And you dont see how voting for the “lesser evil” allows both parties to move further and further right? I was actually taken aback by how blatant you were in your steps, most liberals dont state it so directly.
I’m gonna assume(hope) you think American foreign policy is bad real quick. Biden is complicit in a genocide, like an actual child killing, people starving, oppressor disguising bombs as canned food genocide. Sure trump is hypothetically worse, but by voting for biden you are showing the democratic party that you are willing to vote for someone who is actually genocidal. You are showing them that they can commit genocide when it benefits them and you’ll still vote for them. Of course this isn’t the only incredibly horrific thing the american establishment does that neither party budges on and the american populace just accepts. It’s just the worst and most obvious at the moment.
Why do you target Biden though? If you ever voted before, chances are the candidate you voted for had the same complicit stance with Isreal. Is this really how you fix it?
I haven’t voted in a presidential election before (in my early 20s), however if i had i would wish that i didn’t. I target biden becuase he is currently arming and aiding fascists.
As for fixing the israel issue; i’m hoping, praying that democrats see the threat of being unelectable due to their complicity as more important than aiding a genocide. If biden ended his support of israel i’d actually vote for him. I dont have much else i like about him, many things i really dislike about him even, but thats normal for US presidential candidates. Its the genocide that pushed me over the edge, i cant budge on that.
If you meant fixing US politics then I would say that is not possible without radical change of our current political system.
Doesn’t this boil down to what-about-ism then, if we we denounce our state as fascist when in the case of our neighbors, while holding our grievance against state for the crimes against the population as a whole. Lesser or greater evil means our democratic voice is used against those that would lead us into darker times still rather than try to facilitate trust. I’m just saying it’s a silly self-defeating manipulation acting out without regard to trust.
You've admitted that you are young and haven't been around for large scale issues and deep seated treaties and ally-ships that lead to the development of global political issues. It is incredibly understandable that given your age and experience you've summed up your decision into what you've currently seen in the news and perhaps the few bullet-point-history issues you've read up on.
The issues going on with Israel are enormously complex and are not as simple as who's land it is, who is keeping who away, and who is committing genocide. Yes, it is horrible, and it would be ideal if our political leader could step up and call out that country for those actions. The unfortunate reality from a geopolitical perspective and from the strategic perspective of being a world leader that needs to think many, many steps ahead is that the middle east is a very hostile area, and Israel is very strategically placed to not only have an ally, but also to keep key ports open - both for economic and military reasons.
Making a statement against the actions of Israel would have been detrimental to future global peace options. Instead, Biden can work with Netanyahu behind the scenes without making an official statement.
No, fuck you, there’s no justification for aiding a genocide. It is absolutely as simple as who is committing a genocide, you should have zero tolerance for it. Would you give bullets to someone after watching them shoot a kid if it benefitted you? The US can survive without israel and the people of the middle east would be better off without both the US and Israel. American and its client state are a destabilizing force in the region and that is not an accident. Can you even name a time where US invention in that region helped the people who live there? I dont want biden to work out an agreement with natanyahu, i want netanyahu to face the fucking wall.
Would you give bullets to someone after watching them shoot a kid if it benefitted you?
It has nothing to do with it benefiting me - or specifically the US as the case with Israel goes, or even the party or the politician. As I tried to describe in my original comment, it is a strategic move for GLOBAL PEACE - not just the US. This is not only about US intervention, which it is clear you have a lot of thoughts about, but also about the ports and access to resources both in and out for all of the countries in that region, and militaries of all countries. And destroying our only allyship in that region (not just us, but the other countries that have maintained their stance with Israel), maintains the ability to keep a foothold in that region.
If someone just shot a child in front of me, would I give them bullets? If they controlled the only access to all of the resources (oil, water, food, etc) that would cause my other allies to die without during times of crisis, I would absolutely consider it. That does not mean it would come without limitations.
For you to still think this way after it being explained to you shows how shortsighted and limited you are thinking.
From the rest of your comments, it's clear that you are very interested in politics and learning a lot, which is good! And you've gotten to a lot of topics, also good. But it seems like you have gotten to the surface level issues and become very passionate about them and it's that way or the highway instead of looking any deeper.
The US is not interested in global peace. It is not engaging in genocide for the peace. The idea that you can murder civilians for peace is ludicrous. I fully understand that the US and Israel control much of the resources in the region and regularly engage militarily. I am also aware that maintaining a foothold in that region is very important for the western ruling class. Im an not disagreeing with these facts. I am saying that these things are wrong and should not be done. I am saying the US, Israel, and numerous other western powers have done significantly more harm than good for the people within that region. I am also saying that no one should have that much control over those resources because it gives them the power to commit these sorts of atrocities.
Let me be clear, israel should not exist and before you lecture me on how nuanced and actually super complicated it is because theres been conflict in that region for 3000 years; i am well aware of the history. Everything before the establishment of the israeli state is nearly irrelevant to the current context. I fundamentally disagree with the existence of a settler colonial state.
The US and other western powers have no innate right to the resources of that land. Every single one of them can exist without israel. We should not have to pay for our resources in blood. Their influence in that area is not in the name of world peace and security but in the monetary interests of our ruling class. Western capitalists are a major cause of instability in that region.
Maybe if our current system of government requires the murder and systemic exploitation of hundreds of millions of people in order to provide for its citizens then it should not exist.
As for my anology, would you think differently if you had a gun too? The US has invaded and couped for with significantly less justification. It is not unreasonable to say that israel could be dismantled by force, it will likely have to be.
I think you’re much too resigned to your current reality. Its easy to look the other way and pretend the horrors are justified because of some sort of complexity. Telling yourself there is good reason or that theres nothing that can be done is very surely very comforting.
Nowhere in my response did I say that anyone had a right to the land, and nowhere in my response did I say that it was Western powers that I was concerned about getting resources.
This is what happens when someone looks at the surface of issues and then becomes incredibly passionate about it.
You need to listen to people that have lived through many, many years of middle east conflicts. Talk with people who have been entrenched over there. Become friends with middle easterners who have moved over here during the 80s and 90s (as adults, not the children of those that came over) and started businesses and ask about their experiences.
You don't want to hear about how things are nuanced, but you look at things in such a black and white manner, which is typical of those in your age group becoming interested in politics.
Your mistake is thinking Trump would stop the war in Gaza, and not end the war in Ukraine in the worst possible manner, by giving Putin everything he needs to exterminate the Ukrainians.
You really need to pay better attention to what’s going on. I’m embarrassed for you here.
Idk maybe it’s cause I don’t live in as much of a two party system as the US, but essentially still a two party system.
I think there’s value in strategic voting. I don’t know what the equivalent would be in the US but strategic voting for the lesser of two evils at a national level and then voting more true to your convictions at a municipal and provincial level is still valid.
Again my opinions probably don’t work in the US electoral system, but voter apathy is a big part of how rights get eroded where I’m from. A party or political figure stays in power because of apathy and then they just keep getting away with shit. At least if you cast a vote it can be seen as you participating in the democracy.
I will say there is something to the act of not voting as being a part of democracy, but truly I think along with abstaining any functioning democracy needs a “none” option.
The rich benefit most from politically right policies and the rich are our governing body. If you vote for the most left candidate no matter how far on the right they realistically are then they will just continue to move right because thats what benefits them. I imagine part of your problem is that maybe you view the democratic party as left? It is not, both american political parties are on the right, one is just a little more left than the other. Let me know if this makes sense, i did a lot of work today and my brain is a little fried so im not sure how well i explained that.
That doesn't really make sense, but I appreciate the honest effort.
Good luck, I hope you remember that one of Trump and Biden is going to be the next president whether you vote or not. Which one do you think is going to push the US farther to right? (That's a rhetorical question that you should answer for yourself, no one else's opinion really matters here)
The American government as with all capitalist governments is run by and for the owning class. Notice how our elected officials are property owners and business owners. They typically have a lot of investments in large business etc etc. So it follows that they would run their government in a way that would protect or bolster their investments. Whats good for business is good for them. This is why the “economy” and GDP are so talked about in our politics, its incredibly important to our elected officials and our unelected officials such as CEOS that the businesses they have invested into continue to turn a profit. Businesses will lobby and bribe politicians for laws that work in their favor and our politicians do it because it is in their best interests to do so. This extends beyond just maintaining a low minimum wage, refusing to pass rent control laws, cutting welfare, keeping privatized healthcare, loosening child labor laws, bailing out failed businesses, and writing loopholes into our tax laws that allows the owning class to evade them. It is also the reason the US overthrows democratically elected governments, invades sovereign nations, and funds far right insurgencies. Ultimately every single decision the US makes can be boiled down to protecting the interests of the owning class.
So, both the Democratic and Republican party have essentially the same interests. The main difference being that the Democratic party gives a few more concessions to the working class because it needs to maintain a voting body and it knows that pushing workers to hard can cause a revolution. It wants to extract as much profit as possible without risking a loss of power. The Republican party just does a little more for the owning class and a lot less for the working class.
Voting for the left most party no matter how far right they actually are because the other party is worse shows them that they can maintain their power and capital while doing less and less for the working class. Why should the Democratic party give you free healthcare, free education, a better wage, less working hours, or better working conditions if you’re gonna vote for them anyway. The far right republican is an incredibly useful tool for the Democratic party because it means they can maintain their position of power without actually doing the things you want them to do. Hell they even fund them. As for foreign policy, there’s little difference between the parties. They both know they can get away with bombing millions of innocent people bc wtf are we gonna do about it? Vote harder? For who?
As for israel specifically, im hoping that the Democratic party is worried enough about losing their executive power that they stop comitting a genocide but I truly honestly doubt it will happen. AIPAC is a very powerful lobbying group and the ruling class who benefit from the existence of Israel know that they can get what they want regardless of who is elected.
There is a real conversation that needs to be had about how do we drive the democrats left. Biden is not getting my vote. But I live in Delaware where he has no chance of losing*. I will vote green party.
The democrats are courting Republicans and old republican platforms. Joe Biden sounds like George Bush. I didn’t hear or remember a single progressive thing in his state of the union but I heard issues driven by republican wants and unions sort of. I hear support but I don’t see what Biden is doing. We have Supreme Court cases in line to strip the national labor board and almost all cabinet departments from governing yet I haven’t heard a peep from the administration
Loyalists were definitely a thing then. Also called Tories, Royalists, or King’s Men.
Prominent Loyalists repeatedly assured the British government that many thousands of them would spring to arms and fight for the Crown. The British government acted in expectation of that, especially during the Southern campaigns of 1780 and 1781. Britain was able to effectively protect the people only in areas where they had military control, and in return, the number of military Loyalists was significantly lower than what had been expected.
Came here to say this, so thank you for the coverage. Also interesting, I mean, aren’t crown loyal people still called Tories or some such? Forgive my ignorance, I’m West Atlantic (omg, I just made that up to say American, and I think I’m sticking with it.)
“It may just be my poor, West Atlantic education, but…”
In the UK we still use Tories as a nickname for the conservative party, one of the two main parties in our political system and a kind of pound store republican party. They do indeed still feign royalism when it suits their purposes, some things never change.
That still sounds accurate to the modus operandi of what I’m used to from a Conservative Party.
Though it infuriates me that a party can literally call themselves and be regularly referred to as “The thieves who want to eat your baby!”, by EVEN THEIR SUPPORTERS, and still not only be considered a viable party, but have more or less become the majority party of their country…
It’s got real “They call themselves Decepticons and you thought they’d honor a deal?” energy
I mean, in Norway we have the Pirate Party (that’s their official name) and they seem like an alright bunch. It’s a political party trying to champion online privacy.
Tories nowadays is typically used to describe a party which supports the establishment the most. So in the United Kingdom’s the Tories typically support the Crown the most. In Commonwealth countries the Tories are usually synonymous with right-wing parties who are typically the most nationalist. However in many Commonwealth countries the right-wing is often more left leaning than the American left. This is of course trying to describe a wide array of political beliefs in broad strokes so I may be accurate but I’m sure as hell not precise.
These discussions on communism vs capitalism that devolve into comparing the US with the USSR are like discussing feudalism vs liberalism in 1825, when the only perceptible legacies of the French Revolution were the Reign of Terror and Napoleon’s degeneration into monarchy.
If you’re sensibly anticapitalist, for the love of Marx do not argue in favor of states that rejected all pretension of wanting to let the economy be democratically managed, ultimately turning into party-controlled hierarchies rather than socialism. If you’re a liberal in 1825 and rather than arguing in favor of ending serfdom and enfranchising everyone you keep going on about how Robespierre wasn’t really that bad, you’re politically useless.
I think a lot of Marxists take sympathy with Lenin, and Lenin’s vision, they don’t necessarily like what the USSR became under Stalin. The principles of Soviet Democracy, for example, are appealing to many Lefitsts. “All power to the Soviets!”
That being said, ultimately the USSR serves as a great example of why Vanguardism can be good in overthrowing a bad system, but must be held far more accountable, or even dissolve after revolution. I know many MLs would probably shit on me for saying that, citing the CIA paper saying Stalin wasn’t a dictator, but I still think ultimately the form of government under Stalin and those who came after him is very dependent on who is in power. A more decentralized system would have checks against such issues.
My 2 cents as a leftist that isn’t an ML, but has spent time reading about the various leftist tendencies.
I’ll conclude it by saying I would have loved it if Lenin continued to live and stay in power, I wonder what the USSR would have looked like, maybe even today.
Lenin’s State and Revolution is great and set the foundations for the Bolshevik discourse that led to them being capable of leading a movement large enough to gain power over Russia, the problem is that not even Lenin himself was consistent with the principles he proposed. The idea that you can legitimately sustain some sort of pretension of achieving worker democracy when the Bolsheviks consistently ended up repressing all other leftist factions wasn’t coherent, to the point that Stalin wasn’t a sad degeneration of Leninist practice, but a necessary consequence.
We unfortunately see the same result in almost all countries that followed the ML model, where a party elite ends up monopolizing power and divorcing itself from the rest of society, ultimately instituting themselves as a separate class that sees no ideological issue with bringing back capitalism, as they find it to be more consistent with the really existent power dynamics in the country.
Literally most of the work people cite from Lenin is just him defending his own hypocrisy. It really says a lot that people will be all “dictatorship of the proletariat doesn’t mean dictatorship” and then go on to cite Lenin glibly saying that civil war is good because it teaches the peasants how to shoot. It’s simply not a well thought out framework for statecraft.
And all of this is summarized quite nicely in Animal Farm
The plot reads like a sunday school scare piece to warn children about the dangers of satanism. It’s so vague and allegorical that you can’t really critique it. The message is basically “if you revolt against the capitalists, a scary bad man will take over and hurt you.” Also pretty disgusting that it portrays workers as farm animals and capitalists as humans. It’s a very “American schools during the Cold War would make kids read that” kind of book.
It’s not surprising that Orwell was a bigoted snitch who ratted leftists out to British intelligence, and was especially keen on turning in jews, black people, homosexuals, and anyone he deemed “anti-white.”
Anyone who has actually studied political science has nothing but contempt for what Lenin did with his opportunity. At this point if you are ignoring all the hindsight of the 20th century, you are campist, not a communist. Which is what describes most of the lemmy communists.
I’m always confused at how people think communism and democracy are opposites. The indoctrination is crazy. They’re not even the same category of thing. Communism is an economic model where democracy is just about how leadership is decided. They can exist in the same country at the same time.
Communist theory explicitly tries to dispel the idea that political and economic structures are separate things. As such, communists intend to create democratic structures that can distribute resources in place of undemocratic market relationships which empower owners of capital.
Liberalism on the other hand believe that market relationships are inherently democratic. Therefore they may think that any attempt to replace them with a planned economy are undemocratic regardless of how such planning would be decided upon.
Ahhh right, but that’s not to say that the types of underlying structures aren’t interchangeable. Are you saying that communism is necessarily democratic?
Yes, most communists and especially Marxists believe communism must necessarily be fully democratic. It’s certainly true though that there is much debate about what types of democratic structures to use. Although most communists would probably agree that it would require a lot of trial and error to find an ideal system.
That said, communists generally seek to disenfranchise owners of capital from the decision making process up until the point they no longer exist as a class. Therefore in the transition to communism, full democracy may not be realized. This is the given reason for why Marxist Leninist countries generally suppress opposition parties but may allow for political affinity organizations around identity groups that suffer under capitalism, ie worker, youth, women’s organizations, etc.
Well Marx used the term “dictatorship of the proletariat” to describe how a transition would work in opposition to what he saw as the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”.
However, if you’re talking about people like Stalin or Mao, you’ll find self proclaimed communists with a wide variety of opinions on the subject. That’s in part because gets difficult to sort propaganda from the truth of the matter. I also mean both western and communist propaganda. To have a guy going by “Joe Steel” as the leader of your republic of socialist workers councils isn’t exactly a subtle attempt to get buy in from working class people.
I actually got that one around 2010 on Ubuntu. The printer wasn’t actually on fire. If I recall it was caused by the network attached printer losing connection during a job
You can't siphon a trucks gas just because it has a blue line flag. Most modern cars have an anti-siphon valve, so that causes issues.
Instead, you locate the fuel tank and drill a small hole in it. That way you can let the fuel collect in a tub or jug. On lifted trucks this is even easier. Drill the hole, pop a large jug under it, perhaps use a small rubber hose or funnel.
Remember to leave them a little note that you've drilled a hole, so they can go get it repaired and not leak fuel everywhere attempting to refill it.
Is that why I couldn’t siphon my gas that I needed for a generator after a hurricane? Not only did I fail at what I thought would be an easy task, I got sick and threw up in my 95⁰ house
Yup, you got a lung full of gasoline vapors and nothing else. You need a car siphon pump, they’re super cheap and available at any auto store. You just gotta make sure it’s got a long hose on both sides and a tube for air to get into the tank. If the hose is too long just cut it. Those stick ones don’t work on every car cause some gas tanks have slight bends.
Pro tip for sucking volatile gases, you can suck air into your mouth and push it out your nose without it going into your lungs. I do that when I clean glass pieces with iso when there’s still some vapors present. If you exhale out your nose while you do this you can be extra sure none goes into your lungs. Granted you should also be sure you’re actually pulling liquid if you’re trying to syphon, but at least you wouldn’t be pulling into your lungs.
Why don’t you just try it…? It’s not that hard to do. Just relax your sinus muscles and close your lips, then alternate between using your tongue to fill the space in your mouth pushing air out your nose and moving your tongue out of the way to create a void, sucking air back in. If you can coordinate this while also alternating between closing your sinuses and opening your lips while you create the void in order to suck air in your lips, and then closing your lips and opening your sinus so that the air gets pushed out your nose, then you’ll be able to pump air from your mouth out your nose without using your lungs.
I guess I’m not really following the technique. But let me ask this: Regardless if you aren’t getting air to your lungs then there is no point of breathing right? Since the lungs are the ones that get the oxygen into your bloodstream. If using the technique above is actually effective, wouldn’t you choke because of not getting enough oxygen?
Yeah so you’re essentially holding your breath while you do it, so you’d need to take a break to breathe in and if you’re trying to siphon you would need to seal your lips to prevent losing your progress / prevent the liquid from falling back down. But you can exhale while doing it, which also helps to make sure your don’t accidentally inhale whatever fumes you’re “pumping”.
Granted it’s kind of a silly thing to do and only marginally useful. Each cycle only moves a mouthful of air so I only find it useful for clearing trace amounts of isopropyl fumes from vapes and pipes without hurting my throat, but a fun trick nonetheless if you have the coordination. And depending on the fumes it might still burn your nostrils a bit.
Maybe the better way to explain the technique is: you can close the back of your throat and move your tongue back and forth to push air in and out of your mouth. You can also close your lips and do the same motion with your tongue to push air in and out your nose. All you really need to do is alternate between the two so that instead of pushing the air back out your mouth, you push it out your nose.
In case anyone can’t tell this is sarcasm, this (intentionally causing damage to private property belonging to someone else) would be considered vandalism, which is a crime. Please do not commit crimes.
It’s just a meme because when Sync launched it was all over everyone’s feeds. I don’t think as many folks are as angry about it as it seems but it’s definitely a good topic for meta memes.
The people who are actually angry tend to be FOSS advocates. I think they were assuming Sync would have a FOSS type option for users, and were surprised that wasn’t the case.
If you are not paying for Sync you are getting ads. So you are still paying (attention, data, you are the product).
Additionally proprietary software has some long term disadvantages that are not visible at first. This is why one needs to always inform people about it as they do not understand these disadvantages.
The biggest issue is that the owners of the proprietary code can change its course whenever they like it. See for example the Reddit Apollo Dev who would have sold out the community for 10 million dollars:
See his own published audio and the discussion on HN:
Lemmy probably isn’t the target audience for this, here’s the steps to bypass the MS account requirement when setting up W11:
Configure your keyboard, but before you select your wifi network press Shift+(Fn)+F10 to open Command Prompt.
Type in the following command and press enter. Your computer will reboot: oobe\bypassnro
After the reboot, configure your keyboard and location settings, and click the option at the bottom of the page to say that you don’t want to connect to the internet
Click the link on the next page to “Continue with limited setup”, then follow the prompts to enter a username and password.
If you use rufus to make a windows usb you can select to not require Microsoft account and bypass tpm right in the program, just get a windows 11 iso off the site instead of media creation tool
I wouldn’t try it for a permanent machine as it could backfire when Microsoft trys to enforce it and could lock up the machine somehow (because bigs not because evil corpo)
I agree, but I find something else even more weasel-y and annoying when I’m adding a second user to an already-configured W11 computer. If I’m adding them as a local account without a Microsoft account, I’ll use Tab to navigate through the process of creating a username, password, and security questions. After the last security question, I’ll hit tab to navigate to the “Okay” button at bottom left of the window, which seems like a reasonable expectation. Instead, Windows will highlight the “Back” button at the bottom right. If you aren’t paying attention and hit enter or space bar, you have to start all the way back at the beginning.
I know that is a small dumb complaint, but when I’m setting 5 computers up in a row and tabbing through everything, my habits get the better of me, and I’ll have to redo it two or three times out of the five.
Rookie mistake. The best way to procrastinate is to set everything up so you could work on it and then not do it. What’s the fun in procrastination when not actively defying work?
I like having the work I’m procrastinating up on my second monitor so that if I happen to feel a 30 second burst of productivity it doesn’t go to waste.
I unplugged my lan, thrown my mobile to the other side of the room, opened everything that I needed. And still ended up just walking up & down thinking about random stuff.
Likely durability and portability. Think of it as something they use month over month and just mark the day with something like a string band. Bone would be light enough to keep with you, strong enough to not break, and common enough to be available for household use.
etymologically speaking im not even sure if thats right. i heard somethibg like this and they either said woman doesnt derive from man or that man used to mean woman and man but woman became its own thing, cant recall
“man” in the contexts not directly related to being a male, means human. “Man” used to have a prefix vaguely pronounced “were” and “woman” used to be “wifman”. Female werewolf would be a “wifwolf” then. So anyways, “Man” never changed it’s meaning, it really just gained an additional one, and yet again, whiners need to read a book.
Likely durability. A bone and a stick can both be thrown into a bag and carried with you, but a bone is much more durable than a stick. It’ll be less likely to break or wear down as it rubs against everything else in your bag.
What about blackthorn wood versus chicken bone? What’s it like being wrong on the internet, champ. Adding this one to my scoreboard (dry-wipe, wall-mounted, magnetic).
Sure, you can say “man” means “mankind”, but when you use gendered language like that, most people picture a couple of caveMEN sitting around a fire carving bones rather than caveHUMANS (edited – I think it would benefit us to picture all genders around this hypothetical fire). Even though we try to use gendered language in a neutral way, listeners will often perceive the language in a gendered way.
lemmy.ml
Top