Actually it was found that Rick roll was originally inspired by an old Internet video dated back to the late 70s. They did a research on that if you’re interested.
Reading a PDF is something, editing is a whole other thing. For a while I had an Adobe Reader subscription it was the only one I know of that can edit a pdf were I can delete entire columns from a table. (It was a PDF generated by shitty sales software I was using)
I still have not found a competent (free) program on android that lets me mark up a pdf. They all claim to, but most (including fully-paid Adobe) won’t let you turn off finger marking. MFers, I have a stylus; I want my fingers to pan/zoom and my god damned stylus to make a line. Why is that so foreign?
I mostly edit PDFs to fill out documents. I know browsers can do that but they don’t save the progress until you download (or I’m to stupid). Recently found out that Google Drive has a “fill form” PDF editor that works pretty well. But to my blood pressures detriment that works only on Android and not in your browser where I have a proper keyboard. Google fucking enrages me with their complete arbitrary shit sometimes.
Found this open source, docker based, self hosted app for editing PDFs a few months ago. Works well enough for basic operations the last time I tried it (though not sure if it can delete columns from tables): github.com/Frooodle/Stirling-PDF
Figured I’d post the link here in case it helps you or anyone else.
Yeah, I went with stirling. It has a lot of great features, but it’s lacking in actual editing. Adobe allows you basically to edit a PDF like a word file.
Yeah, Mac preview is surprisingly one of the best PDF viewing applications available on the market, it’s nearly as good as Acrobat. That’s really strange to me
Eh, there is sufficient evidence to recommend children and teenagers having limited internet and social media access during their formative years at this point.
The tiktok algorithm of mindless doomscrolling funny little bits all short and digestible for a decaying attention span is just the most egregious example why restrictions should at least be considered.
You realize that’s still true, right? You’re posting this as some big own as though it’s somehow not harmful to mindlessly consume any form of media to an extreme extent, especially in the learning years.
How is it hypocrisy if the previous forms of media were also bad for you, Tik-Tok is just more efficient at funneling meaningless drivel down your throat?
Exactly. We’ve also been saying that burning coal was destroying the climate, and then we said CFCs were destroying the ozone, and then we said massive deforestation is ruining the climate…doesn’t make any of them less true just because we’ve said similar beings about less efficient means of destruction.
I think that's generally a good argument, however the rate and level of dopamine hits from TikTok and YouTube Shorts may far surpass that of prior mediums and so actually warrant additional considerations and precautions.
It may be hypocritical, but have you considered that all of these forms of entertainment are unhealthy? The only difference is that they get more and more efficient with each generation, causing increasing levels of concern from each generation. That’s indicative of a rising trend
@STUPIDVIPGUY@aCosmicWave I'm trying and eliminating are sources of entertainment from these websites since the saturation of entertainment content is much more than educational ones now.
What situations your short attention span makes uncomfortable for you apart from things related to some sort of achievement (as perceived by your workplace, school, family, friends, etc)
I mean achievement as something that’s perceived by society, something that you don’t do for enjoyment, something to profit off of in some way (be it simple recognition or raised social status), “I will do this because people will also see it and that’s very good”. It can be the expectations of relatives, workplace, college, or you’re just doing something for the workplace or college.
I’m asking because I cannot imagine what hobbies/activities outside of performing for somebody can be negatively affected by short attention span. It’s not your problem that people are just boring and don’t treat you like a god damn human (workplace that requires you to sit and sign documents for 12 whole hours with little to no breaks, or endless inefficient meetings, for example)
Such generalizing statements are blatantly untrue, hypocritical, and harmful. People don’t use social media without a reason. Everything a human does is meet their needs, both psychological and physiological. When humans resort to social media it means they resort to social interaction and whatever other needs they may have like having feelings validated, visual/audio/etc. stimulation, but that doesn’t sound sensational enough, that’s not enough to scapegoat a group of people
Ok but research indicates that it fails to actually meet their long-term needs. This is actually a really confusing take, if humans always do what meets their needs then we wouldn’t have any issues at all? We TRY to do what we think will meet them, but we’re often mistaken, and this is an example of that.
Did I say that it does meet needs long term? What was the sample? What was the methodology? What communities were they participating in? How were they participating? What were the needs? Did they have a neurodivergency? What were their surroundings like? What was their childhood like? Do they go to therapy? What therapeutic practice did they do in therapy?
Why are you asking like I was talking about a single person? Like… “What therapeutic practice did they do in therapy?”? Is this your idea of a counterargument?
They’re sponsored by better help💀 ok, let’s ignore that
“Strong link between heavy social media use and increased risk for depression” conflating correlation and causation. People are depressed and use social media more because that’s one of the only things that feels ok to do and that happens when there isn’t a good REAL LIFE support system in the first place, and lack of a good support system IN REAL LIFE can be one of the main contributors to depression and self image issues.
“Inadequacy about your life and appearance” as if people aren’t told their whole lives that they should be doctors, engineers, dentists, and that they should always be pretty THEIR WHOLE LIFE. People grow in an environment where these inadequacies are developed in the first place. It’s never “do what you like to do”, it’s always “be normal” and “be successful”. Social media is not at fault for this. Sure, social media can trigger negative thoughts about these topics, but it isn’t the one that tells people who to be or what to look like, it isn’t the one who implanted these insecurities and fear into your brain in the first place.
“FOMO” that’s just capitalism and point number 2. It’s the “you should do this and be this” implanted into your brain since the day you’re born. Social media helps find communities that are against this and that deconstruct this dumbass rhetoric. Without social media, on this scale, it just isn’t possible.
“Social media addiction” you should really look up how psychological addiction develops, but I’ll sum it up for you (but it is more nuanced that that). A psychological need not met properly (or at all) for the entire life ➡️ suddenly it’s a bit more met than usual ➡️ brain’s reward system things ➡️ brain wants you to repeat ➡️ possible development of scarcity mindset-like behavior in relation to the subject. And it doesn’t have to be the thing that supposedly gets you addicted. It can be the circumstances (people and your emotional connection with them, some rituals that can be soothing or just pleasant in any way). My point is when people are ostracized in real life - the internet presents them an opportunity to find someone, or a group of people, whose experiences are relatable, with whom they could build some kind of emotional connection. So someone is being called “weird” for whatever reason ➡️ they refer to social media where that happens much less ➡️ now they get bullied not only for being “weird”, but also because they “have a social media addiction”. You’re not going to tell me that’s social media’s fault, right?
“and Instagram increases rather decreases feelings of loneliness. Conversely, the study found that reducing social media usage can actually make you feel less lonely” which means social media, as an entity, has little to do with this.
“Depression and anxiety. Human beings need face-to-face contact to be mentally healthy. Nothing reduces stress and boosts your mood faster or more effectively than eye-to-eye contact with someone who cares about you.” Is that a reason why social media is harmful or what? How is this a critique of social media? This is literally just another reason why “social media addiction” exists in the first place - feeling lonely and invalidated irl.
“Cyberbullying. About 10 percent of teens report being bullied on social media and many other users are subjected to offensive comments.” While true, the real issue lies in people lacking a support system in real life which, again, can be the reason for “social media addiction” in the first place. This shit wouldn’t have such an impact if these dumbass “responsible and functional members of society” weren’t popping out children they don’t care about like they’re a candy factory because “children are cute🥺” and “I want a mini version of me🥺” and “who doesn’t want children🥺”. You treat your child like shit ➡️ the child treats other people like shit. You scapegoat your child ➡️ the child tries scapegoating other people. How is that not common sense I don’t understand. Like those people vote??? THOSE people are considered “normal”? That’s the society’s norm? This is genuinely pissing me off right now. I’m falling into a personal rant here
“Self-absorption. Sharing endless selfies and all your innermost thoughts on social media can create an unhealthy self-centeredness and distance you from real-life connections.” WHAT LMFAO PLEASE💀💀💀💀 Not only that claim is blatantly incorrect, theres also NO SOURCE FOR IT (yes I looked through each of them). I’ve found studies about it being linked to NPD but social media doesn’t cause NPD WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK LMFAOOOOOOO
At least they said that there’s limited evidence of social media’s harm before listing their points
Anyway, there’s nothing in this article that says “research indicates that it fails to actually meet their long-term needs”, nothing in the resources they referred to. There’s also no such thing as “long term need”. “if humans always do what meets their needs then we wouldn’t have any issues at all?” Ever heard of survival, exploitation, gaslighting, repression, abuse, manipulation? Almost nobody is taught emotional intelligence and proper interoception and that’s not to mention people with different neurological development who have it so so much harder because the expectations that are put on them are made for people with typical neurological development.
Also no. Addiction happens exactly when the needs are met more than usual, hence “social media addiction”, and it’s not the social media’s fault, it’s not “TikTok Instagram bad”. It’s weaponized misconceptions about mental health that are creating this issue in the first place
You could say that about a lot of things, though. Video games and TV were commonly criticized this way. And it was a popular meme on Reddit that people would be so addicted to the site that they’d spend hours scrolling it.
Criticizing tik tok is just popular on sites like this because people here really don’t like tik tok.
At any rate, parents can already try to restrict their children’s access. But governments are gonna have a hard time doing so without hurting everyone as a whole (eg, see the attempts of some US states to require giving your ID to porn sites). Dunno if you remember being a kid, but I found my way around every restriction my parents set and I just disliked them for it.
Not a mass exodus. Call it a brain drain, if you will. The churn includes those who posted or were moderators. Since those who stayed are directly or indirectly supporting practices that most of us find unacceptable, Reddit will probably forever have that sour taste. It will gradually turn into a pale reminder of what it once was, and it will lose its spark. The sheer volume, quality, and length of posts in the Fediverse is indicative of new user profiles. I am so glad I took the plunge!
Not a mass exodus. Call it a brain drain, if you will. The churn includes those who posted or were moderators.
That’s key, it’s quality over quantity. Those who put a lot into Reddit were also going to be those disproportionately hit by the API changes. Enough of them make the jump and it degrades the quality of Reddit and his a big effect on Lemmy and the alternatives. By the next time Reddit messes up, and they will, the next batch of escapees will find a much more fleshed out set of alternatives, which will make leaving there and staying here easier. Rinse, wash and repeat.
We’ll never get the absolute numbers Reddit has but that’s the kind of aim of a corporate entity that wants to grab as many eyeballs as possible so they can mine the data and serve ads. That’s not what the Fediverse is about. All it really needs is the critical mass of people to make it viable and I think we’re already there.
By the next time Reddit messes up, and they will, the next batch of escapees will find a much more fleshed out set of alternatives, which will make leaving there and staying here easier. Rinse, wash and repeat.
I don’t think that even matters from a business point of view. Even if people aren’t leaving, the problem is that Reddit is not a place new people see as valuable after all the bad press. If they don’t grow, they fail.
The reality despite what you or i might do, is that 99% of people don’t carry around an ethernet or hardwire in when there is available wifi.
The library might be public, but it’s still a good idea to communicate your intent or obtain permission prior to using someone else’s network in away they might deem to be unexpected.
“Do you have ethernet or wired internet?” is actually a common library question and the response from whoever works the front desk will likely tell you everything you need to know.
“Do you have ethernet or wired internet?” is actually a common library question and the response from whoever works the front desk will likely tell you everything you need to know.
Would you trust the reply somebody like the librarian in the OP gave you? Seems like the sort of person who would refuse to admit to any lack of knowledge and just bluster.
Do you trust every one-sided story to be entirely accurate of all details?
And what does trust have to do with it? Can we use Ethernet here? If the person says no, would you just walk around the building until you found a port and plugged in?
Do you trust every one-sided story to be entirely accurate of all details?
No, but for the sake of discussion in this thread, that is the scenario we’re all going by. We’re not rendering a legal judgement here, we’re discussing the situation as described.
In a public library, I would fully expect public-facing ethernet ports, especially in sitting / working areas, to be available for public use. I’m not sure why they would be there otherwise. And if they’re no longer meant for public use, it would be on the library IT staff to have disabled those ports.
what does trust have to do with it?
Because I don’t trust non-IT-savvy people to even properly understand the question. I’ve met way too many people with no technical clue who refuse to admit to any sort of lack of knowledge when it’s extremely obvious.
If the LIBRARIAN doesn’t understand this as a service the library offers - then they don’t offer it - or if you think they’re wrong you need to have an adult conversation that they do and that it should be ok. It’s weird to just assume you can go around sticking your cat5e into other peoples ethernet ports like that.
We could discuss all sorts of hypotheticals, including where there’s a secret supervillain base under the library and they’re about to assassinate OP for jacking into their network. It’s pointless because we’re not discussing an event we have any way of obtaining any other information about other than what OP has provided.
I think they mean trust in the librarian to genuinely know the policy and what should work. They tend not to in this case because ethernet has become obscure enough to be an uncommon question, if ever.
Another library had ethernet ports all down the wall next to desks. They were dead and no one used them. It was obvious that the librarian had no clue about whether the ports were even supposed to function. When I said they are dead and asked to turn them on or find out what’s wrong, they then figured that if the ports don’t work, it must be intentional. So the librarian’s understanding of the policy was derived from the fact that they were dysfunctional. Of course if they were intended to work but needed service, ethernet users are hosed because the librarian’s understanding of policy is guesswork. There is no proper support mechanism.
I asked a librarian at another library: I need to use Tor. Is it blocked? I need to know before I buy a membership. Librarian had no idea. They just wing it. They said test it. Basically, if it works, then it’s acceptable. The functionality becomes the source of policy under the presumption that everything is functioning as it should.
Since ethernet has been phased out, modern devices no longer include an ethernet NIC, and there are places to plug into A/C with no ethernet nearby, the librarians and the public are both conditioned to be unaware of ethernet. So the answer will only be either: no or test and see.
It’s kind of all that matters though. We don’t need to trust her - we need her acceptance of the act for which she is the gatekeeper of. If we don’t have it - trust over what she said is irrelevant since we don’t even have the basic trust over the act.
Would you trust the reply somebody like the librarian in the OP gave you?
I mean, if the answer is “no” would you just go around plugging into random Ethernet ports until you found one that works? Just because you don’t “trust” the librarian who gave you the answer? That sounds like a fast track to getting trespassed (or at least banned from using their public internet altogether) for abuse of services.
The library isn’t required to provide free Ethernet. They aren’t even required to provide free wifi. But they choose to do so because they recognize that wifi is a big reason people will come to a library to spend time. Which is sort of the whole point of the library. So providing free wifi goes hand-in-hand with the library’s ultimate mission.
But that wifi is provided on an as-is basis, because they can’t guarantee things like 100% uptime, good speeds, or any kind of troubleshooting. And any potential ethernet connection would also be as-is. And in this case, “as-is” could easily translate to “not available to the public at all.” Because again, the library isn’t required to provide any of it.
When I entered I spoke to a different librarian about the locked PC room (due to a holiday or something). They said I could use wifi but need to give a phone number to a captive portal, which I already knew. My phone was not on me so I said: is it okay if I plug in over there by the catalog PCs? They said yes. Revealing what I mean by "plugging in”, well, i was vague for a reason. I know the population has become ethernet-hostile¹ so indeed asking for forgiveness is better than asking for permission in this situation.
¹ Another library in the area has ethernet ports but they are just decoys (dead ports). I asked the librarian what the problem is, why they are disabled, and whether we can turn them on. Librarian was helpless, and said “use wifi”, which didn’t work for me for different reasons than the other library. But the librarian basically said in so many words “not our problem… you can just use wifi.” At another library, I was able to connect but Tor was blocked. I tried to get support from the librarian. They had no clue but were also unwilling to lead me to someone who could give support. The way it works around here is the info systems are outsourced to some unreachable tech giant, and the librarians are rendered helpless. If the SSID does not appear, the librarian can send an email to someone to say it’s down, and that’s about the full extent of their tech capability.
Why didn’t you tell this librarian that you’d asked another librarian and they said it was okay to plug in? Why was none of this included in the original post?
The librarian who said it was okay to plugin (which they likely understood to mean plugin an A/C power cord) was young, not as senior as the edgy librarian. I’m not going to take down a kid and get them in trouble for not picking apart what it means when someone asks if they can “plug-in”.
People like Trump will throw his supporters under the bus when self-defense calls for it. I will not.
What would the point be? I didn’t need a defense. I got scolded and was walking out. Since I was calm, the librarian became calm. Police were not called and I was not detained. And if that had happened, I would have exercised my right to remain silent anyway.
You sound insufferable. You used vague wording to justify not using your phone to get internet, and act like child when you get caught. They’re not hostile to Ethernet, they’re hostile to you and your behaviour.
I merely tried to get online using an ethernet cable. I didn’t get hostile. I was calm. And because I was calm, the librarian became calm. The only hostility was in the librarian’s single opening comment to me, and what you see in this thread.
Is your position so weak that you need to resort to a bandwagon fallacy?
It’s not a fallacy. Your social skills are toxic and that’s been confirmed by everyone here. You aren’t in a position to judge how your actions are perceived by society.
If everyone says you’re being an asshole, you’re being an asshole.
and an ad hominem?
This isn’t a formal debate. It’s me and everyone else booing you for your bad behavior.
Another library in the area has ethernet ports but they are just decoys (dead ports). I asked the librarian what the problem is, why they are disabled, and whether we can turn them on.
They’re not decoys, they’re just not patched. Because we don’t generally patch anything that’s not going to be in use. Also because some rando will probably attempt to plug their nasty ass laptop into it, which is also why we block port intrusions.
I wouldn’t want you on my network either to be fair. People like you should be kept in an isolated area of the network with a proxy pointing all your traffic to resolve Italkaloadofshit.com
I know right? Everyone cheering them on, meanwhile I’m reading the OP and find them to be pretentious and maladjusted. Who talks about the ‘clearnet’ like it’s the internet of normies?
I did hear about some odd sleeping pill, not sure if it existed or if it was just a concept someone thought about…
The pill was a normal sleeping pill, but with a core of cafffine, it would be designed so that it would take X hours to dissolve and once it got to the core, the caffine would wake you up on time.
The more I think about it, the less I believe it would ever work.
I do this the manual way. Set alarm half-an-hour early for coffee, drink it and go back to sleep. Wake up moderately more awake 45 minutes later. Doesnt always work. 4/10
I’m 35. I’ve got two kids. I make it up as I go along. There’s no plan, no blueprint. There’s just the day to day crap that life has for us all. I wake up, I go to work and my only real aim is to get home to my kids and partner.
Hey, I felt like this when I had a job that I hated. I was constantly trying to figure out what I was going to do next, as if I hadn’t actually started life yet.
I was 36 when I just up and quit my job and went to trade school.
Best thing I’ve ever done. In the last 5 years I met, and married my wife, bought a big new house with her, and have actually felt like the adult I am. None of that would have happened if I never took a plunge.
Agreed. I’m 40 and I’ve reached a point where I feel like an adult. The biggest piece of that is that I understand that we’re all just making it up and figuring things out.
Imposter syndrome is also an intrinsic part of feeling like you aren’t an adult. Most of us experience this frequently - we have that feeling that everyone knows more than us and it makes us feel like we are fakes. But in reality, we just know more about ourselves and the gaps in our knowledge. We assume that they they know more than they do because we aren’t in their head and they aren’t expressing all the uncertainty and doubt hiding in there.
I think there is a pretty big difference between hearing people like you and me say “everyone is just making it up” and really internalizing that. I think internalization comes with time - you can believe something conceptually but often need to see it in practice over and over to really believe it in your bones.
There are other factors, too, which come with age and experience. Adults on the younger side are constantly running into new adult things and not knowing how to do those things is going to created this self doubt. “If I were an adult, I’d know how to do an insurance claim” or whatever. With further age, you will learn these things and have fewer of these doubts.
I have family in the US (who are not trumpets afaik) and they wouldn’t know that he actually got proven guilty for doing it. They‘d probably assume he made a deal.
Isn’t it a civil trial tho and not a criminal trial? Meaning that the bar for evidence is just “more than likely” and not “beyond a reasonable doubt” right? I mean it’s still very damning but he has not (yet) been found guilty of the crime, just liable.
There is an important distinction of being “convicted” and “proven guilty” though. You can get off a conviction through multiple means, one being a mistrial and so on. I think there is no two ways about this after reading:
A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.
I'm not an expert on the nuance of the US legal system, but "convicted" probably applies to the criminal system, right? What would it be in this scenario? A confirmed rapist? Just "a rapist"?
Still, the guy raped some lady and he's actively running for president. That one would be shocking any time before the mid 2010s, honestly.
Yeah they’d be shocked that someone rich enough to run for president could be accused of rape ‘why didn’t he just have the girl committed to an asylum to keep her quiet?’
Just when boomers were young (8-23 yrs old) … totally tracks!
Looking at the linked graph, there’s a relatively clear plateau from ‘56 to ‘80 … basically from oldest boomers being age 11 to youngest boomers being age 20. I’m a little astonished at how well it lines up with the whole fucking generation. Literally all of them, from the beginning of their teens to the end of their teens (at least), enjoyed the best minimum wage of the modern age.
It also, interestingly, justifies the seperate categorisation of the Jones generation (born 1960-1966) who were the first to see the steady decline.
This is if you actually believe CPI is a legitimate measure, despite the cost of all the big ticket expenses like housing, education, and healthcare increasing 5x or more above inflation.
That’s true, though I can’t say for the US, in the UK, inflation is still ridiculously calculated. Jack Monroe went on a mini crusade about it, because staples like pasta and rice weren’t included, but champagne was.
However, as a side note, inflation is absolutely essential to keep the economy healthy. Most developed countries around the world have a goal of 2 percent inflation. US inflation is currently 3.7 percent before seasonal adjustments.
Edit: Wow. Lots of people here who need to retake Econ 101.
Inflation is important because it punishes the hoarding of wealth and encourages spending. When investments grow greater than inflation but wages grow slower, it’s problematic because the investing class is rewarded for having money while the working class is punished.
well no, the econ 101 guys are the ones calling for getting rid of inflation, you actually need to get a bit further down into the mud to get to “inflation is super important and one of few reasons for investment instead of dragon hordes”
I’m trying both Avelon and Memmy as replacements for lemmy, and pretty happy with both so far. My Reddit account was 16+ years old when I dropped it because of Apollo. What a dumb decision.
I was using Memmy as my daily driver but I was getting frustrated with how fast it resets when I close and reopen it. Mlem stays where you were at. So far I like it better. The ecosystem of third party apps for lemmy is awesome, as well as the open source nature and attitude of it all.
My account was also 16 years. I’m holding out hope this place gets the interactions and niche topics over time. I don’t even like commenting right now but it’s worth the effort to help build it.
You can still use a custom build of Apollo and put your account API key in it by making an “app” in your account settings. The quality of the platform has dropped like a bowling ball down the empire state building though.
What is the definition of a job? I guess if someone said musician, that would be a career instead? Is a self employed contractor a job or is every client a job? Does an actor have one job or many?
I considered a revenue stream to be a job but I’m not sure now.
So if I have 3 positions of employment, only the part time gig that makes me 60% of my income is my job, but not the full time one, or the part time one that makes me a bit of money on the side?
Was coming here specifically to say credit scores. Oh what’s that you paid off your student loans? Here have a big credit hit as a treat. Oh you’re using your credit? Here have a credit hit even tho you’ve never missed a payment. How dare you use the credit you have??
It’s more the case that if you use more than 20% it is seen as negative. 0-10% is excellent, 10-20% is good, and it gets worse from there. Every year I request a credit increase despite my spending staying the same simply because it makes my utilization go down. But it’s dumb. I don’t need the extra credit. I’ll never use it. But have to have it to max my score.
Even better if you use Experian: give us access to all your spending data or else you’ll never see a score increase again (source: been dealing with this for three years while Equifax continues to go up. I feel like they’re doing something illegal, but they probably already were and nobody cares.)
Loans are different from lines of credit… loans don’t have an “available credit” associated with them. The reason your score might go down when you pay off student loan is because you’re reducing the number of open accounts you have, and also possibly reducing the diversity of accounts (lines of credit vs. installment loans).
Disclaimer: I’m not saying this is a good system, just explaining how it works.
Length of credit and credit utilization, you get points* for the length that each account has been open, so when you pay off your loan the account is closed and no longer counts. Also as you get to the end of the repayment it shows as a $30k account that you owe les than $10k on, you get points for using less than half or less than a third of the credit available to you.
*You don’t actually get points, that would be too easy to understand, you get factors that affect a complex equation in your favor.
Credit scores are in part based on the oldest line of available credit, which for most people are their student loans. Pay those off, your oldest line of credit becomes something more recent, and your score goes down as a result
Sports is a very broad term. I am aware of MLBs antitrust exemption. However, that is a unique situation that does not apply across all sports. That’s why we have seperte leagues like the NFL and XFL. My kids playing little leugue are not affected by this at all.
As for the 90% of males comment, this is rediculous. It is very possible to both follow and discuss politics while also have other interests. It’s not an either or situation. There is nothing wrong with having distractions you enjoy.
I agree that pro sports are subject to massive corruption. But that doesn’t make them a scam.
Au contrarie; sports are a fantastic way to get socioeconomic issues (like labor rights) front and center on the minds of people who wouldn’t necessarily be thinking of them the same way. And they create opportunities for people to educate themselves in other areas as well. Not every sports fan is the willfully ignorant meathead you describe, nor do willfully ignorant meatheads exist because of sports.
MLB is not only a state sponsored monopoly, but like every other American sports league a blatant cartel which is constantly squabbling with its own employees over revenue shares (at the expense of the on-field product) and lying about how much money they actually make. Same thing as most other business owners, but people are a lot more willing to listen to the perspective of, say, Shoehi Ohtani than a random McDonald’s employee. I can tell you that I am personally much more clued in on these sorts of societal problems as a result of sportswriters discussing labor issues, on top of being far more statistically savvy and generally more sceptical of oversimplified narratives than I would be if I had never gained an interest in baseball. Nor would I have anywhere near my current understanding of global politics without global football (soccer) creating both a mechanism and incentive for learning about them.
But that’s not even the point: sports are not a “scam”. Sports exist first and foremost because for many people, watching elite athletes play a game is fun. That is the intrinsic value of professional sports, and nothing about that is inherently scammy. Full stop.
So you’re just trying to write the most incorrect statements in one reply? Since when did being born in the 80s mean boomer? You can go ahead and keep assuming, you seem to like being a dumbass.
It depends on the voting system. In the US there are two parties, that’s just one party away from being like China. Scam is thinking US is fully democratic when you can only vote for two parties or throw the vote away.
I would say the concept of liberal representative democracy is a scam, because on one hand lobbying and media control will decouple votes and decisionmakers from the actual collective good decision, and on the other hand party politics and and corruption will skew the fairness and representation even further from what is good.
And it’s not like there aren’t better concepts out there, the problem is more that almost all groups in liberal democracy, so parties, companies, the government itself are at best partially democratic and at worst authoritarian in nature. Especially companies obviously aren’t usually democratic at all. So continued or deepening democratisation isn’t actually in these groups interest because they or their leaders would lose power.
Council democracy or other direct democracy approaches are goals to work towards, or in some places just more representative and less dishonest voting would be a start.
In essence liberals like calling things democracy that on the whole make very few honest attempts at pursuing democracy, while still calling themselves democracies. I find nowadays my personal definition doesn’t include these “democracies” and is more along the lines of “a continuous process that honestly tries to provide the most value for all people and pursues contious improvement toward that end.”
Big yes to the scam that is liberal democracy. One terrible use of libs calling things democracy when they aren’t is blanketly condemning everyone in some place bc someone got elected: Russia and every red state in the USA. These places are full of people who do not support the government and had no real chance of electing real representation nor would those elected officals really be useful.
I agree with everything but voting. Not because we ever have great options, but because sometimes there are terrifyingly bad ones, and while option A might not be at all good, option B is so much worse.
You don’t seem to know what “lesser of two evils” means.
It doesn’t mean “that guy’s bad, so the less evil guy is good, actually, and totally deserves our support!”
It means “no matter which one of these assholes wins, I’m fucked, but if I’m lucky the one guy will use lube.”
I can’t do a damn thing about the two party system. That ship sailed before I was born, and nothing I do as an individual can change it. In fact, I can’t see a solution short of possibly violent revolution. If that happens before I’m to old and feeble to help, great. Other wise, I’m fucked no matter who I pick, so I’m sure as shit going to pick the one who just wants to fuck me and not fuck me plus kill my trans neighbor.
I’m sick and tired of being called stupid, gullible, or uninformed just because I can actually see how completely fucked we are. Your shit is great for people who still have hope. My shit is just trying to survive without the Gestapo coming for my neighbors.
So come get me for the revolution. In the meantime, stop calling me stupid for being depressed and practical.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to copy and paste this in reply to some other lemming that thinks I’m a gullible moron instead.
Any legitimate vote is defacto consent for the system. The biggest stand you can take in a voting booth is spoiling your ballot with obscenities. It is abundantly clear that “harm minimization” doesnt work. Voting for a lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil.
The people counting the votes see the dissent. Low voter turn out delegitimizes the system. If only 30% of people voted it is easy to say the system is corrupt and that outside pressure is justified. If 30% of ballots are being thrown out it calls into question the entire system.
If “bad country” reported that 30% of their ballots were discounted the USA would slap sanctions on them and start banging war drums.
Assuming they’re not machine counted, fine. What does that accomplish?
Low voter turn out delegitimizes the system. If only 30% of people voted it is easy to say the system is corrupt and that outside pressure is justified. If 30% of ballots are being thrown out it calls into question the entire system.
Okay. So say the system is “delegtimized” this way. What now? That doesn’t change anything as far as I can see. The asshats in power will just… keep being in power, because no matter how morally, ethically, or even rationally unjustifiable, the corrupt system is, it’s legal.
I’m/not saying you’re wrong. I don’t think you are. I just don’t see what it accomplishes.
In the long run, it means revolution I guess. But in the meantime, how do we stop old ladies from getting murdered over pride flags (to use a recent example)? Cristofascists and those that profit from them winning elections legitimizes their hate. It empowers the twatknuckles that support them. Even dumb crap like calling COVID the “Chinese Virus” spurs on hate crime.
In the long run, it means revolution I guess. But in the meantime, how do we stop old ladies from getting murdered over pride flags (to use a recent example)? Cristofascists and those that profit from them winning elections legitimizes their hate. It empowers the twatknuckles that support them. Even dumb crap like calling COVID the “Chinese Virus” spurs on hate crime.
Has voting stopped this?
How do we deal with that?
Organize with other people who want a new system. Convince other people that nothing is going to get better by voting. Make connections with others groups who are doing the same. Build/join a network so that you/they know when critical mass is reached. While you wait for revolution, do what you can in your local community to make people’s lives better. This will also help pull people to the cause.
Also be ready to be a partisan because fascism rides electoralism to power so things are likely to get worse before they get better.
No. I’m not. That’s like saying that acknowledging the existence of the Chicago Bears means I’m a football fan.
I’m arguing that the establishment exists and there’s nothing I can do about it. I’m arguing for despair.
All I have left is harm reduction. Which is also 100% hopeless, but it keeps me from jumping off a building because no matter how ineffective it is, it’s fucking something.
no matter which one of these assholes wins, I’m fucked, but if I’m lucky the one guy will use lube
this is some scary logic if you think about it. Imagine you are a person, who doesn’t want to get fucked. Two guys are about to fuck you, even though you don’t want it, and you get the option to choose which guys fucks you even though you don’t want to get fucked?
oh but the one guy is gonna use lube. To fuck you. The person who doesn’t want to be fucked.
“The United States is also a one-party state, but in typical American extravagance, they have two of them.” -Julius Nyerere, first president of Tanzania
You don’t seem to know what “lesser of two evils” means.
It doesn’t mean “that guy’s bad, so the less evil guy is good, actually, and totally deserves our support!”
It means “no matter which one of these assholes wins, I’m fucked, but if I’m lucky the one guy will use lube.”
I can’t do a damn thing about the two party system. That ship sailed before I was born, and nothing I do as an individual can change it. In fact, I can’t see a solution short of possibly violent revolution. If that happens before I’m to old and feeble to help, great. Other wise, I’m fucked no matter who I pick, so I’m sure as shit going to pick the one who just wants to fuck me and not fuck me plus kill my trans neighbor.
I’m sick and tired of being called stupid, gullible, or uninformed just because I can actually see how completely fucked we are. Your shit is great for people who still have hope. My shit is just trying to survive without the Gestapo coming for my neighbors.
So come get me for the revolution. In the meantime, stop calling me stupid for being depressed and practical.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to copy and paste this in reply to some other lemming that thinks I’m a gullible moron instead.
You don’t seem to know what “lesser of two evils” means.
Yes, they do, they were trying to explain to you that it’s a scam and only serves to move the nation to the right. Everybody understands “lesser of two evils” we’re all browbeaten with it our entire lives.
Edit: Sorry, wrong starting sentence. I meant to say:
Clearly not browbeaten enough.
Lesser of two evils means we’re fucked either way, but one way slightly less. It means there are not good choices, just less bad ones. If you sat through the Trump presidency and still think there’s no difference, then I don’t know what the fuck to tell you. If you can’t look at how fucked trans people are in Florida and other red states right now and still say there’s no difference, then go fuck yourself.
They’re both shit, but one of wants to fucking murder my friends. There’s a fucking difference. And if I sound mad, it’s because people saying shit like this vote dumbass third parties that can’t possibly win, or sit out an election because of protests. People are fucking dead because of this dumbass “there’s no difference” bullshit.
You wanna tear down the system and stat over? Fine, great, get going. I’ll even help if it looks like you might have a prayer. But right now, there is no hope. There’s just mitigation of harm. Your idealism gets people killed.
It’s amazing that despite knowing everybody, everywhere, already knows what “lesser of two evils” means, you still resort to just belaboring the point pedantically to repeat what everybody already knows. I’m sure you think you’re very clever, but your tactics suggest you find basic knowledge to be esoteric and worth repeating over and over.
I tend to repeat myself whenit appears that my audience isn’t listening. You’re the third person who seemed to think that “lesser of two evils” meant “if one guy’s bad, the other guys good.” People in this thread keep acting like I’m happy with the Democratic party or something.
So, since it seemed like you didn’t understand what I’d said, I repeated myself. I’m pedantic for the same reason: you’re either ignoring what I’m saying or don’t understand it. Either way, I apparently have to spell it out.
Nice use of the word “esoteric”. Did you find that in the word a day calendar this morning? It doesn’t really apply here, though, because nothing I’ve said is esoteric. It’s not arcane, obscure, or in any way difficult to understand. And I don’t think it is.
I just think you’re either being intentionally obtuse to rile me up, or you really don’t get what I’m saying.
It’s all good, though, dude. I’m tired. I’m just so fucking tired. I’ve been watching this shit unfold for close to five decades, sometimes while getting shot at, and I’m tired.
I’m mad, but I fucking give up. My position - despair - isn’t worth fighting for and I don’t know why I briefly thought it was. I fucking surrender.
Let me know how that revolution you guys are never going to have goes.
I tend to repeat myself whenit appears that my audience isn’t listening. You’re the third person who seemed to think that “lesser of two evils” meant “if one guy’s bad, the other guys good.” People in this thread keep acting like I’m happy with the Democratic party or something.
The irony here is you’re the one who seems to not be reading or comprehending us. Nobody’s saying you think one guy’s good, we’re saying voting for a marginally slower fascist is a stupid thing to give a shit about because it doesn’t even produce results.
So, since it seemed like you didn’t understand what I’d said, I repeated myself. I’m pedantic for the same reason: you’re either ignoring what I’m saying or don’t understand it. Either way, I apparently have to spell it out.
What you are saying is said by millions of people, you’re neither clever nor cutting new ground here. We all understand it, and we think it’s wrong. You might be exposing your intellectual shortcomings here that you can’t figure that out.
Nice use of the word “esoteric”. Did you find that in the word a day calendar this morning? It doesn’t really apply here, though, because nothing I’ve said is esoteric. It’s not arcane, obscure, or in any way difficult to understand. And I don’t think it is.
Now I’m really starting to think you’re a dumb guy deeply invested in pretending to be smart. Esoteric isn’t an unusual, special word - read a fuckin book.
I just think you’re either being intentionally obtuse to rile me up, or you really don’t get what I’m saying.
I disagree with you. Fundamentally. Grapple with the disagreement instead of trying to fake being high-minded or just repeating shit children understand.
Let me know how that revolution you guys are never going to have goes.
Nobody’s going to update a reactionary who can’t even allow themselves to directly consider arguments against their atrophied, ignorant worldview.
Look, I’m really tired here. And I’m formally apologizing. I have so radically failed at making my point that you think I’m a reactionary. I’m not. I’m utterly convinced that the whole world is completely fucked, and the absolute best we can do is try to tread water as long as we can before drowning. Reacting? To what? To what end? The system’s irrevocably broken, I can’t do anything about it, so what’s the point?
And I’m not particularly smart. I mean, I know some stuff, and I’ve been through a lot. But smart? Meh. When I was in the Army, I drove a tank for a living. Does that sound like the career choice of a smart man?
I’m just so fucking tired. Please tell me how anything you’re doing will help. No sarcasm, I want to know. How do you move forward?
If you actually want to learn, re read the comments trying to explain it to you, and resist the urge to retort with a programmed response or thought terminating cliche
Lesser of two evils means we’re fucked either way, but one way slightly less
So you are just okay with these incredibly low standards. Sorry, but I’m not and we could be doing things differently instead of this “lesser of two evils” garbage.
There are definitely ways to fix it but you keep posting about how you don’t agree with it, and you think you should just settle for the lesser of two evils… if you’re so against it, why even vote?
why tell others to vote? Fear mongering that the guy you’re afraid of is gonna win if you don’t vote cause uh oh then only evil people are left voting??
the more we don’t participate in this bullshit, the quicker we can get rid of it. Unfortunately, people like you just settle for what you have. Instead of pushing for something better. By just settling for this shit, you hold everyone else back from real change.
In order to change the system, we have to change the ideology that it’s necessary to be better than other people. Ture equality would only come from that.
I… don’t get you. I feel really dumb, but you’re going to have to explain it to me a bit more.
I get that no one is better than anyone on a basic human rights level. That makes intuitive sense to me. And I’m all for a cultural paradigm shift. I’m also 100% in favor of a massive overhaul of the entire government, up to and including a complete re-write of the Constitution and the bill of rights (I feel like we, as a nation, can do better than a founding document that defines some humans as being worth only 3/5ths of others, for instance).
Nah, based off your other comments and what you know about the constitution and bill of rights, I don’t think you come off dumb.
To be fair, this is pretty high concept stuff because while its something that could be done in theory, putting it into practice takes a lot of work.
The only way I have seen ideologies change over time is by basically social engineering them out. In order to do that, you need a lot of people on your side who are also willing to push that agenda. So we would need a lot of people doing things like making memes, having discussions like this, essentially popularizing the idea that we don’t need to feel better than others in the sense of, what class do they belong to.
This does already exist but not in a strong way like the other side is, the one that holds all the power. People in charge or in places of authority, billionaire types, etc. they all have the upper hand.
This brings me back to why I don’t vote and why I don’t participate in certain things that people try to scare me into doing basically.
By not participating, I’m removing myself from this sided argument - after all, there are no options for me to vote for, I don’t see any politicians ever wanting to actually change things, they only want to change things within how the system works already. I’m refusing to take part in something I never agreed to and have no real say in.
people have even told me, there isn’t a real option to opt out of voting - and that by not voting, I’m actually still voting but now all the votes unaccounted for get factored into the other side winning. That’s fear mongering.
If I’m not voting, then I’m just straight up not voting. It shouldn’t be able to work the way people are describing it because then its like not voting isn’t a possibility that exists in reality. Yet I’m here in reality, not voting.
This is all unfortunately a mind over matter issue where people who have the upper hand, refuse to let anyone else think that otherwise cause then they wouldn’t have the upper hand to control people’s lives.
But to actually pull that off, you would need to just be better at convincing people. I only have the energy to try sometimes. Most people want to pushback on this ideology because the current one fits them better. And they don’t give a shit about other people because again, they probably see themselves as better than who ever else there is out there.
What you’re talking about sounds wonderful. It sounds hopeful, like things could actually change. It’s not all that crazy to think it could work. It’s not really all that different from what the Founders were setting out to do, but with an extra two and a half centuries of cultural advancement and the knowledge that all people really are created equal - not just white dudes who own property lol.
So yeah. I get what you’re saying. And I can totally respect it. And anyone saying you not voting helps the opposition is kinda missing the point of opting out. Kinda like I was missing the point until someone (you) finally took the time to explain it properly, and I took the time to listen.
No problem! I see this discussion a lot online and have had it in person with people I cared about at the time, only to learn that they thought my ideas were too radical and now they won’t talk to me.
So its pretty refreshing to have someone understand it too!
Under the policies of the greater evil, billions will die due to climate change because corporate profits are more important than human lives to them. Under the policies of the lesser evil, billions will die due to climate change because corporate profits are more important than human lives to them.
It makes no difference, both parties should be opposed and true change can only come through revolution and the abolition of the capitalist class.
I agree with everything but the “it makes no difference” part. Thinking it makes no difference is a privilege a whole shit ton of people can’t afford.
They’re both horrible. Capitalism sucks. But to say there’s no difference? That’s just delusional. You’re missing the trees for the forest.
Until that “true change” you’re talking about happens, I’m not willing to sit by and let women, immigrants, minorities, and LGBTQIA+ people get fucked over even worse than I am. And fuck you if you are.
Roe V Wade was repealed under Biden. The concentration camps at the border are still open. In response to the mass murder of black people by cops, Biden gave more money to the cops. The extermination of trans people is continuing apace at the state level and the dems are doing nothing to stop it. This is all to say nothing about foreign policy, where the US is still complicit with killing thousands if not millions since 2020 through sanctions and facilitating genocide in Yemen. Or lifting all COVID restrictions despite the massive danger still posed.
There is a rhetorical difference between the two parties, but there isn’t much evidence of a material difference.
What word did I say that made you think I’m happy with the Democrats? That I actually support them rather than hate them just marginally less than the fascists in the other party?
It’s all fucked. And the Supreme Court was stacked by the last administration, so you’re arguing against yourself buddy.
What word did I say that made you think I’m happy with the Democrats?
I never said you were. I was addressing the claim that they’re a lesser evil, which I’m not convinced by.
It’s all fucked.
Agreed!
And the Supreme Court was stacked by the last administration
Largely irrelevant. Biden could stack the court, or just tell them to fuck off since they have no real power, or codified Roe into law when the dems controlled congress. There are excuses for why they couldn’t do any of those things, sure (not least of which that Biden opposes abortion rights himself because he’s a fucking monster). But all of them show that they’re fundamentally unserious in fighting back against the fascists. I’m not going to vote for von Hindenburg 2.
Until that “true change” you’re talking about happens, I’m not willing to sit by and let women, immigrants, minorities, and LGBTQIA+ people get fucked over even worse than I am. And fuck you if you are.
Did you vote for Biden? So you voted and still got roe v wade overturned. You voted and Biden has continued the staggering majority of Trump’s inhumane border policies. You voted, and we’re one well-timed court case away from the SC overturning gay marriage. Congratulations, the better guy won and all the same shit happened.
Roe v Wade got overturned by a Supreme Court that was stacked by the Republicans during the previous administration you absolute waste. You’re literally arguing against your own point.
And again: what fucking part of any fucking word I’ve typed makes you think I’m happy with the Biden administration.
Oh, wait! You’re not actually reading anything I’m saying! You’re just shifting goalposts and regurgitating talking points! Holy fuck, it’s like talking to a communist version of my mother.
Don’t talk to me unless you actually know something. Take your useless idealism elsewhere.
Roe v Wade got overturned by a Supreme Court that was stacked by the Republicans during the previous administration you absolute waste. You’re literally arguing against your own point.
And what is your vote doing to stop that? Anything at all?
Oh, wait! You’re not actually reading anything I’m saying! You’re just shifting goalposts and regurgitating talking points! Holy fuck, it’s like talking to a communist version of my mother.
I’m reading what you’re saying, it’s just so dumb and trite it might as well be embroidered on a tea cozy
I’m reading what you’re saying, it’s just so dumb and trite it might as well be embroidered on a tea cozy
The fact that I feel the same way about you probably indicates that this is a pointless waste of time on all sides.
And what is your vote doing to stop that? Anything at all?
In the Biden election? Nothing. Roe was done for as soon as Trump won. It was on life support, but people refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils pulled the plug.
I’m tired dude. I’m just so fucking tired.
Do what you want. You’re not gonna accomplish any more than I am so I’m not sure why I cared enough to get worked up. We’re all fucked no matter what. Do your little protest vote or whatever the fuck. I’m sure it’s gonna do so fucking much.
Why did Trump win? Did it have anything to do with the Clinton campaign choosing a pied pipe strategy where they boosted everything Trump did in the primary and ignored all the less fascist candidates? Do you suppose that continuing to use that tactic is good? The Democrats continue to use their donations to amplify the furthest right candidates in races, and they do not have anywhere near a 100% success rate in defeating those fascists they intentionally amplify. To make the point, money given to the DNC is, in some small proportion, money given to the RNC because the DNC would prefer to amplify worst case scenarios to improve their chances instead of offering GOOD CANDIDATES to entice voters. Supporting that is supporting the rightward slide of everything.
It was on life support, but people refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils pulled the plug.
That’s one way to see it - the same way the DNC paid pundits and managers see it, since it validates them. Another way to see it is, the Democrats steadfastly refuse to offer a better alternative.
Do your little protest vote or whatever the fuck. I’m sure it’s gonna do so fucking much.
You know that voting for Biden resulted in a worse world, and here you are sneering at anyone who thinks that was a waste.
edit: let’s address Obama, too - he had a fucking SC appointment, and instead of doing anything serious to seat a good candidate, he fucking punted on the assumption - the incredibly stupid assumption - that Clinton would win. Obama is why Roe is gone. So your vote for Obama was also a vote for letting Republicans pick a SC candidate. Can’t you connect the dots? It doesn’t matter how hard you vote for Democrats. They will always let the Republicans win, because they’re both paid by the same masters.
You’re not gonna accomplish any more than I am so I’m not sure why I cared enough to get worked up
one more edit: the distinction is you keep repeating shit everybody knows, whereas I (and other leftists) are trying to explain you to a new concept. It’s clear you’re not listening, but I’ll keep trying until you give up.
the distinction is you keep repeating shit everybody knows, whereas I (and other leftists) are trying to explain you to a new concept
I keep repeating shit because you keep not hearing me. You still think I’m trying to defend the Democratic party. You still think I find the Biden administration defendable. If you understand “lesser of two evils” so well, why do you think I’m trying to defend a party I keep calling evil?
So I’ll tell you what, I’ll deal with the “new concept” part of what you said when you explain that to me. Once I understand why you think I’m defending a position that I haven’t once defended, I might be able to move on.
I didn’t say Biden. I never said Biden. I never brought up his name. I at no point defended the actions of his administration or his party.
All I said is that the other guy is worse, which means you vote to try to have it not be the worse one. That’s explicitly not a defense of any party. It’s an attack on them both. I’d repeat my initial phrase, but apparently even though everyone seems to think it means I’m defending someone, trying to drive it home has gotten me labeled a congenital idiot.
And you’ve been misrepresenting me and jumping up and down on me ever since.
And nobody has presented me with a better option. They just keep calling me names, saying I’m repeating myself, and saying “they’re all the same” and “Biden bad!”
So please, for the next election, give me an action I can take that has some sort or hope of getting us all out of this collective shit show.
All I said is that the other guy is worse, which means you vote to try to have it not be the worse one. That’s explicitly not a defense of any party. It’s an attack on them both. I’d repeat my initial phrase, but apparently even though everyone seems to think it means I’m defending someone, trying to drive it home has gotten me labeled a congenital idiot.
This is at best, an outright lie. You want people to vote for the “lesser evil”, that is an endorsement of Biden and any other Democrat.
And you’ve been misrepresenting me and jumping up and down on me ever since.
No, this is also a lie. You are a liar.
And nobody has presented me with a better option. They just keep calling me names, saying I’m repeating myself, and saying “they’re all the same” and “Biden bad!”
The better option is organize, instead of voting for the party you endorse but curiously refuse to defend. * or challenge
So please, for the next election, give me an action I can take that has some sort or hope of getting us all out of this collective shit show.
Organize, outside of the party that apparently you refuse to defend but think we should all vote for and get snotty and sneer about being questioned.
It’s very eye opening that “lesser evil” proponents are so cagey about the candidates they’re explicitly telling us to vote for. Genuinely curious what irrational mental space you’re in that you think you can browbeat people to vote for democrats but allow yourself to get offended when people say democrats suck ass and shouldn’t be voted for. Pick a side, you fucking weenie.
I want to be very clear: I used to be a reliable blue voter, for maybe fifteen years. That is behind me. Voting for shitbags who will never care about the poorest people in America is wasted effort, I will not bother myself to drive fifteen minutes to the rural voting station to endorse assholes whose only responsibility is to their big money capitalist donors.
Have you seen Sophie’s Choice? If not, this won’t make much sense, but When Sophie chose Eva over Jan, was she endorsing Jan’s death?
Because I don’t think she was, but by the reasoning you’re using on me here, you would have to think Sophie endorsed Jan’s murder. As far as I can follow your logic, Sophie was not only in favor of Jan’s death, she supported it fully, and could find no fault in it.
We were going to have Trump or we were going to have Biden. No third choice I made - or anyone else at the time made - could do anything to change that. So, even though I didn’t like the creepy, handsy, corporatist faux-progressive ancient douche, and didn’t care all that much for his former boss, or his party, I chose him. Because the other guy had shown himself to be worse. All the same bullshit, plus rabble-rousing hate speech, direct attacks on my LGBTQIA friends, and more. He was empirically worse.
If you can, somehow, read that as an endorsement, then I’m relatively certain we’re not speaking the same language, and this has all been a huge waste of our time.
And fuck off with calling me a liar. I haven’t. If my language skills have failed me, and I haven’t managed to get my meaning across, fine. If I’m wrong, fine. But I didn’t set out to deceive anyone, nor have I intentionally or knowingly made a false statement.
Sorry. In what way have I knowingly told a falsehood? I’m lost, because I may be kind of an idiot, but I was present for this whole conversation, and I’m pretty sure I at no point tried to deceive you or anyone else.
Seriously? I already directly addressed this in a reply to you.
This is at best, an outright lie. You want people to vote for the “lesser evil”, that is an endorsement of Biden and any other Democrat.
You are trying to play a game where you admonish people to vote for Biden but get to dodge the argument about whether he’s worth voting for. You endorse Biden but will not tackle his inadequacies because they’re inconvenient, so you act snide about it instead of addressing them. This is lying, but it’s understandable - his actions and the actions he has failed to follow through on are indefensible.
Anyway, I’m 40 and have voted most of my life until recently. I didn’t vote in the 2020 election and I won’t be voting in any other elections because I’m done voting for Democrats pretending to give a shit about anyone other than themselves.
Seriously? I already directly addressed this in a reply to you.
This is at best, an outright lie. You want people to vote for the “lesser evil”, that is an endorsement of Biden and any other Democrat.
It isn’t an endorsement. How is calling something “evil” an endorsement? If I said “I hate beer cheese and pimento cheese, but if I have to eat one, I’ll take beer cheese” an endorsement of beer cheese? As far as I can see, I just said I hated them both.
You are trying to play a game where you admonish people to vote for Biden but get to dodge the argument about whether he’s worth voting for.
No, I’m not, and the fact that you think I am completely baffles me. All I said was *the other guy is worse." That’s the position I took. That does not require providing evidence of Biden’s virtues, because that position has nothing to do with his virtues.
How am I explaining this wrong? How am I fucking up my point this badly? Am I writing in English?
You endorse Biden
Again, no. Calling someone slightly less horrible than former president Cheeto isn’t an endorsement in the same way coming out of a movie theater and saying “well, at least it wasn’t Bloodfeast 2” isn’t a positive review.
but will not tackle his inadequacies because they’re inconvenient, so you act snide about it instead of addressing them.
Because my statement has nothing whatsoever to do with his inadequacies. I’m not being snide, I’m just fucking confused as to why you think I like the guy.
Rattle off all the shit you want about how horrible he his. I DO NOT CARE. HE’S NOT AS BAD AS THE OTHER GUY.
That’s not me being snide or sarcastic. That’s me shouting the same fucking thing I’ve been saying for days now. I’m not endorsing him, I’m anti-endorsing Trump. I didn’t vote for Biden, I voted against Trump.
Congrats. I’ve shifted from “confused and exasperated” to “fucking pissed off.” If that was your goal this whole time, well trolled.
This is lying
It is not. It is, at worst, being disingenuous. I’m not splitting hairs here. Lying is making false statements with the intent to deceive. Even if I was avoiding your question instead of trying my goddamndest to answer it, it would still not be lying.
Fuck, it wouldn’t even be dishonest, just shitty rhetorical practice and an asshole move.
I didn’t vote in the 2020 election and I won’t be voting in any other elections because I’m done voting for Democrats pretending to give a shit about anyone other than themselves.
Jesus fucking Christ fine! If that’s what your conscience demands, then fucking do that! Just get off my dick, and learn what the words “liar” and “endorse” mean.
It isn’t an endorsement. How is calling something “evil” an endorsement? If I said “I hate beer cheese and pimento cheese, but if I have to eat one, I’ll take beer cheese” an endorsement of beer cheese? As far as I can see, I just said I hated them both.
Because you don’t have to choose either. I’m not reading further, you’re just too silly and this is too fucking simple to let some chud drag me into it. You’re wrong, sucks, go vote for the lesser fascist and imagine you’re fighting the power or whatever. Buh byeeee
Lmao I can’t wait until you and your comrades try to start the revolution, shit is going to be hilarious 🤣
Also why tf does everyone on hexbear put their pronouns in their username on a site that emphasizes anonymous interactions. No one cares about what you like to be called.
Under the policies of the lesser evil, billions will die as you say.
Under the policies and rhetoric of the greater evil, a woman just got brutally murdered in California for the crime of hanging a fucking flag outside her shop.
My point, as I have been trying in vain to make this whole time (but apparently don’t have the writing ability to convey) is that if you’re fucked no matter what you do, then do the thing that hurts your friends less.
If you have some other course of action that can lead to actual change, then tell me. If you have some other course of action that will help my trans friends today, then tell me. Because billions dying over the next century doesn’t mean much to people who get shot, stabbed, or beaten to death today.
I want to believe there’s a better way, though, so explain it to me.
The action that leads to security and a better life for yourself and those around you is to organize your community along whatever lines are possible. Unionize with your coworkers, form a tenant’s union with your neighbors, physically get out in the street and provide security for LGBT+ events and spaces. Build up parallel structures so that when the government fails, you and those you care about will still have access to food and water, a place to live, and security. Join a political organization that’s active and actually does things in your area (one of the communist parties, DSA, or even just Food not Bombs) and do all you can to prepare for a revolution that might never come.
I’ll close this by saying that I’ve been harsh on voting and the electoral system in general during this conversation, and probably too hostile in tone towards you. I apologize for that, because it’s sometimes hard to tell when someone is actually acting in good faith, this being the internet and all. Voting isn’t something I think is particularly useful, but if you vote for the democrats because they’re less openly fascistic, that’s up to you. The key is to not let your political activity start and end at voting, because direct action in the real world is by far the best way to achieve positive change. I wish you and yours the best in surviving the collapsing fascist hellhole we find ourselves in.
If we want better options we can vote for third party candidates. I have no faith in the system, and a third party candidate will almost never win. But if enough people vote for them it gets them more recognition, which could eventually shift the narrative. Gary Johnson got over 3% of the vote in 2016, and Ross Perot got as high as 19% in the 90s.
Okay. But if the people you vote for can only muster 3% of the vote, how does that help?
I get it in local elections, up to and including State legislature, gubernatorial races, and maybe Congress if they can get a good campaign going. That all makes sense because even if they don’t win they get enough attention to attract local media and push discussion among others.
But Senators? The President? Ross Perot was an extreme outlier. The last time a 3rd party presidential candidate got more than 50 electoral votes was 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Progressive. In the last century, the highest total electoral votes for a 3rd part went to George Wallace in 1968 running as an American Independent. He got 46 out of 538. Rounding up, that’s 9%.
Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968.
So I’m asking: how does it help. If it helps, I’ll try. But from where I’m sitting, it’s all hopeless. I don’t want to feel this way. So please, for the love of sanity, convince me.
But from where I’m sitting, it’s all hopeless. I don’t want to feel this way.
I feel this way too. But if we as individuals recognize that the system is going to screw us no matter who is elected, then if we vote it might as well be out of principle. Have you ever shared a fact or opinion or taught someone something, and later noticed that it changed their behavior in some small way? Someone on the internet might see Perot’s (or more relevant, Gary Johnson’s since it happened only a few years ago) vote count on Wikipedia and it could lead them down a rabbit hole that ultimately gets them motivated to take initiative in the local community. So yeah, I feel you, at the federal level it’s hopeless. I think the real change will happen within families, friends, and local communities.
Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968.
Based on the year, that was a good guess. But nope. It was pro segregation.
Which brings me back to my point. If:
My vote isn’t going to help further discourse, and …
Odds are good that even a popular 3rd party option isn’t going to be remembered all that well, and…
If nobody represents my ideas all that well anyway, then…
what’s my choice from a moral standpoint? You mentioned Gary Johnson. You couldn’t have paid me to vote for him. The Green Party is closer to my value set, but their idiot said anti-vaxxers might have a point (among other takes, not least of which was a seemingly complete misunderstanding of how economics work), so that would have been a no-go too.
And nobody was talking about ending the punative justice system, federal bans on cash bail, demilitarization of the police and radical law enforcement reform, legal protection for LGBTQIA+, ending first past the poll elections, massive education reform, or (outside of the Green party) anywhere near the investment we need in green tech and fighting global climate change.
So I voted for the one that a.) had a chance of winning, b.) wasn’t specifically speaking out against most of that stuff and was at least paying lip service to some, and c.) wasn’t a cretinous rapist; she was just married to one.
That was voting my conscience. The cretinous rapist won, but that’s not on me.
So when you say to vote on principal, okay. I’ll do that. I will do my best to vote for people I agree with or, at least, against people who spout shit that makes me want to vomit.
But that’s what I was already doing.
Edit: changed out a word for clarity and to reduce repetition.
If you feel like you vote consistent with your principles that’s respectable. Since we can’t do anything about the shitshow that is the federal government, other than voting I try not to stress out or think about it otherwise. It’s a waste of the energy that we can direct to our local communities, which we can do something to improve.
The libertarian party aligns closer to my values, but if the Green party candidate was the only other option I would pick them without hesitation. Regardless of what any politician says, they are self serving and will change their stance when it benefits them. If the green candidate sounded like an idiot with bad policies it wouldn’t give her less credibility from the other idiots who wouldn’t follow through on their policies anyway. So at least supporting third party candidates changes it from impossible for them to win to incredibly incredibly unlikely, but possible to influence others to open their mind to the idea of something other than the official media narrative.
Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I’m not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process.
Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy?
I don’t think it’s at all unrelated.
Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed.
It is. That’s why I used to be a (literally) card carrying member. But at the end of the day, the party has too many places where we differ (gun control, health care, and education are three places where I just can’t support the party’s platform anymore, for instance). Also, it’s got way too many creepy members calling for the abolishment of age of consent laws. I know it’s just a vocal few, but it skeeves me.
Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I’m not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process
I’m not confident either, but the free market hasn’t done a great job, and other countries have had a great deal of success with regulation. Heck, we’ve had success with regulation.
In the UK university is still wayyyy cheaper than US, but local students pay ~$10,000 a year max due to regulation, but international students have no protection and typically pay ~$30,000
That makes perfect sense though. The UK government subsidizes/funds the universities, and in turn domestic students are more likely to have higher paying jobs and pay more tax. Foreign students are more likely to leave after graduating, so no tax for the government once they go.
kbin.life
Top