daltotron @ daltotron @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

528

Joined

2 yr. ago

seems like the blockade is working as intended

I support the phoenix wright roleplay, but I think you'd find more success in just saying something like "this is kind of a glib analogy when the outcome is still genocide, don't you think?", or something along those lines, rather than asking like, a series of questions asking whether or not they find genocide to be an acceptable outcome. One of those will come off as bad faith, and put the defendant on the back foot, the other will get them to open up and possibly admit fault, or potentially come off much poorer to a jury, were they still to choose to object.

yeah I dunno if I can though. I think probably if this is the best we can do then we're headed down both a full-throated fascist reality of constant genocide, poverty, oppression, not only here but globally as america serves those ends globally, and basically a dystopian climate apocalypse on top of that.

If I accept that, then I become a little bit suicidal, which is not allowed.

good acknowledgement of the point I was making there, very cool

yeah I post here quite a bit

I mean I dunno maybe they shouldn't have ran a guy named hubert humphrey, sounds like the name you'd give to a fictional whale in a children's novel hoo lee

I mean so lesser evil voting is generally a good strategy for damage control, but it's not necessarily a great strategy in terms of like, blanket things you can just effect to the whole. If you take a voter in a non-swing state, say, california, a state that votes very consistently, them defecting their vote to a third party which represents them more accurately, is going to be of much lesser weight in totality than if someone in a swing state had done so. They are probably much safer in their estimation of walking up towards the line without crossing it. This is probably also true of states who get their votes tallied up later on, and also of states where projections are already in favor of certain candidates, since those projections affect elections.

This also kind of discounts "not voting" as an electoral strategy because that doesn't send a super clear signal, but it's probably not the worst thing in the world, since we could kind of file them away under like, either the average non-voter's position in their state, or just the average non-voter's position at large, which is probably going to be more radical of an average position than most would think.

But yeah, all of this still tracks with what you're saying so far. I think the biggest determining factor for me, though, is that electoralism as a strategy at all hinges on the assumption that democrats would rather move left than lose to republicans. And I dunno, that's kind of a tenuous assumption, and I think is the major disagreement on people who are willing to engage in electoralism vs those who aren't, is that most people who aren't, assume that the democrats would rather lose to republicans and ensure a status quo/backslide into fascism rather than move to the left.

The threat of making your candidate lose is the only power you have to shift them.

I mean this is also not really a threat, though. I think realistically biden and trump are both closer to each other than either of them are to this like, eclectic amalgamation of positions that is the "youth vote". Him not winning isn't like, still a victory, in that circumstance, but it's not like, a loss to them in the same way that it would be if they actually had to do all the stuff the "youth vote" wanted. Basically I'm just saying that they, the DNC broadly I suppose, would rather give as little as they absolutely can, while still maintaining a delicate balance of power where they're the only ones that can maintain the status quo rather than a backslide into total fascism. Going with all the "youth vote" positions, to them, would be as big if not a bigger loss than a slide into total fascism.

Which is to say, I think they're willing to lose as long as it means they don't have to really do anything major.

okay real question for the omega libs here: where do you see people that are like. worth taking seriously, right, that are worth engaging with (maybe that's the major filter that I'm blocking out here since most people seem incapable of choosing who they actually want to engage with), who are the people that are worth engaging with that aren't going to vote for the old zionist rapist guy? I mean, the democractic one? I'm pulling your chain there but like for real, where do you see the opposition that's actually real?

Most of the shit that I've seen, still, is like, people rightfully saying "oh, biden sucks, here's why", and then people bringing up "trump's worse". Like okay, just because I hate pancakes doesn't mean I suddenly love waffles, you know? Food analogy I know I know, but really, like, where's the real opposition coming from? I'm discounting the super pro-biden turbolibs also, because they annoy me with their smugness. So far as I can tell, the people who are fervently anti-biden to the point of like, idiocy, right, weren't going to vote for him basically in any context, regardless of you know like damage control strategies, or the fact that voting didn't take that much effort in totality compared to other activism they might do, or like, oh, could they vote as a protest in a non-swing state that's basically guaranteed commitment to biden already as a kind of protest vote with questionable utility, that sort of thing. Most of the "opposition" I've seen hasn't been actually calculated about any of that, because none of that stuff is really very controversial, or, it shouldn't be. Most of them have just been like, not worth bothering with. Probably not russian bots or trolls like everyone would constantly say, because that's also fucking idiotic, but probably, they're just stupid people who aren't worth wasting your time on.

Basically why the fuck is everyone wasting their time on this like, stupid bullshit? How come every election, in equal measure, I see "vote blue no matter who" imbeciles trotted out in lock step, to shout down at "I will never vote for anyone because I'm a posadist accelerationist" terminally online idiots? There's no nuance or real depth to the conversation, or strategy, it's just like. Both sides can construct a strawman, and then basically get away with it because, on the vastness of the internet, said strawman is guaranteed to exist, especially if I make it kind of a vague ghost that I'm punching at. And then because of that, nobody ever has to actually like, work out any of their arguments in depth, because they're too busy kind of churning forth the cycle of idiocy.

I dunno, maybe digg 3.0 is just not conducive to good political discourse.

alaska also has some kind of UBI because of their oil stuff, I'm not sure they slot as easily into political partisanship as most other states

There are other options aside from red and blue, and as a swing state voter, I’ll be taking them.

me when I decide to waste my vote as a swing state voter, instead of meaningfully pulling my support for a candidate that's ultimately going to get elected anyways out of protest as a non-swing state voter:

I mean maybe that would force the rest of us to actually take them as a serious threat instead of just letting them schedule big speeches on campuses that attract a bunch of out of town fans of theirs and financially organize.

I dunno I'm just gonna drop a 50 minute video link on this one and bounce, 'cause if I chronically post my dogshit opinions every time one of these boomer ass articles gets posted here and gets upvoted a million times by the masturbatory elder millennial ex-redditor linux userbase, then I'm gonna be here for a fuckin eternity

I dunno man, I'm really skeptical of Steve Jobs as a big "ideas guy" and I'd probably attribute most of Apple's success to Steve Wozniak. I'd also wager that the pocket computer + phone revolution was probably inevitable at the point where the iPod and iPhone were coming out, and more long term, Apple's success in that domain has done a lot of damage to the market with their "trend setting" behaviors.

I mean I kind of doubt that most of those problems are really surmountable in the longer term, unless maybe cryo cooling and storage becomes way cheaper in terms of price, they're not really things that you can just like, really market innovate your way out of. Not in the same way as batteries, which we might see gain a lot in the next decade or so from solid state. Everyone banks on future technology to solve current problems to court venture capital, but we can already solve most of the problems that we'd need hydrogen for right now. We have trains, we know how to build way more, we don't really need it for cars, and if you're not getting your hydrogen from a "free" source like natural gas, there's not really a reason to produce it in large quantities.

There’s a lesson here about the differences between history and a good historical narrative, but that’s the lesson of most history and no one ever listens to it.

There’s a lesson here about the differences between history and a good historical narrative, but that’s the lesson of most history and no one ever listens to it.

In any case me personally I'd rather just put a bunch of big fucking satellites in the sky that use solar power to shoot a huge microwave beam down at the earth and then use that to generate power. Fuck energy storage of solar, just shoot it around the earth with a big set of microwave lasers and mirrors.

It won't be. You'd be expecting to eat like 30% losses if you were to generate hydrogen from electrolysis, then that's combined with 40 to 60% efficiency in fuel cells, then that's combined with a pretty low energy density, even if it has a relatively high specific energy. You're also dealing with hydrogen tending to make everything it touches pretty brittle, since it's reactive, and liking to leak out because it has such a small particle size, in combination with your tanks all having to be like multiple times the size of a propane tank to offset the losses. Either way, the sheer tank size tends to offset the gains in practice, and piping that shit would fucking blow, maybe literally.

I'll take "useless arguing over a conflict of interests that realistically doesn't exist because none of the people arguing can actually do anything to solve the problem" for 500, Jennings.

jesus christ these category titles are getting really bad

Contrarian moral posturing with claims of Marxist purity? Surely, you jest!

I feel like I've read this before as a strategy in a COINTELPRO document