and say that you don’t want to do X because they want to follow the rules of their religion.
That is true of everything that isn’t barred by the fundamentals of physics, and disingenuous and you know it.
You can murder people, you can enslave others, Hindus can slaughter and eat cows, etc, you just don’t want to because it’s illegal.
For most religious people the tenents of their faith are core to their being and not something they just kinda like. Otherwise they tend to deconstruct from their religion after the inertia runs out. That’s why religion in the West is on a downward trajectory outside of Islam which is driven by immigration.
I fully support reproductive rights as much as the next guy, but let’s not pretend that the person outlined above single issue voting against abortion isn’t looking at the other side as otherwise great but you have to accept a few sanctioned murders. You would probably be single issue voting if we had a modern Aztec government that was close to a utopia but practiced human sacrifices to Quetzalcoatl because it maintains prosperity.
And abortion being legal doesn’t mean shit for a Catholic.
No one’s up in arms because non-Catholics eat meat during lent or don’t believe in transubstantiation.
Their religious belief has no place in government. If they don’t want to do it, then don’t.
Regardless of the election result, there will be a shit-ton of divorces incoming over the next 12 months because of it.
or even seem safe to me.
TIL: Trump voters are violent wife beaters
Lemmy, always there to educate me
Most people don’t think that much about politics.
A woman might have a husband who’s generally a good guy and doesn’t talk politics.
A few days ago he comes home and someone at work had been talking about how some Trump policy would be better for their industry. Husband is going to vote for Trump.
Woman Google’s Trump, sees his abominable attitude towards women, sees tiktok about cancelling partners vote, votes democrat.
Maybe, but it does say “Trump loving”, not Trump voting. I acknowledge and don’t hold too hard a grudge on people who don’t pay much attention and only vote on stuff they think will affect them. I still consider it selfish, but I will acknowledge some people have enough issues in their life to not realize how bad it could affect others.
For instance, one of my sisters friends voted for Trump in 2016 because she is a small business owner and thought he would be better for her business. I don’t know how she has voted since, and she’s a black mother in FL, so I hope she’s changed her mind.
Still, I have seen people make excuses for themselves that they have to be responsible for their employees as well etc etc, so someone with a not hateful mindset may make a decision those of us more informed or plugged into may realize is much worse for them either way.
Edit, forgot my original point. The above included I don’t think would be considered “Trump loving”, so I think by that statement she’s saying he loves more than just a policy or two.
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 Tragedy of the Commons is a capitalist myth just like the Myth of Barter.
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.
In 2016 it was the other way around, a lot of closeted people swung the vote. Thanks Hilary.
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.
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.
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.
Wasn’t there a large percentage of white women who said they’d vote Trump even if he wanted to ban women from voting?
Fuck yeah, the young shall rise up to remove their Masters
