• 0 Posts
  • 329 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: November 4th, 2023

help-circle
  • Just like conservatism, the problem is what parts of it you push.

    Focus on divisive issues like gun control, open immigration, and hyper inclusion of any possibly marginalized group and you push people away.

    Avoid the wedge issues, and focus on things that will make everybody’s lives better, like honest government, social safety net, and good health care, and you bring everybody together.

    If you look at the entire range of issues, including the ones politicians don’t often talk about, you might find that Americans generally agree on more than they disagree on. But rather than focusing on those shared agreements and trying to build a better country, both parties are focusing on wedge issues where there is strong disagreement.


  • And you are doing the same thing that the other Democrats are doing, focusing on the steak rather than the sizzle. If you look at the things Trump has actually done in his life, most of it is just looking out for #1. And after his first 4 years, I don’t think we need another 4. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I was not impressed by his presidency.

    But that’s looking at steak. He may not have much steak, but he has an awful lot of sizzle in excess.

    You have a country that is (to continue the analogy) starving and malnourished. One candidate shows you a ton of sizzle and steam and flame and makes your mouth water. The other one just keep saying that eating red meat is bad for you.

    That’s why Trump won. You need to understand that for a lot of people, voting involves emotion and desperation. You see the factories you work at closing, hearing about a giant tariff on Chinese goods sounds fucking awesome. You work lower end jobs and see companies switching from full-time American workers with salary and benefits to part-time immigrant workers making minimum wage, closing the border sounds like a great idea. And that’s not because of racism, it’s because you don’t want to be competing for jobs with people who will accept minimum wage and live 10 to a flat so they can all send money back home. There is of course little or no steak behind the sizzle, Trump’s first term showed that. But to an emotional voter who is desperate…


  • Or, an awful lot of Americans are angry, they see the world passing them by and they see a line of politicians that have all promised to do something and done nothing. So they are angry. They are pissed off at the establishment, at the status quo.
    Donald Trump may be a liar and an asshole but he is definitely not establishment and definitely not status quo.
    So they vote for him, hoping that maybe he will actually do a little bit of what he promises if only because when he speaks it doesn’t sound like a PR department is talking.

    If Democrats want to win, they need a real message. Obama had a real message. Hope, change, yes we can. That was a real message. And he was, by and large, an excellent president. I don’t regret my vote for him. But he made one big mistake. He ran on a platform of radical reform, and then delivered only moderate reform. Still a very successful president.

    And who does the DNC put forward after him? Hillary. About as radical as soggy toast. And they shunt Bernie to the side, the one who actually could have won. Let’s not forget that before this election started and Biden dropped out, Harris was polling in the single digits among Democrats.

    If you want to win elections, you need a stronger message than ‘I’m not Trump’. THAT is why Kamala lost. She did not have that strong message. To say otherwise is to deny reality and ensure that history repeats itself.


  • No they aren’t, and with that attitude we will continue to repeat this mistake over and over and over.

    The people want change. A lot of change. You can work 40 hours a week and barely scrape by paycheck to paycheck, and it’s been like that for years. Housing is even more unaffordable.
    Nothing has changed for years.
    People are angry.

    Donald Trump taps into that. That is his whole message. That he is an outsider, he is not the status quo, he is the one who shakes things up. He does not listen to PR people. He says what’s on his mind. He is the closest thing to a Bulworth candidate we’ve had in quite some time.

    I personally think he is a liar and a criminal, but not everybody shares that view.

    What does Kamala have going for her? She is the vice president, next in line of a succession. There is no radical reform there. It is status quo. And let’s not forget that before Biden dropped out and Kamala was crowned successor, she was pulling very low even among Democrats.

    The problem is not that America refuses to hand the country over to a woman. The problem is that the DNC keeps putting forward the wrong people as candidates, and expects the whole nation to vote for them simply because they’re not Republican. It doesn’t work that way.

    My point is though, as long as you blame sexism or racism or whatever for Trump’s win, you hide the real problem and thus prevent it from being fixed.

    It NEEDS to be fixed.
    For the good of the country, we (Dems) cannot expect people to just vote for us because we’re not Republican. We need to offer them something better. Obama did that. That’s why he won. Hope, change, yes we can. That was something better. And so he defeated a real non-crazy Republican.

    Whoever is the next Democratic candidate, they need to do that. Offer a real message and a real plan. Not just ‘I’m not red’.



  • Okay Trump is recent, but his whole change of focus since buying Twitter is where public opinion on him shifted. That started a shift in public statement more toward the libertarian or perhaps conservative and that made him unpopular with a lot of the liberals who previously liked him for pushing environmental causes.

    Now that he pushes conservative and libertarian ideals, supports a Republican candidate, he becomes persona non grata. That may well be valid, but it should not take away recognition of his other accomplishments. If he’s now an asshole, he can be a visionary asshole. Becoming an asshole doesn’t mean he isn’t or wasn’t a visionary.




  • Obviously the right of people to live is very important. But if somebody encourages them to end their own life, their right is not being taken away, they are just being given bad advice. If they choose to suicide, their right to live is being surrendered by them, by their own bad choice. Taking away somebody’s right to live is murder. Encouraging somebody to do something stupid is harmful, but it is not murder. No more is it theft if I encourage you to set your money on fire and you do it. You choose to follow my obviously bad recommendation, you choose to set your own money on fire. That is your choice and your responsibility.

    Making any sort of speech illegal is a slippery slope. Most civilized people would agree they don’t want to read racist rhetoric, encouragements of suicide, etc. but when ‘I don’t want to read that’ becomes ‘I don’t want you to be allowed to say that’ you start forcing the morality of the majority on everybody. And that rarely ends up in good places, historically speaking.


  • Read your damn history.

    SpaceX is basically 100% Elon’s creation. He was founder, Tom Mueller (who designed the Merlin rocket engine) was the first employee period

    Tesla was Elon and a few other people who had seen a good electric roadster, but it had been a one-off that that company was not going to produce. They decided they wanted to produce an electric roadster, so they did. Initially, Martin Eberhard was in charge of the company and Elon was just an investor. Search archive.org for the original Tesla blog. It’s all laid out. I know this because I was following them while it was happening.

    Eberhard was in charge, and they were going for a setup with a two-speed gearbox. There was to be no clutch, just a synchromesh to allow shifting. Problem is, shifting at 10,000+ RPM under heavy load is mechanically stressful, and they were having a lot of trouble getting the gearbox to work reliably. After a good year of screwing with this, they were burning through cash and not getting close to actually shipping a car. That’s when Elon stepped in, pushed Eberhard out, and took over Tesla. Elon quickly switched to a setup with a single speed non-shifting gearbox (much easier to build, much less expensive, and will basically last forever as long as you lubricate it) and a larger and better cooled electric motor to deliver the required torque that they wouldn’t get from a lower speed gear. That setup is still in use today in all Teslas.






  • I mean full respect when I say this- but if you advocate for a law or policy, don’t shy away from the hard questions about it. Think them through BEFORE you advocate for the policy, as part of your thought process of whether that’s a good policy or not.

    In this case, those hard questions are exactly why I’m NOT in favor of such a policy.

    If you make it illegal to recommend suicide, you create a situation where anyone who says anything even vaguely pro-suicidal is open to both criminal prosecution and civil liability. So that guy who (without any desire to see the poster suicide) said take a long walk off a short pier now is facing criminal charges, will have a criminal record, may go to jail, and then he’ll be sued by the family of the deceased and probably lose his life savings (or whatever he’s not already spent on lawyers).
    Or, what if it’s not the disturbed guy from the scenario who suicides, but some other random person a month later and they see that the ‘long walk off a short pier’ post was in that person’s browser history? Do we blame that person for every single person who suicides who might have read that thread?
    That in turn has a chilling effect on any online discourse and you’ll get a lot more people using proxies and VPNs and anonymizer systems just for basic online discussion lest something they say be taken badly and the same happen to them.

    And then in the wake of some publicized suicide, some politician will say it’s time to clean up the Internet to keep our kids safe, and they’ll task an investigative agency with proactively seeking out such things. Suddenly online message boards are crawling with cops, and if you say anything even vaguely pro-suicidal your info gets subpoena’d from the platform and you get cops knocking on your door with a court summons.

    Is this ‘better’? I don’t think it is.

    To be clear-- I have great value for the sanctity of human life. I don’t want to see anyone dead, including from suicide. I think encouraging anyone to suicide is abhorrent and inhuman and I would personally remove such posts and/or ban such users from any platform I moderate.
    But that’s my personal standards, and I don’t think it right or practical to throw people in jail or ruin their lives because they don’t agree.

    I also think one part of free speech is if someone else wants to create a toxic cesspool community, I don’t have the right to order them not to. I’m okay with requiring a warning label on such a space though.


  • I think I might be okay with encouragement of homicide or murder or terrorism being at least somewhat illegal.

    Question for you though, let’s say you have a person with numerous documented mental health problems, who has been suicidal for quite some time, they post some awful shit on a forum one day when upset. One of the responses is to go take a long walk off a short pier. Only they go and do that, with a bunch of rocks in a backpack, and they drown.

    What punishment would you prescribe for the person who told them to take a long walk off a short pier?

    Making things illegal is easy, but all the law does at the end of the day is a list of if you do X your punishment will be Y.
    So for the dude that told him to take a long walk off a short pier, what is the punishment?


  • Saying that whatever Trump does is political suicide misses the biggest issue with this election-

    Nobody cares what either of them say because an awful lot of the electorate simply isn’t listening.

    The Trump voters would keep voting for Trump even if he joined the Nazi party. The rest of voters have either tuned out or are pushing Kamala simply because she’s not Trump so she must be better.
    An awful lot of people have just made up their minds and aren’t listening for anything new.

    So having a headline that Trump says something offensive is news to nobody. What would have been political suicide a decade or two ago is business as usual today. Whatever standards we once have politicians to, we no longer hold them to.



  • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.todaytoAsk Lemmy@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 days ago

    Yes, but quality over quantity. I was a redditor back in the early days, pre Digg migration. Being a redditor meant something back then, almost universally meant you were tolerant, usually but not always somewhat liberal, and with a very strong sense of fairness. I remember a good friend of mine started dating someone and when they mention their new partner was a redditor I am immediately thought oh good, that means they are very likely a good person (they ended up married). Reddit has of course grown since then, but not all of the growth is good. I used to go there for engaging discourse, knowing that I was surrounded by other relatively smart people and we could have respectful discussion on almost any subject. Those discussions are few and far between now.

    So yes I would like Lenny and the fediverse to grow, but I am more interested in what kind of people we attract than simply growing numbers. When I would rather do is create a reputation that the fediverse is a place to come before respectful discourse and sharing of ideas, not just scrolling through page after page of mindless content like on a big tech social platform (FB / Insta / TikTok / etc).


  • Eventually, we will just have to accept that photographic proof is no longer proof.

    There are ways that you could guarantee an image is valid. You would need a hardware security module inside the camera, which signs a hash of the picture with its own built-in security key that can’t be extracted and a serial number that it generates. That can prove that an image came from a particular camera, and if you change even one pixel of that image the signature won’t match anymore. I don’t see this happening anytime soon. Not mainstream at least. There are one or two camera manufacturers that offer this as a feature, but it’s not on things like surveillance cameras or cell phones nor will it be anytime soon.