archomrade [he/him] @ archomrade @midwest.social

Posts

15

Comments

1,616

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's crazy to me that 'convincing American businesses to move some production to an underdeveloped nation' is being thrown around like it's a good thing.

On issues that are pretty salient to the electorate, I'd say.

Better to tell potential voters "so, yea, I'm just going to pretend your drinking water isn't being poisoned by industrial fossil fuel extraction because that would hurt a private industry that's important for this other constituency. LOL drink bottled water or something"

I'm still confused why 'it's normal to appoint old friends from the private sector" is being tossed around as if it's a defense of the practice.

Anyone who comes away from this interview thinking that Harris is running a progressive campaign has their head in the sand. Just in the first 20 minutes:

• affirms she does not support banning fracking
  • when pressed about why she previously supported a fracking ban, she deflects
  • when asked if she's seen any scientific evidence to support a policy in favor of fracking, she deflects and says 'we can do 'it' without banning fracking'
  • when asked about how supporting fracking squares with the rest of her climate policy she says "I believe we can do it without banning fracking"
• affirms and reinforces xenophobic immigration stereotypes and reiterates her intent to enforce our border with mexico
  • says that strengthening the border would help reduce fentanyl smuggling, even though nearly all fentanyl is trafficked through legal entry
  • repeatedly alludes to illegal crossings involving drugs, guns, and human trafficking
  • does not mention asylum seekers or dreamers, or make any acknowledgement of the horrors and violence these migrants are fleeing from
  • fails to make any mention of the inhumanity of mass deportations and dragnet operations by ICE, or even any mention of the authoritarian mass deportation positions her opponent has been taking
  • fails to indicate any support for immigration reform to make it easier to immigrate or seek asylum, and actually says she supports the immigration bill that makes asylum more difficult
• repeatedly insists on the importance of working with conservatives on conservative interests, including a willingness to place republicans on her cabinet, while simultaneously distancing herself with progressive issues, interests, or perspectives
• When asked "would you consider withholding any arms shipments to Israel [to end the war in Gaza]?" she deflects by saying she "unequivocally supports Israel's right to exist and defend itself"
  • in an rant on Israel, she repeats the unsubstantiated claim of mass-rape on Oct-7 and frames the event as a tragedy, but uses passive language and euphemisms while speaking of Israel's response - "far too many palestinans have been killed". Makes no mention of Israeli war crimes, genocide, West Bank occupation and settlement, ect
  • in discussing a ceasefire deal she only speaks to the Israeli conditions (hostages) but makes no mention or acknowledgement of the Palestinian conditions (assurances that the ceasefire will not end as soon as the hostages are released, a removal of Israeli occupation from Palestinian territory, the allowing of free movement in and out of Gaza, ect)
  • makes not even the slightest indication that Israel has done anything wrong, let alone any acknowledgement of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza still being caused by Israel

This interview could have just as easily been one for a republican candidate. The good news is that if your only concern is beating trump then this interview was fine, bordering on good. The bad news is if you care at all about the overton window shifting even further right, this looks like a leap to the right, not just a step. Harris is running on strengthening our border/military and prosecuting undocumented immigration criminally, soft-touch climate legislation, palestinian genocide denial (expected) and unconditional lethal aid to Israel. The only positive positions she's come out with thus far are are child tax credits and reproductive rights, and maybe an under-formed plan to produce more houses (but no mention of action to prevent those homes being commercially owned as investments)

She's affirmed a number of fascist concerns and positions while distancing or outright rejecting progressive/leftist interests. She's given credence to the xenophobic notion that immigrants are a national security risk, that we need to increase military spending and presence abroad, and indicated that private industry is a priority over existential concerns over climate change/pollution (being unwilling to acknowledge the problems caused by fracking because it might damage PA industry indicates (to me) that she's unwilling to take action that may threaten private interests). This is a return to Clinton-era "tough on crime" neo-liberalism. Not only do these positions actively make things worse, they also make it extremely difficult for anyone next cycle to run on reduced military spending, more aggressive climate action, international cooperation on human rights and climate, or a reduction of hostilities in foreign affairs. If you're of the opinion that climate change is accelerating toward the worst-case scenario for the planet, then any indication that there are other interests (especially interests in protecting a specific industry) that are more important than averting climate catastrophe is beyond stupid. It is the same political calculation as deregulation and presents the same obstacle to meaningful climate policy.

Doubling-down on the most aggressive and xenophobic fears while the working class continues to decline is historically what tends to precede a slide into fascism. Even if she beats trump in November, all signs point to an even more active fascist movement for the next four years.

Now is absolutely not the time to be calm or complacent.

They left reddit to teach them a lesson for changing the recipe of their favorite capitalist treat, but have given no thought or import to the decentralized nature of the platform they left it for.

It depends on the attack vector. Typically you're right, but malicious .lnk files are often paired with other malicious methods to infect machines. Sometimes they're configured as a worm that copies and spreads when a flash drive is connected, sometimes they're configured to download a remote payload when another script or program is started. The problem is that it's a type of file that's often overlooked because it seems innocent.

It isn't necessarily the case that the Trojan needs to be interacted with by the user in order to execute the malicious code. Just having the file on your machine opens the door for all kinds of attacks (especially if you're using a headless setup: you wouldn't necessarily know you have the .lnk file in the system unless you're manually unpacking your downloads yourself). All it needs is for another piece of infected code to run and look for that file, and it can open the door for more traditional malicious code.

Edit: just as a for-instance - If I was a black hat and wanted to spread some malicious code, I could include this .lnk file in a torrent (innocuous enough to slip by unnoticed by most people/unscrupulous pirates), and then maybe place a line of code in a jellyfin plugin or script that looks for that file and executes it if it's found. Because the attack isn't buried in the plugin or script itself (most people wouldn't think much of a line of code that's simply pointing to temp file already on your system), it could theoretically go unnoticed for long enough to catch a few hundred or thousand machines.

Were complaining because unlike US subsidies that any company can qualify for

That's just not true; the US subsidizes domestic production in a ton of industries (corn, oil, ect). Maybe you're referring to specifically environmental subsidies, but I think there's room to grow to tailor them more to encourage domestic production. Developing the infrastructure for things like batteries and solar panels will take time, but domestic ev manufacturing is already established and could be further subsidized directly, if the US chose to. Placing a 100% tariff on Chinese goods means that domestic/western manufacturing can continue comfortably marketing their EV's to the upper-middle to luxury vehicle segment of the market without worrying about competing with cheaper Chinese vehicles. If instead they subsidized production themselves, they could potentially better compete with China's cheaper cars and provide more affordable options to consumers who can't afford to spend $50,000 on a car, and who would otherwise purchase a cheaper $30,000 ICEV vehicle because that's all they can afford.

We only have 3 domestic companies that manufacture vehicles in the US, GM, Ford, and Tesla, while these tariffs protect the entire market including all the foreign manufactures that sell vehicles here like Hyundai, VW, BMW, Toyota, and Stellantis.

Ok, well then subsidize those as well? Why are we saying European manufacturers are incapable of subsidizing their own production, too? China chose to aggressively transition to electrified production, I think that's absolutely a good thing; the western world should be following suit. Not to mention that grid electrification would be protective against, say, if their oil or gas supplier cut them off and they had to scramble to find another supplier or risk their people freezing and economies panicking.

Why exactly are you complaining if, as you say, the current demand is for EVs and the replacement vehicle demand is for EVs? If this is true then that means people are buying EVs even though China isn’t selling any here. Seems like there’s no issue here.

Because they are prohibitively expensive for most Americans, still. China is producing far cheaper vehicles, which would otherwise broaden the market for EV's in the US if we allowed them to be sold without our 100% tariff.

That certainly is an option that is much more environmentally friendly that buying a car built in China. Why exactly are you trying to use this as a crudgel here if your goal is to reduce pollution? That makes zero sense.

My goal is to reduce carbon emissions, and a part of that long-term goal is to replace ICEV production with more sustainable EVs. For what new vehicles are needed, we should be prioritizing more sustainable EV's instead of ICEV's, as well as further electrifying our grid and supporting local transport options. It isn't one or the other, I was simply pointing out that there's a transportation market regardless of if you're talking about PEVs for micromobility or EVs for traditional interstate travel.

The US and the rest of the western world has seemingly decided that protecting their existing ICEV infrastructure and fighting China's increasing market dominance is more important than speeding their own transition to renewables and electrifying their infrastructure. I think it's ass-backwards to tariff the one producer who is doing the most to accelerate transition to clean energy infrastructure if your goal is to get to net zero as quickly as possible (as it should be).

Then why are we complaining about china subsidizing their EV production and undercutting the market?

Oh, right, we're concerned with putting our auto manufacturers out of business, while also filling the market demand for new EVs.

Better to provide subsidies for EV's and tariff China's production, that way our auto manufacturers benefit from the subsidies without having to increase supply or lower their prices!

The US has a certain level of basic vehicle replacement, and the replacement demand is mostly in EV's. Or if you're worried about reducing personal car use, maybe buy a cheap electric bike or personal transportation vehicle from china instead!

I imagine it comes from the same place as all the other the US spends on oil subsidies and environmental programs and defense and tax cuts and Medicare and medicade and and and

The only time this question is asked is when it's a popular policy that has no other reason to object to.

Then subsidize ev and electrification, genius

China is prioritizing ev production and subsidizing it. If the US wanted to protect their industry they could electrify their infrastructure and subsidize their EV market instead of pushing tariffs on Chinese goods.

I swear to God, Americans are so propagandized they'd chop off their own foot if it had a "made in china" sticker on it.

The US could subsidize their own ev production if they really cared about their automotive industry.

Consumers want EVs but us auto manufacturers (and us govt) aren't interested in making them cheaply

I believe the torrent included both an .mkv and a malicious .lnk file.

.lnk files are dangerous because they can evade detection and automatically open other files or executable on a computer; AFAIK you would not have had to open the .lnk file yourself.

Libs just so badly want to be left alone

If you put up any guards at all against data tracking, they get pretty bad pretty quick. They get skewed toward the one or two datapoints that you didn't shore up, so they think "huh, this user must really like phone games because they played doodlejump in 2016 and still has it installed on their phone". Or at least I think. My wife gets ads that are far more on-the-nose than I do, but she doesn't lock down her tracking data at all.

But I don't even like them trying to match me to ads, I don't want to incentivize their data collection practices.

Liberals delude themselves as being different simply because they "support" liberation politics but they are simply helpless against the system that forces them to support fascist policies

Complain more on the same internet invented mostly by the country you hate?

Lmao checkmate, tankie

My current biggest concern is climate crisis

You can obsessed with that issue all you want...

I feel like – tell me if I’m wrong – you’re interpreting all this that I am saying like I “support” Kamala Harris, and you’re trying to get me not to.

No, and I find this reduction to be a huge part of the problem with most of the political discourse on Lemmy. There's this intense urge to reduce or interpret discourse into 'support' or 'don't support', usually electorally and usually as a strict binary. To most Americans, the most interaction they have with politics is voting, sometimes even just for the general. IDGAF if anyone 'supports' Kamala/Joe/Dems, whatever that means. I view who people end up voting for as almost incidental to the broader direct action that I think is the true driver of political change.

That's not to suggest you're making a reference to that binary - you're clearly speaking more broadly. But even the way you're interpreting direct action through its "actual" electoral result is frustrating. Because the people protesting (even the people on lemmy who seem (to you) dead-set against democrats) contain multitudes, and most of them will end up voting for an option that's not perfectly aligned to their principles in the end (because there are none who are). That's not the point of direct action. You (or maybe not you specifically, but liberals generally) complain that people repeatedly casting criticism without proposing an electoral solution are just fanning the flames of division, but what they're doing is creating a kind of "positive tension" within the electorate that the democrats will eventually need to address if it's allowed to grow. Democrats can't do x or y policy change because "it just isn't popular", but it isn't popular because people aren't being confronted with the results of the policy that needs changing. Protesting is a part of that, but so is posting on social media about it. Those are doing the same thing.

But what I specifically take issue with is your objection to protests that have real and legitimate standing, simply on some theoretical calculation where policy doesn't change but the damage to voter enthusiasm remains, and the "fault" **implicit ** in that judgement. I realize you've made explicit statements of affirmation toward Palestinian protests generally, but you've still defended this abstracted way of assessing advisable/in-advisable protests independent from the 'righteousness' of the cause itself. From your perspective, it seems that even a protest that is completely justified in its cause can be viewed negatively (and liable to accusation, labels and insults) if your personal judgment has determined it will only cause damage and not result in policy change. It's a form of dismissal that comes from an intense sense of paternalism that rhetorically allows you to identify yourself with the cause but avoids the uncomfortable work of reflecting on your own complicity. Even if you object to that complicity on grounds that you do direct action yourself, blah blah blah - you're also vocally defending a system that enables that type of subjugation you're fighting against. (I can already hear you objecting to this framing on the grounds that you want the system to change, and I'll just say it now that i'm not talking in abstraction. I'm saying you're defending the electoral system by insisting we must conduct ourselves in a way so we can preserve your desired electoral outcome)

You keep bringing it back to shit that doesn’t matter. I don’t care whose fault it is. I don’t care what you think is opaque or ambiguously defined, or what frameworks you feel like are too complicated to want to spend the mental effort on, so you use simple ones instead. I care about dying people, and how we change it; what’s going to work, and what isn’t.

Funny. I don't care about whose fault 'it' is, either! I don't care if you've judged a form of protest as ineffectual or not, even. I care about dying people, and the real ways in which our system of power enables and supports the killing of those people. I think the point of direct action is to tie the policy outcomes of the system to the people acting on that system's behalf in order to pressure them, and tempering that direct action around preserving a desired electoral result is antithetical to that rhetorical goal. You cannot pressure political agents into change if you're undercutting the protest by implicitly assigning electoral responsibility to that protest. I know 'you don't care' about fault, but you're still drawing a causality between the protest and the electoral outcome, when the explicit goal of that protest is to draw causality between the electoral outcome and the policy.

If you show me a strategy “hey here’s how we can get better than the Democrats in power” I will start supporting it instantly. It feels like – again, tell me if I’m wrong – you think that what you’re advocating is that, and I’m refusing to support it and so I must love Democrats or something.

No, that is not what i'm advocating. It sure would be great if we had a better system, but placing our political goals behind that fantastic revolutionary goal first is just a way of deferring our problems to a different time, a better season. We have the system we have, and trying to change that system (even simply influence the outcome of that system) without damaging it is like trying to box with both hands tied behind your back. Democrats won't do their job better until they're made to swim in their own shit, without trying to white-wash it or rhetorically dance around their own complicity in them. Protest helps to reflect the impact of those policies back on the office, and a side effect of that is damaging their electoral chances.

I think judging a form of protest based on its hypothetical electoral impact isn't just pointless, it neuters and subverts it. It isn't 'abuser logic' to assign responsibility for electoral losses on the policies being protested - if anything it's holding the 'abuser' responsible for the harm they themselves are committing. By flipping the responsibility of that loss on protestors it rhetorically excuses democrats for their shit policy.

I hope that makes sense.