Didn't things look worse when Nazi Germany was at its height? Didn't things look worse when slavery was at its height?
The state of the world has been much worse before, and things still got better.
We have to acknowledge that a lot of people died, and a lot more were hurt, before things got better. And it may come to that in our times as well. But barring nuclear disaster, things can improve. And one prerequisite is not agreeing to lay down and die.
Like I said, I get it. Seems like anyone with any real power doesn't recognize the severity of the situation. Seems like there's no justice. Are you going to say "no point in trying"? I don't think so because you wouldn't be so mad about it if you didn't care. I don't have the answer. But believing change is possible is a crucial ingredient in change happening.
In the faq section it asks who the leadership is and they say they're decentralized. It asks who they're partnered with and says "if you're interested in partnering reach out". It asks what are your demands and essentially says "we'll figure out specifics once we have more people onboard".
This website presents itself as a movement, but I would guess is the work of one person or a handful of people, who don't have experience in this area.
Which isn't to say people have to have experience to get involved. And it isn't to say we don't have a bunch of valid reasons to be mad and ready to take action. Just that from a strategic standpoint, if you're asking people to put their livelihoods at risk you need to be able to earn their trust, and you need a clear explanation of what benefit participants can expect to get.
On the subject of drift from "ideal" belief systems to corrupt ones, I would argue that what we're seeing is actually evolutionary pressure.
If we think of ideas as living things, and we place them in an ecosystem of other ideas, they inevitably have to adapt to keep reproducing. (Spreading to another person's mind)
So generally they have to be the sort of idea one would feel compelled to transmit, and then be transmittable. They have to be understood, received.
I think many people have received a transmission of ideas that is very different from the one that was sent. And then the various pressures of life transform those ideas more.
That can be bad as we've seen in cases of Christianity, Marxism and more. It can also be good, because then the belief system becomes sustainable. I'm thinking of certain religions which were batshit when they started, but in order to live on they moderated. Not that they're entirely reasonable now, but they're able to live on and wouldn't have in their original form.
The important part is that she's still officially a member of Congress. People voted for her to represent their interests. If she's no longer able to fulfill that duty she should have stepped down and let someone else do it. As it stands she and her staff are still collecting salaries paid by the American people. It's also if interest because of the general tend of geritocracy - our elected officials are really old, and it calls into question the decisions they're making and their ability to lead.
That's not what I read here at all - it says "I should keep this." Many of us have an urge to keep things, and in many cases we're justified in doing so. Every person has had the experience of evaluating whether or not to keep an object, and I would guess most people have come up with specious reasons to tell themselves they should keep a thing. Hoarding is just taking that to the extreme. Because this comic is recognizing a tendency in one's self it seems completely misplaced to say it's punching down.
I started to read the pdf but stopped. Just a little bit in and it struck me as complicated, and that's as someone familiar with ranked choice voting, proportional voting, etc. Not that complexity is inherently bad, but when it comes to group decision making, elegant solutions will encourage many people to participate. Complicated solutions will favor people with lots of time or money.
I also don't think weighing systems so that certain people have more of a say than others is ideal. It's true that experts know more than lay people. But there are challenges in identifying and labeling experts, deciding what being an expert in a given subject should mean in terms of more power/influence, and in doing so creating mechanisms for gaming the system.
I'm a coding hobbyist, it's been very helpful in analyzing bugs, giving quick info about syntax and converting formatting for long sections where manually typing would be time intensive.
Point taken by someone else here saying continued use of AI may mean decreased functionally for stack exchange et al. That said, the advantage of AI is that it's answering your question specifically, instead of spending time sifting through semi related answers.
Outside of code it's good at aping the form of various genres. So if I need to answer an RFP question in a sales proposal, I might feed it the prompt to get a starting point. It always needs editing since it doesn't know the details of our business and because it's writing style is bland, but it's helpful to get a first draft.
Well I don't really expect someone in prison to win, but I don't believe there's any law about the location where the president gets sworn in. If a majority of voters chose that person, they could get sworn in in jail, immediately pardon themselves and off they go.
Eugene Debs, the must successful American socialist candidate for president, was at one point running for office while in prison. Of course he lost so I can't imagine it helped
I hear you that it's tiring and intimidating dealing with fascists. That said I don't think it's factual to say they only need to win once, and believing so creates a strategic disadvantage.
Factually, world war 2 is the classic example of fascists needing to win continually and being unable to do it. The Nazis had a good showing in an election, Hitler was made chancellor and then they used that foot in the door to take over the government and seize many countries. But they lost in the end, and that was a result of resistance, not just militarily but the sum of every individual act of opposition.
There's a concept of anticipatory obedience. Corporations and local governments sometimes fell over themselves to do what they thought the fascist government would ask before the actual ask. Even if Trump seized power, that wouldn't be the end. They need us to cooperate. And by resisting in a concrete way (not just #resist posting of course) we will stop fascism.
It's never over. Fascism is destined to lose. It's a question of how much suffering and injustice can we avoid by defeating it sooner.
And believing like they want us to believe, that it's all over, is a strategic disadvantage. If we believe we're beaten or that victory is impossible we'll act that way. Believe that we can win, and spread that belief, and we'll act that way.
She said to vote straight Dem ticket while at a really meant to bring out support for Harris. This article is intended to sow division instead of report in an accurate context.
If you know it then why are you being a dick?