There’s a “hub” mode where your endpoint inside the network grants access to the whole network like a standard VPN server.

Leftist organizations with authoritarian approaches exist, but generally have a way lower impact on the life of the average progressive. They’re usually, with very few exceptions, smaller groupings.

With conservatives there’s always an in-group. other groups get judged by whether they follow the same life rules, even if they’re things the other group can’t change.

They “tolerate” other groups - as long as those other groups do not show up in their life. Begrudgingly a part of them has accepted more diversity, but they’d rather have diversity gone once the opportunity arises.

Any issue that might be big for them is a non-issue until it affects their group. So you better not change anything and do as they do, no matter how impossible it actually is in reality.

There’s no willingness for compromise and changing their ways. It’s their way out the highway unless you force them.

Conservatives always subscribe to a higher moral authority that they say is the way to be. Their individualism just comes down to “I can manage with the rules prescribed, so you have to be able to do the same. I don’t rely on others. You shouldn’t either.”

That’s not individualism. That’s just Stockholm syndrome. They’re clinging onto a weird ‘life sucks, live with it’ “rugged individualism”, which is literally just suffering through life. Because that’s all they’ve been taught, because they weren’t ever allowed to be the nail that sticks out. They had the hammer applied on them when they did and now they do the same to others.

Progressives celebrate sticking out, they want to allow everyone to be their true, authentic self. They get to do something conservatives weren’t allowed to. That makes them angry. And progressives want to change things in innumerable ways - the motivation for it doesn’t matter, can be all good, like preventing more climate catastrophes. each conservative group will have at least something a progressive group is “threatening” to change: trades learned, ownership structures, technology, etc. their spokespeople will rail against these for their various interests (bigotry, narcissism, profits …) And that unites them against the thousands of splinter groups all labelled progressives.

Conservatives aren’t actually hyper-individualists. That’s a wrong assumption. They’re individualists within confines. They have their set communities that are guided by an authority (church, for example) and they want everyone else to conform to their way of living.

Any conservative structure has an authoritarian leadership whose call to action will be heeded. The biggest disobedience you find will be people just not saying anything against it.

Unlike this, progressives deal with a lot of infighting because there’s a thousand ways to achieve things and any leadership is constantly scrutinized and criticised.

There’s an inherent speed and organisation advantage to single-point leadership (authoritarianism) Vs the more measured compromise system (democracy).

And then there’s the part where conservatives are the overwhelming majority of rich people, who can dump in the money to organise things. You have to be a garbage human to become filthy rich, and those garbage humans will of course happily work on campaigns to hold progressives back. Progress is the enemy of scum, the past is their friend.

I didn’t say don’t be loud, I’m saying don’t be a useful idiot for the other side at the same time. Apparently you want to misunderstand the point completely.

Fuck up the DNC libs, establishment democrats, etc! From the inside of possible.

Just don’t play into the hands of the Nazis by using rhetoric that makes their job of “pretending to not be the worst humans possible” easier.

And who do they draw from? The active base. If the complaints are loud enough, broad enough, from inside the party, that’s when they will have no choice.

“Oh there’s the dnc, can’t do anything, move on” is not a productive way to fight these things.

Use constructive criticism. Criticize the issues. Don’t put false equivalencies first.

No shit, Sherlock. And that’s why you’re helping the fascists with this comparison. You’re working in a two party system, being an idiot about how to actually change shit.

You’re not changing the one party that can be used for change for the better, you’re just whining and making them seek votes elsewhere.

And your own words show exactly what I mean.

There’s a marked difference between lazy fucks who didn’t properly bring it across the finish line and people actively working to make things worse. Correct my believe if I’m wrong: unless it’s a constitutional amendment, laws are fairly easy to overturn still.

And to ‘how many years’… How many years did people have to vote for progressive candidates in the lower levels to change the actual base of the party to where they want it to be? How many years have the voters not used to make it the party they want it to be?

This kinda shit is so fucking often due to progressives wanting things to be a certain way, but not putting in the legwork because “it’s a lost cause anyway”. With the democrats you have a chance to change the party into the progressive direction. Take an example from those maga assholes - it doesn’t take a lot of them to shift the republicans to be even worse.

Criticizing is great, putting it like OP with “they’re the same, democrats just put on a hat” is dishonest and reductionist. This kind of thing actively causes harm and plays into the hands of the party that’s objectively worse for anyone that’s not rich.

I think you misunderstood me?

I’m not saying the article is bad or wrong. I’m taking exception to putting kiddie gloves in headlines.

Think about the people who only read this concisely while browsing headlines. The headline is completely ambiguous and easily reinforces the person’s heels beliefs instead of laying out the important part of where it comes from.

This is before the author and content even comes into play.

Yeah, I did. The author uses political violence as the term throughout. The problem here is not what the author means but that they’re not directly addressing it in clear terms.

You had to guess/ask whether I read the article because the headline makes the source of the political violence ambiguous.

you can bet that an author pointing out a rise on the other side of the political spectrum would not go for muddy terms. This headline seen by a right wing person would just be something they would not click and assume it’s reassuring their fox news world view by a different outlet.

It’s “right-wing terrorism” not political violence as if the whole spectrum is engaged in the same shenanigans.

Incompetent seems pretty spot on since it can’t even burn the trash.

HIPAA covers the spreading of medical information by anyone who’s not the patient themselves.

You’re the popcorn of the rich.

A VPN is only as much of a security improvement as the service behind it. If it gets installed in a shady way, how much trust can you put into the service?

Not that unusual depending on the software. A lot of them honour the TTL literally.

One enterprise software I know that does it is VMware vcenter. I’m sure there’s plenty of consumer software that retries excessively.

Fuck cars refers to what they caused with car centric infrastructure. The lobbying that reduced that “fantasy” of public transport to rubble. It’s advocating for people centric cities.

At least check what is about before getting offended.