pjwestin @ pjwestin @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

1,066

Joined

2 yr. ago

Guess I needed to add an /s to that one.

...OK, that still would have a far-left opinion in American politics. It's not like the country was divided between socialists and communists back then. Hell, it took the Great Depression just to get the moderate socialist reforms of the New Deal passed, and even then, its opponents thought it was communism.

Like, I don't know what to tell you. I understand your point; you think anything that doesn’t involve the abolition of private property isn't left-wing. But even pre-Cold War, even pre-McCarthyism, even during the Coal Wars, that position would be the far-left of American politics. I'm not trying to be a dick here, but when I, or the author of the article, or most Americans, are talking about, "the left," we're definitely not working from your definition.

Good thing we've got so many international allies and are known for being such a stable, reliable economic partner. Now, if you'll excuse me, I haven't read the news in two months and I need to catch up on current events.

I mean, fair enough, but there's no point in America history where abolishing private ownership wouldn't be considered far-left. I understand that compared to international standards or across the broader spectrum of political theory, the American left has never been particularly left-wing. When I say the Democrats are slightly center-left or center-right, I'm comparing them to themselves 30 to 40 years ago. Since 1980, they've slowly compromised their principles to the point where they can't be considered, "left," by any modern political metric.

Well, there's a reason I said, "generously," slightly left-of-center. It also depends on the Democrat. There's enough of them that care about labor to get the PRO Act through the house, but not the Senate. I don't think it would be unfair to call someone like Gary Peters center-left, given his strong pro-union track record, but someone like Schumer or Pelosi, who are squarely on the side of Wall Street and big tech respectively, are just conservatives masquerading as left-leaning centrists.

Even if what you're saying about Schumer is true, it would still be gross incompetence to achieve this goal in the manner that he did. Even if you believe his whole, "Musk wants a shutdown," argument, he allowed every single House Democrat, even those in vulnerable seats, to put themselves in a vulnerable position by refusing to fund the government, then threw them all under the bus by saying, "actually, funding the government is just too important." Why would he damage his own party like that?

Let's be real here; the stock market has been tanking all week because of the tariffs, it would have gotten even worse with a shutdown, and Schumer takes a shitload of money from Wall Street. The day before the vote, his donors started telling him how important they think funding the government is, he caves, and the stock market makes a decent comeback the next day. He sold out his party to the donors, and gave Trump a huge win in the process.

Why do you assume all Democrats are trying to put out the fire? Schumer and 10 Senate Democrats just sold out the rest of the party and handed Trump a huge victory. We need to look at every single Democrat and make sure their buckets are full of water instead of gasoline before we decide to work with them.

I agree with a lot of this article, but it doesn't really acknowledge the reality of the Democratic leadership's obstruction. The party is, generously, a slightly left-of-center organization that prioritizes stifling their own left wing over defeating their far-right opponents. They've successfully held off two of Bernie's presidential runs, redistricted Bowman out of his seat, and Pelosi has spent so much time and effort undermining the squad (and AOC personally) that it borders on pathological.

I agree with a lot of the criticisms of Bernie in this article, and beyond that, he's just too old to be in the Senate, much less the standard bearer for the entire left, but the Democrats have spent decades making sure there's no viable alternative. We need to move past Bernie, but we need to build an actual progressive movement that can get past Democratic obstruction to do that, and for now, Bernie is still the de facto leader of that movement.

TL;DR: the filibuster. The thing the Democrats say they can't abolish because they need it to block the Republican agenda. Even though they just refused to use it to block a Republican agenda.

The only silver lining here is that it is very visible, undeniable proof of what leftists have been saying for years; the Democratic party is not, in any way, a progressive institution.

Honest question, what do you think a Tankie is?

But it won't. Hakeem Jefferies will have his members wear, "How will this lower the cost of eggs?" t-shirts as they're obediently led in front of firing squads.

Yeah, when the Krasnov thing first got published, I said something to the effect of, "I would skeptical of explosive, unverified claims like this because they may be disinformation, and either way there's more than enough evidence that Putin has control of Trump." Then someone accused me of being a Russian asset because everyone has brain poisoning now.

Bernie is too old and he knows it. He's not gonna run. AOC has a pretty bad favorable to unfavorable ratio nationally. That's not automatically disqualifying; numbers aren't set in stone, and a lot could change between now and 2028, but she's not starting from the same place of broad appeal that Sanders did. As much as I love both of them, we need to look beyond the same two people for progressive candidates.

This article covers it, but it unfortunately doesn't link to the actual poll. I first learned it from a news podcast, so I can't point you to the original source.

The largest plurality (29%) of people who voted for Biden in 2020 but stayed home in 2024 said that Gaza was their biggest reason for not voting. The Democrats aren't considering pulling their support for Israel, but they have been fighting internally over being less supportive trans people. The idea that they lost because they just wouldn't stop fighting for marginalized people is just not connected to reality, and it's very possible they'll be standing up for even less people by 2026.

I mean, the largest holodeck ship I can think of was the one from Insurrection, and that was specifically designed to secretly abduct a whole population without their knowledge. I don't think it would work for exploration or combat, just transport. I think they started incorporating holoemiters into systems on all decks by the time of the Enterprise-E, but they were supposed to be supplemental systems, not replacements.

I just don't see how these holoquarters would improve much. Like, what real-world things are you replacing? You've already said that they need to have real-world seating and beds (and I'm going to go ahead and add bathrooms to that list), so what are we phasing out? Clothes and personal effects? Sure, you can replicate a new uniform every day, but it's probably a waste of energy, and you wouldn't have space for sentimental possessions.

Being able to go on some sort if multi-player adventure sounds cool, but I think most people would prefer to able go out to a real bar with their friends rather than go to a virtual bar from their bedroom. This is starting to feel like how Zuckerberg tried to replace meeting rooms with VR meetings. I think most people would rather go to a place and see someone real face-to-face.

And holodoctor or a holographic patient interface is even more risky. Even if you assume that a holodoctor is just as good as a real doctor (and there's really only been one EMH that was), or that a holographic version of your patient is exactly like the real thing, all of the problems with holographic medicine I mentioned get even worse. Imagine being halfway through surgery when your doctor just dematerializes.

1. Energy. In TNG, the holodecks burn a lot of energy. Can't imagine what would happen if you turned every room into one.
2. The holodeck isn't a Tardis. The space inside the holodeck is an illusion created by the room. The room can make the space look infinite, and the floor can function as a hard-light treadmill that let's you explore that infinite space, but the room still needs to be large enough to accommodate all the real-world things in it. That's why they're so large in TNG and Voyager. Holo-quarters would still need to be roughly the size of regular quarters.
3. Same problem with the bar. Sure, you could make anyone's quarters look like Ten Forward, but if your quarters fit 3 people, that's how many people can drink there.
4. The sickbay would still be essential because the problem isn't medical equipment, it's staff. Unless you're going to have the medical staff running all over the ship making house calls, having that staff in a centralized location and having the crew come to them just makes more sense, especially in an emergency. Emergencies are also why that equipment should never be holographic. If the ship is under attack, the last thing you want is sickbay disappearing because of a phaser hit or having to turn off the medical equipment to power the sheilds.

Well, that's true, but the fact that he said, "I'll only do it if they air it unedited!" makes me think he thought they would say, "no," and he'd be able to decline while saving face. My gut tells me he'll make up another excuse now. I'd love to be wrong, though!

He'll find a way to back out. Musk is stupid, but not that stupid.