SwingingTheLamp @ SwingingTheLamp @midwest.social

Posts

5

Comments

1,084

Joined

2 yr. ago

Each of the 50 states has a somewhat unique name, and residents of the state therefore have a unique demonym. Use those instead?

If that's too many names, Colin Woodward has identified 11 culturally-distinct nations in the US. That would actually promote a lot better understanding of why the country is the way it is. I'd be a Yankee.

Changing the collective name demonym Americans would be confusing during the transition, and for what benefit? Is this really a concern for residents of other countries in the Americas? Are Colombianos really scrambling to be called Americans?

Instead, I suggest taking Pres. Sheinbaum's suggestion, if you want to do something: Call the continent Mexican America. Everybody would know what you mean from context right away. No confusion, no need to get anybody else to play along.

"Don't worry about blank. Let me worry about blank!"

Would it even get that far? Gathering that many people in one spot, at the same time, with a coherent plan would take... a lot of communication. And we know for a fact that the spooks are listening in.

But, hell, @veniasilente@lemm.ee, start organizing people. I'm interested in seeing how far it gets.

I love how people seem to think that "the economy" or "politics" is the same type of thing as sports— a recreational activity with no actual bearing on anything that other people pay attention to as a diversion. It explains so much about how we ended up here.

What's insane is expecting every individual to be person to know enough about financial asset classes to know how to balance risks in their portfolio, when we used to have pension plans with subject-matter experts whose job it was to do that. Getting rid of them was like throwing everybody overboard from the cruise ship (pension), but giving them a life jacket (401k).

I mean, it makes sense when you know that the decision was made by the sharks.

Where is the left complaining about shrinking 401k accounts? Do you mean Democrats? They're a center-right party.

I have a couple of suggestions to add:

I was considering leaving the other site before the API fiasco because it felt like so many users approach engagement as rhetorical combat, that is, the point of discussion is to defeat the other person. Instead, think one of Covey's habits of highly-effective people: "Win-win, or no deal." Approach discussion on the Fediverse as a collaborative act, in which you're exchanging ideas with another person. Even if you disagree, you can both win by respectfully hearing out the other person. And if the other person won't collaborate? No deal! Just disengage.

Just like in intimate relationship, use "I" statements instead of "you" statements. Telling people who they are and what they believe is not only disrespectful, but probably wrong, often exaggerated or distorted for rhetorical combat purposes. People get angry when their identity gets poked at. One exception, of course, is when giving advice, like, stick to what you know, and share your thoughts and your reactions to a topic.

I think so? I used to browse the site over breakfast, and one morning, Apollo couldn't connect. I don't want to cause trouble by trying to log in, if I'm banned, so I have not tried to log in another way.

🤭

No, that's exactly what I don't want in a President. Sitting there, doing their job and not trying to get onto the TV news every day is perfect for, say, an EPA grant administrator. But the drafters of the Constitution fucked up by making the President both the head of government, and the head of state. The former should be an administrator, and the latter needs to be a leader. It's not the framers' fault, the world just didn't have a lot of experience with huge democracies back then. The trouble is that "huge" is too much for the human mind, and abstract thinking doesn't come naturally to us. A worrying proportion of the population can't do it at all. Instead, we conceptualize our nation through a parasocial relationship with the leader. In that role, the President should be on TV, and in the news every day, influencing the citizens.

The UK has its own problems, but at least their system splits the job. They have a head of state, King Charles, whom everybody can relate to as the embodiment of the nation, more or less aside from political disagreements. (This role was far more effective when Queen Elizabeth was on the throne, to be sure.) They also have a head of government, the Prime Minister, who attends to making things run. Each can focus on their particular role. But we don't have that luxury in the US, and Obama needed to continue the energy of the campaign even after taking office.

It wouldn't be wild, it'd be accurate. The man has dementia. I'm on mobile and not inclined to tap out all of the indicators, but remember when he abruptly stopped speaking at a campaign rally, and just kind of swayed to his music playlist for 39 minutes, or when he described in detail the literal, giant faucet in British Columbia that he seemed to think that Canada uses to control water to the West Coast? (Or the literal dome over Israel?) Both losing track of time and losing the ability to process metaphorical speech are symptoms of dementia. Why else would his doctors have administered that cognitive test that he bragged that he aced?

Fun fact: The mass of all humans on Earth is about 10 times greater than the mass of all wild mammals.

Maybe. There's clearly hidden power behind the throne. The orange face at the Resolute Desk has never been this disciplined about following an agenda in his life, and that change is not one of the known side-effects of dementia. Those people in the shadows might be able to replace him with a different useful idiot like, say, Joe Rogan.

It's time to move past the salt. For one, it's not helpful now, and it's also not even true. There weren't enough protest voters to affect the outcome. Worse, the latest information I've heard from Democratic Party analysts is that his margin of victory would've been higher if more people had voted.

Both the real President and the fake President have a long history of reneging on deals, and not paying up. DGE seized the Treasury's payment system, so they could remove money from the people's bank accounts. The tariffs have a good chance of plunging the U.S. into recession, and $1 million really isn't that much compensation for taking on the risk, especially if inflation gets going in earnest. They'd be on the wrong side of trade barriers with the economic bloc that's geographically easier to trade with. Would this regime bail them out?

In short, trustworthiness matters.

I'm not versed in modern military strategy, but I've heard others say that the U.S. carrier fleet has been a dominant force because the U.S. has only taken on adversaries that didn't have submarines, and anti-torpedo systems aren't foolproof. Also, it seems to me that they're for force projection, and not so great for defensive action, to since there are only 11 of them. That is, the U.S. has a lot of assets that enemies could strike while the carrier groups are elsewhere.

I guess I'm not convinced that the carriers would be decisive in a conflict with a modern military, instead of the usual U.S. MO of picking on the weak.

Which was always the plan. They were pretty open about it in the Hebrew press.

No, how do we stop the deportations, and get the people back from the prison in El Salvador? What can I do, today, to make it stop? Hell, what can I tell Sen. Cory Booker's staff to have him do to make it stop?

I'm sick of this condescending shitting on anybody who does anything to resist that isn't either striking the exact, right spot to fix everything in a single blow, or the leftist liturgy of mutual aid. There is no simple fix. It's going to be a long slog, and take the accumulated efforts, big and small, of people everywhere. Symbolic efforts, even, because those can raise awareness, rally, and encourage people. Organizing against ICE is singularly ineffective where I am in a place that ICE isn't active, and one, lone voice like mine can't even get people off of corporate social media. Americans have such a herd mentality that they're scared of anything that doesn't have a logo and a brand name on it, so if their leaders act like nothing's amiss, they're not going to step out of line to challenge things. That's what makes a Senator pulling a stunt like this so valuable. Tens of millions of people watched yesterday. Finally, a leader giving voice to the anger and unease so many of us have been feeling. Maybe it'll catalyze more action.

Or, maybe not. But, Jesus Christ, take the 'W'.

It was always pretty damn clear that this was Israel's endgame no matter who was in the White House.

Including Wisconsin. It's been the law for over a decade. This just put it in the *constitution, for some damn fool reason.

ETA: Interesting story. We had a whistleblower testify in court that the legislators who created the law intended for it to suppress voter turnout.

That's not what I asked.