this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
1111 points (96.4% liked)

Technology

59168 readers
2133 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 12 points 10 months ago (5 children)

From a casual outside (the US) observer it just seems like it’s the price that gets paid in a two party state where there are apparently no centrists. Americans give me the impression that it’s either team Red or team Blue. Does anybody ever say: “I like a bit of this… but I also like a bit of that.”?

[–] PopMyCop@iusearchlinux.fyi 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Yes, there are some who say that. They get agreed with in person, ignored at the local party/voting level, scoffed at by media, screamed at in general on the internet, and scolded on places like lemmy or reddit (if not screamed at). There are policies that I like that for some reason have to be lumped in with policies I detest no matter which party I look at. One party (fucking GOP) is way worse than the other, but try to have a rational discussion with anonymous or outside-of-your-social-circle people, and any criticisms of a party are like blaspheming their god.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

try to have a rational discussion with anonymous or outside-of-your-social-circle people, and any criticisms of a party are like blaspheming their god.

That's because of the nature of anonymous communication. It is literally pointless to try to convince individual people online. They rarely tell you their underlying motivations, and many times reveal that they know nothing about the subject.

[–] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

Yeah. Succinctly put. I hope things improve, or at least change, at some stage; but as I said in another reply I don’t think the short term prognosis looks too healthy. Best of luck to you.

[–] el_abuelo@lemmy.ml 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Also doesn't help that the USA political spectrum consists of "right" and "far right" so while they may call it "left" it's only left compared to the far right.

[–] nickiwest@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

This is something I wish that more people understood. In almost any other democracy in the world, Bernie Sanders is only slightly left of center. On a global scale, US Democrats are a center-right party and US Republicans are a far-right party. There are no successful left-wing politicians in the United States.

[–] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago

Good point. The idea that Bernie Sanders (?) is seen as ultra left wing is incredible to me. Americans would probably spontaneously combust if they got to read some of the left of centre manifestos from relatively normal European parties.

[–] blusterydayve26@midwest.social 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

No, the RiNOs were intentionally and specifically hunted to extinction through shame and exclusion. That's why the name, "Republican in Name Only," is applied those who don't embrace the party's wildest platforms.

[–] cashews_best_nut@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Does that mean Log Cabin Republicans are RiNOs? Or just idiots?

[–] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Damn. I knew about elephants and donkeys but now I’ve got to read up on rhinos… all jokes aside it looks like polarisation is the problem - which is the two party problem. It must be so frustrating to have views you can’t sensibly talk about objectively with the majority of your peers.

[–] blusterydayve26@midwest.social 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It is wildly annoying. If you want to get the details, check out the book “What’s the matter with Kansas” for a quick history.

[–] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

Thanks, my friend. I shall take a look at that.

[–] thatsux0rz@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There are plenty of us. The problem is the two party state. Any independent or centrist candidate is going to get drowned out.

[–] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

For as long as people like you exist there’s some hope… but I do fear ‘24 won’t be a year of political reconciliation. Perhaps things must get even worse before they improve? Good luck whatever happens.

[–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I think the cops are useless at best and evil at worst and im pro gun/pro CC, I find that our model of capitalism has failed but I'd rather we revert to the political economic ideas of Henry George rather than Karl Marx. Not that either is possible without violent overhaul most likely. Even just a reframing of capitalism to correct for John Adams era economic fallacies would face nigh impossible resistance from those who have already taken most of the pie.

So yeah, we exist. It's just that we tend to get crowded out due to not falling in line with either ideology. I've been called everything from RINO to fascist.

[–] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

I understand someone’s economic views would necessarily push them to one side or the other but what I’ve never understood is why gun ownership is so political in the US. From where I am it just seems sad that there’s people in a first world democracy that “need” to be armed just to go out and buy an ice cream. It blows my mind that more isn’t done by all sides (political, manufacturing and citizens) to lower the body count. Any society where members of the public are indiscriminately gunning each other down surely has a big problem. I have zero problems with fire arms - just their application in the US seems a bit fucked. But, like you said about the police, if your biggest gun-toting gang are that trigger happy and indiscriminate then I can’t really blame everyone else packing as a result. Kind of a chicken and egg situation. Hope it works out for you all one day.

[–] cashews_best_nut@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Would you call yourself an Enlightened Centrist?

[–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No, Im not some "hurr durr both sides are equal" moron. Both sides do have issues, but they're not equal. The left is on the correct side socially but they often have an incredibly naive view of how the world functions, often operating on "why can't we all just get along and be rich together?" Levels of fantasy.

However, the US right is socially authoritarian and wants to oppress anyone who doesn't fit a christo-fascist perspective, and their economic viewpoint is messed up due to conflation of where wages are derived from. So they fail both sides of the coin whereas progressives only fail on economics.

If I HAD to take one of two sides I'm going left, because I refuse to abide by people who hate those that are different, and I have a lot of gay and trans friends. However I don't agree with the lemming philosophy of Auth-Left being the solution to our problems.

[–] cashews_best_nut@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like Socialist Libertarianism.

[–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Is it really "socialism" if I think the tax burden should fall on the land owners exclusively and the laborers should derive the larger portion of their labor value than the capitalist that simply made their work more efficient with their capital? Due to wages driving from labor value increasing capital?

We likely wouldn't even need social safety nets if the capitalists weren't taking the largest cut on the pretense that wages derive from capital, and the market wasn't being driven by those with excess wealth.