BlemboTheThird

I mean, it's New York. Pretty much all cities are left leaning, especially in the context of how far right US politics have gotten, but New York in particular has a strong movement. I mean, they gave us AOC, too. I'm not sure if even LA with all these protests is going to have a legacy that strong, though Mamdani isn't the mayor yet.

But for the politicians competing for gerrymandered districts where the mass of rural, Fox-watching morons control the outcome (aka most of them), opposing the genocide is still a tough sell. Just being not-a-Republican is basically a death knell for any of those campaigns.

There it is. When Russia does it, it's helping, but when Western countries do it, it's colonialism. God I hope you're at least being well paid for your doublethink

For sure, but the argument being made here isn't that Medvedev is speaking truth, but that he can be referred to with "Russia says." Which, yeah, he's a mouthpiece for the Russian government, so that checks out, accuracy of the statement notwithstanding.

Maybe it has something to do with also needing international support in order to defend itself from its neighbor... talk all the shit you want about the US's stance on Israel, but shifting that to Taiwan is on par with claiming Ukraine deserved to get invaded.

Which I now realize is probably your next line. Anyway, oh well

No, the logic stops as soon as we can drill more than one hole per pigeon. We could just drill M holes in one pigeon, leaving N-1 pigeons with no holes.

I guess we're all too busy watching number go up to actually manage anything. For them it's their stock prices, for me it's my seed ratio!

They also care about ruining trans people's lives in any way possible. I'm sure there are plenty of transphobes who simply haven't thought the bathroom thing through, but don't forget the other reason they'd be happy to put passing trans men in women's bathrooms: it forces them into an impossible decision. When an angry mob drags a trans man out of the women's toilet, you think they're going to listen to protestations of being AFAB? If anything, that'd just rile them up further. So a when someone is faced with the decision of choosing either the room they're least likely to be noticed in, or the one the law technically assigned to them, they may instead choose to stay home. They may even start considering detransitioning. This is a feature, not a bug.

Go big or go home. "Russia starts using nukes and us government blames ukrainians for it"

I did not but I'll give you an upvote anyway

It's because being "gentlemanly" by sitting back and letting this happen is the absolute pinnacle of falling victim to the paradox of intolerance. Trump has zero tolerance for democracy. Letting this traitor back into office to dismantle any hope of free and fair elections in the future is fucking stupid, and the more decorum shown to this fascist moron, the more his future actions are legitimized to the public.

It's true that refusing to hand over the office in any way is undemocratic in its own right. I can't pretend to know what the exact right answer is: the dumbass, impressionable electorate put us here by voting how it did. But smiling and shaking hands while this fuck prepares to dismantle our freedoms is so, so dumb.

While simultaneously opposing any form of gun control so they can fight... something?

Apparently the only protest worth anything is one where you're shooting at someone

I'm gonna say some stuff that most of the people here probably know on some level, but considering this thread, I think it needs to be explicitly said.

Very few of the people who post comments on the internet are highly educated in whatever field they're making a claim in. Getting challenged by people who know next to nothing and receive all the upvotes anyway is an exhausting experience, so many well-educated people keep their debates private. If they are here, you probably aren't enough of an expert to recognize them. The simple, easy to understand takes are what get upvoted, and in-depth, nuanced ideas are almost always ignored or ridiculed. Most forums are full of people who know just enough to feel confident in making calls for radical action without any knowledge of how that action could be implemented or would play out.

Look through this comment section. Lots of vague, single-sentence arguments about being "capitalist," "communist," or "socialist," along with "leftist," "liberal," or "conservative," but I don't see a single one acknowledging that each of those words can individually encompass vast groups of conflicting ideas and have wildly different meanings in different parts of the world; a serious problem considering at least a few of the people posting in this thread aren't in the US. Very little discussion of substantive ideas like "people should be given a universal basic income of $15 a day," or "food stamps should be granted without application to anyone under a certain income threshold," or "social media servers should receive public funding and be administrated by an elected body." It's almost never more specific than "universal healthcare," or "abolish the police," Those might be the right direction, but when was the last time you saw people discussing things like whether experimental treatments should be covered, or the number and type of professions that should replace the current myriad of roles police are expected to fill? I seriously doubt if you randomly selected two self-described communists (or whatever ideology) on Lemmy and had them start making decisions together, that they would agree with each other on exactly how society should be run even half the time.

I'm not saying these conversations shouldn't happen, vague as they are. I certainly don't have the energy to write out long arguments 99% of the time. We all have to make our own way to finding deeper knowledge, and building a knowledge base of buzzwords can be a useful stepping stone. But far too often people stop once they feel they have a sufficient understanding of the buzzwords and then start talking like they know the answers. it's important to temper the depth of your convictions based on where you're having the discussion, where you're getting your knowledge. Are you watching youtube videos and reading unsourced comments, or are you reading research papers from institutions with a history of making accurate claims? Are you reading news articles from ad-supported papers, and if you are, are you checking whether those articles are making sources available for readers check on? Should I have bothered writing several paragraphs under a meme of a glowing red bird, and am I really qualified to tell people to be more careful with their discussions?