Gray @ Gray @lemmy.ca

Posts

2

Comments

112

Joined

2 yr. ago

Sure, it was there before Trump. It technically can be traced all the way back to Reagan and the Religious Right movement. We saw it pop up its ugly head from time to time. Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, the Tea Party movement, and so on. But Trump gave it new life. He redefined the movement into something so much newer and more sinister. To some degree they unshackled themselves from any illusion of actual well-intentioned religion. But most importantly for this conversation, 2016 was the year that they started actually using the internet as a recruitment tool. The alt right went mainstream. I grew up in rural Wisconsin and it's the year that half the people I knew on social media went rabid conspiracy theory bleeding red Republican. As someone else pointed out, it's the year that Cambridge Analytica started harvesting data from people on Facebook to use for political campaigning. 2016 was an explosion of what was there before that culminated in the election of Trump. And that's the year that I really felt the greatest shift in discourse on the internet. The spectacle of 2016 turned everything towards news on social media and away from personal connections.

I think we're all a bit disillusioned with it now. I feel like on the 2000's era internet we all were showing up bright eyed and optimistic about the possibilities. We lived in a world without the internet and having it felt like a superpower. But in the 2010's and especially around 2016, the misinformation pump got turned on hard and we saw the internet bring some truly sinister real world events to fruition. SEO started getting used more and more through the 2010's. Social media companies started finding nasty ways to profit off of us by being more selective in what we see. And now this has been the year of enshittification with big companies finally making moves that actively worsen our experiences in order to cash in on a lot of investment money that never turned into anything real. Basically I think what happened is a mixture of people becoming more cynical and the internet becoming over-automated and now this year businesses finally realizing that potential profit is worthless without acting on it.

With all that said though, the Fediverse feels like our chance to finally fight back. Lemmy still only has around 60k monthly active users. We need to try to bring that number up.

Does this mean that Canada is always expanding?

You are just a capitalist that likes welfare. Your ideology has absolutely no desire to change the ruling class or overturn the system that is currently burning the world and leading us to destruction.

I don't think you help your case arguing this way. I'm not even dissecting socialism when I say that - just your approach to argument. You don't know my ideology. Creating a strawman of my views isn't going to convince me or anyone else that you have a good point. Hell, for a long time I did consider myself an actual socialist. I would love to lay out my reasons for my movement away from that, but I'm not sure you're ready to have that respectful exchange of views.

The liberals obsessed with the “nordic model” still would’ve downvoted it. They don’t like having to wrestle with the reality of climate change. Our options are socialism or extinction.

Beginning an argument with "Your head is up your ass so far that I won't bother arguing. I'm right no matter what." is a sure way to have people dismiss your arguments outright. I say this all because I want my opponents to be good at arguing. I want to hear persuasive viewpoints. I don't believe for a moment that I have all the answers, so I welcome any opposition to the beliefs that I've come to possess. If you believe that you have the answers, then I'm genuinely all ears. But unfortunately, arguing isn't about being right - it's about persuading other people that you are. The internet has made it easy to lose sight of this and argue with hostility instead of respect. I'm trying to be sincere here. Please consider the purpose of getting into these internet spats. I see so much hostility outright from people on the left and it genuinely sucks. I find that when I try to dig even a little bit into arguments for socialism or communism that I often hit this barrier of hostility. It's not a good way of selling a viewpoint. And you can say that it's not your job, but then I ask why we're even here having this conversation.

Now, I'll stop patronizing you. I'll throw my argument out there so you can tear it to pieces. Back to labels - what socialism looks like to you depends on who you are. You say it's when "the old institutions are thrown out and the new institutions are introduced". I'll take that to mean some form of government is in possession of the means of production across the board? My hesitancy towards socialism is mostly centered on my knowledge of history and the repeated trends of powerful institutions decaying into corruption and greed. I think socialism could genuinely work really well as long as the people in charge were kept honest. But my skepticism is towards the long term sustainability of such a system. Time and again we see institutions decay and fall prey to humanity's worst impulses. The fall of the Roman Republic (and the regular chaos of the Roman Empire for that matter) is my classic go-to for this, but there are plenty of non-western examples as well. The best cases I've seen in my studies of various histories seem to be centered around cultures that dispersed their power into many smaller institutions. My problem with socialism is that it inherently says "we're going to get rid of business corruption and government corruption by combining the two". I think creating an even smaller, more focused center of power in society is a dangerous proposal - it becomes all the more easy for the wealthy elites to worm their way into that power and take control. Essentially you're taking all of those wealthy capitalist greedy dirtbags and then moving them into the government.

Capitalism, on the other hand, removes business from government which allows, in theory, for the government to act as a counter-weight to business. Now, you and I both know that that hasn't stopped wealthy elites from worming their way into capitalism and capturing government interests. But my main point here is that socialism isn't solving that problem. It's throwing fuel on the fire by cutting out the one supposed protection we do have, which is a separation of government interests and business interests. Ostensibly, when capitalism is working the way it should, the government is acting as a counterweight to business greed. I think there are better ways to strengthen that counterweight that don't necessarily fall under the label of "socialism". I think heavily regulated capitalism is better than outright socialism because in the ideal case the government is still acting as a tool of the people, flexing its power in opposition to businesses. The ideal case in socialism has the government acting as the businesses itself, which I believe would encourage greed and would actually cause even less incentive to address things like climate change.

Yeah. Like saying you believe that companies beyond a certain size should be legally required to seek a vote from their employees before implementing certain types of changes is a real policy to argue about. Call it democratizing business or whatever you want. And then that's an actual concrete issue we can argue about. Or if you believe in the government buying out businesses beyond a certain size, that's a specific conversation we can have and we can discuss the hypothetical implementation of that. Call it business seizure or whatever. Just saying "I believe in socialism" doesn't dig enough into the details of how you perceive socialism or how you would implement it. And frankly, I think it hurts the socialists or communists or whoever is trying to persuade the current culture away from what we have more than anybody else. Ideas grow when you make real, concrete proposals. These exceedingly large scale labels usually end up killing a conversation rather than feeding it. Someone gets mad at a label and then everything shuts down on that sticking point.

I think the way we argue over labels hurts us. If I use heavy regulation and government aid to limit the abuses in a capitalist system, at what point does the label change to "socialism"? I think we do ourselves a disservice to create these strict conceptions of systems like capitalism, socialism, or communism. Then when one fails we get to say "well that wasn't true x". And the labels allow people to boogeyman an idea. And worst of all, we eliminate the possibility to take good lessons from multiple different systems and incorporate them into our system. I think we would be better served promoting policies on a case by case basis instead of using these huge words. And to be clear, I'm a bit of a hypocrite here. I've been mostly telling people I'm a "social democrat" or that I support "capitalism with heavy regulations". But even those words can get picked apart and don't really capture nuance. My main point is that I think this thread is a perfect encapsulation of how these arguments stop us from getting behind good policies when we bicker about the definitions of words that mean different things to different people.

Honestly, I think the way we argue over labels hurts us. If I use heavy regulation and government aid to limit the abuses in a capitalist system, at what point does the label change to "socialism"? I think we do ourselves a disservice to create these strict conceptions of systems like capitalism, socialism, or communism. Then when one fails we get to say "well that wasn't true x". And the labels allow people to boogeyman an idea. And worst of all, we eliminate the possibility to take good lessons from multiple different systems and incorporate them into our system. I think we would be better served promoting policies on a case by case basis instead of using these huge words. And to be clear, I'm a bit of a hypocrite here. I've been mostly telling people I'm a "social democrat" or that I support "capitalism with heavy regulations". But even those words can get picked apart and don't really capture nuance. My main point is that I think this thread is a perfect encapsulation of how these arguments stop us from getting behind good policies when we bicker about the definitions of words that mean different things to different people.

I think that's to keep it consistent with the normal Lemmy UI, which also has blue upvotes and red downvotes.

It's a mixed bag. Having moved to Canada, even modern constitutions can be a shitshow. For example, Canada's constitution allows premiers (the Canadian provincial version of state governors) to freeze certain rights from Canada's version of the Bill of Rights (the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) on a whim until the next election. Ontario's premier, Doug Ford, recently tried to use this technicality to freeze the right to protest to stop a school workers' strike.

The reason this ability exists is because when Canada first became an independent nation and created its constitution (in the 1980's), the provinces would only sign onto it if these kinds of exemptions to their Charter of Rights and Freedoms were included. Looking at it from that perspective, the strength of the Bill of Rights actually looks pretty impressive by comparison.

The other factor I think is worth considering is that when it comes to the legitimacy of constitutions and governments, time is everything. When you reach around the age of a century old, the mere fact that your country had made it that long with that constitution starts to lend legitimacy and stability to it. Which is to say that if we had a brand spanking new constitution, everybody would be questioning it. Worst case scenario you get civil wars. Slightly better, but still bad scenario is a lot of disillusioned people that refuse to abide by the new document. America's constitution is old enough that it gets a lot of respect from even the most fierce of rivals. That's pretty invaluable, especially in times of political turmoil.

I believe that Trump would have had an easier time trampling over a newer constitution, regardless of how well thought out the document was. Having a constitution steeped in a national mythology and at the center of so many norms and traditions protects us from even some of the worst stress tests. The greater challenge isn't a crazy stress test like Trump, but the gradual decay of those norms. Which is to say that I really believe our norms have been protecting us even still, after so many things have been thrown out the window lately. Creating a new baby constitution in the midst of this messy era of politics would be one of the worst moves we could make.

Worth mentioning that wealth and class are technically two different things that happen to usually coincide. In the US the connection is nearly 1:1, but in some places like the UK there is quite a history of high class people struggling with wealth and marrying wealthy people in order to combine their wealth/class. I mention this specifically because "caste" is really just another form of class. It's a form of class tied more to duty/work and less directly to wealth.

Growing up in Wisconsin, drunk driving was a serious issue. Especially on New Years and the Fourth of July. The joke was that every little town throughout Wisconsin always had a church and a bar. There were so many alcoholics that would spend every day at those bars. It's a tradition that probably goes back to the idea of public houses and having bars be a central location where your community gathers. Many people take the drinking part of that too far though and so the anti-drunk driving PSAs were necessary.

I know my brain is like at least 70% memes, but nooo, it's gotta be the horrors in sleep paralysis. Always gotta be the horrors with those damned things. How much funnier would it be to wake up to like a confused Travolta or a doge in your living room.

Aren't human brains fun? So kind of our brains to show us everything terrifying that it can cook up and place into our lived reality just to fuck with us.

I mean - boiling is boiling, right? Do you ever really need to measure whether your water is boiling in daily life? I would concede that it's useful to know more easily when water will freeze when it comes to the weather. It's really the higher end of the Celsius scale that I'm critical of. Fahrenheit could share Celsius's 0 and my criticism would be more toothless. Though Fahrenheit's logic around 0 is that anything below 0 weather-wise is exceedingly rare and momentous in northern climates. I think that makes sense as an argument. Negatives in Celsius are common (at least in North America), but a negative in Fahrenheit is mouth gaping dreadful levels of cold. That's at least as intuitive to me as having 0 be freezing. Since 0 implies the bottom of the temperature scale.

People round to the nearest degree in the US. But that's kind of my point. It's more awkward to throw in fractional temperatures and the fact that you do shows that Celsius isn't properly expanded enough. In Canada people in my anecdotal experience actually haven't been rounding to the nearest half degree, just the nearest degree thereby making the scale feel less granular.

Not to knock - everyone invariably likes what they're used to better. I usually get a lot of pushback from people for this opinion. But that's my point - I concede that even with my familiarity in miles and pounds that kilometres and kilograms are better systems of measurement. The wonder of the metric system is the simple ratios in multiples of 10. But temperature is a realm where that advantage doesn't exist. And on an objective level, I think Fahrenheit has a better argument for function.

Having lived in places that used both systems, I have to say - I'm objectively on board with distance and weights in metric, but I've been less on board with temperature. The Celcius scale is good for science, but less useful for human measurement than Fahrenheit is. Fahrenheit zooms in closer to the human experience of temperatures (around 0F/-17C to 100F/37C) and so allows for slightly more variation when describing temperature in sets of 10 (that range of 100 digits in Fahrenheit is only 54 digits in Celsius, so it makes Celsius feel roughly half as detailed when talking about it). Anything below 0 in Fahrenheit is unbelievably cold. Anything above 100 is unbelievably hot. Celcius centers on freezing/boiling, which I get, but that's not terribly useful for daily human purposes; namely weather. The temps from around 40 to 100 in Celsius aren't useful to humans. It's all just "really fucking hot". So I give a big thumbs up to everything metric except for Celcius.

Canada did a sudden change and adjusted pretty well. Moved here recently and they're pretty consistently metric, though I see some use of Fahrenheit every so often, though I think that's by virtue of being close to the US.

My wife went to school for English lit and is a professional writer. I cannot get a plot twist past her notice. It sucks so much. There was a video game that featured a serial killer (no spoilers, so no title) and I NEVER would have guessed who it was. I played it and I was shocked at the twist. Then I had my wife play it and in the first five minutes of the game she was like "That man is evil and I don't trust him" and I was like WTF!!!!! He's like nice and friendly and stuff. How the fuck does she do it. I spent hours having to gaslight her about how correct her prediction was. She also always knows when someone is going to die. I have to tell her not to comment predictions about movies because she's correct at least 70% of the time.

Omg, thank you so much for this - I had no idea!

I worked midnight to 8am as a security supervisor at a hospital. It was nice in some ways and awful in other ways. Honestly, all the ways it was awful occurred outside of the actual shift itself. It was harder to hang out with friends, I was always tired, I had to try to get tired and sleep while it was sunny out (blackout curtains and sunglasses on the drive home ftw), and the world was waking up while I was going to bed. It was hard on my relationship with my wife.

The shift itself was pretty great actually. The hospital was quieter at night. As a supervisor, I did have some issues with my guards falling asleep at desks or trying to hide and take naps. Two people got fired over it. But most of them were pretty good. One guy fell asleep while driving the patrol vehicle and crashed it into a gate. That was embarrassing for everyone and he ultimately lost his job (he didn't admit to falling asleep, but we all suspected it - he was working two jobs and was perpetually tired). The best thing about the job was sneaking up onto the roof early in the morning on my patrols and watching the sun rise.