Never ask a Lemming what kind of leftist they are, or what is the best Linux distro.

Well, um, whatever kind you use and whatever kind you are, of course.
- That's your favorite distro of linux now, but what previous operating system do you come from?
What kind of leftist are you and what is the best Linux distro?
- anarcho-communist, arch
- Post-left anarchist, Arch obv
  I don't use Arch but that wasn't the question
- Dishonor upon you and your family!
- Hanna Montana is the best distro
- Socialist, Guix
- ancom, devuan
- Dictionary Anarchist - BotaOS(the name I give when I recompile a kernel on anything that I am running for more than a few weeks).
  Currently based on Pop.
- Left libertarian, NixOS naturally.
Me: a disillusioned Liberal who runs Fedora, because I’m a basic bıtch and I ain’t got time for this shit anymore.
- Fedora is the Todd Howard meme of Linux: it just works
- Same brother. I was once a Gentoo using anarchist but now I spend more time getting stuff done and less time tweaking my setup.
Slackware is the the only answer

marxist-linuxist

I hope they all vote for Democrats though, in places where FPTP voting is still used
- Btw what's up with all these states up and banning Ranked Choice Voting? Most of them in the past 1-2 years too. I'm not exactly sure of the context, like if there was a bill or a referendum, but with a referendum I would have expected it to say "rejected"/"not adopted", instead of "banned". Definitely seems like RCV needs to be really fought for, and seems like the major parties are afraid of it.
- Yeahhhh, I hate to break it to you but..........there's a lot of them that do not vote blue especially when it counts.
Ahh yes, the "left party"
- I agree we need a third party where leftist policies are allowed to exist
Where is the bubble that says "imperialism by Russia is fine"?
We could put the dems in the same circle with the left if we paid them enough. Have we tried that yet? Everyone empty your pockets on the table here and lets count.
One of them can actually pass policy unfortunately
Edit: I'm not saying I agree with their policies dumbasses. I want the left to pass policy. But until the left understands how to become politically effective and build coalitions we're stuck in this quagmire forever
- They keep saying that but...
what if im pro imperialist but anti capitalist?

I just want people to have food, shelter and healthcare at an affordable price.

Some call this “Leftist extremism”. =/
Ugh George Soros poisoned Progressivism!
By "affordable" I'm assuming you mean free. Always wanting a handout, of course.
I just want untaxed inheritance, corporate welfare on top of more tax breaks for me and all my friends, unregulated surveillance and data collection of the plebs so I can continue to make even more money (untaxed obvs), exclusive and elite private universities, and a justice system where I can live free of consequence and purchase a judge at a reasonable price because I believe in being fiscally conservative.
Food, shelter, and healthcare are things I've just never had to think about really. Although, I would also prefer that if too many people are worrying about those things in my immediate vicinity, they be shuffled around or forcibly moved to a different vicinity.
That way I don't have to start thinking too much. It's really unfair when that happens, because it starts to make me feel all kinds of uncomfortable. Uncomfortable is not something I'm used to feeling, and since I don't like to think about things, I never stop and think about why somebody else being uncomfortable would also make me feel so uncomfortable.
Logically, the solution is to just put those people somewhere not visible to me, and then complain about what society is "turning into these days" when they slip through the privilege perimeter.
- Due to Poe's Law, I think you really need one of these: /s
- Basically healthcare is free at point of service in the majority of the most functional and healthy societies. It's not infinite and its rationed by need as opposed to being rationed according to who has the most money. This is ultimately a more valid solution to finite resources than our over complicated system which hands half the money to middle men in the name of managing it.
TERRORIST.
Seems reasonable.
Like .. all people?
- Every single one
So you want billionaires hoisted up by their figgins as a warning to the rest of the bourgeoisie?? That's what I'm hearing here.
- I think we should have a maximum wealth cap. Set it as an even 1000x the median annual household income. That is the type of money that even the most highly paid wage earners - like anesthesiologists, would struggle to amass if they worked overtime their whole careers, lived like paupers, and invested every penny they made. That would be about $80 million today. Anything above that would be taxed at 100%. And no, I don't give a shit about your $80 million "family farm."
  But truly obscene levels of wealth? Like 10,000x median household income and above? If we had a wealth cap, and you evaded it, and secretly collected a fortune 10x the cap? A felony whose penalty is 20 to life.
  We don't let people own atomic bombs. We don't require you to have an atomic bomb license, or only let really nice moral people own nuclear weapons. We simply don't let individuals own nuclear weapons, as the risk of such power in a single hand is simply too great.
  And yet, we let people amass fortunes that they can use to do far more damage than any nuclear weapon. Someone like Musk or Bezos, completely on their own, can absolutely cause suffering and destruction on the level of a nuclear bomb.
  No one should have that type of power. Period. That power should only be obtainable through free and fair elections. We need a maximum wealth cap. 1000x median household income. Having a billion dollars should be absurd as owning your own nuclear bomb.

Really good film. He nailed his role. So much so it was a little scary how good he was.

If they hadn't done "east west" instead of some other cardinal directions, it would probably be prophetic
- The moment I heard "alliance between California and Texas" I was detached from the movie. That is literally the least likely alliance I could think of
This scene really got to me, this was the first time I really felt how awful war is
What’s the film?
- Civil War
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_War_(film)
- The movie is called Civil War
Jesse Plemons needs more lead roles. He reminds me of Phillip Seymour Hoffman.
You could hear a pin drop in the theatre when this scene dropped, it was just too real.

I'm so tired of the labels, I just want things to be better for everyone

Not this lifetime buddy.
- Better could be just one step, it might feel hurceulian but we can start with just the little steps.
so you're with the no labels party then, Joe Manchins party?
/s
Don't worry anytime you have a slightly different opinion they'll force the label on you then insult you for the label they applied.
By far the worst trait on the left by a mile.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewer_socialism

"The kind with trigger discipline..."

Get your finger out of the trigger guard.

To be fair, if you saw the movie, he was definitely ready to pull that trigger within the next milliseconds. But yeah shouldn't be pointing in the air without any trigger discipline

Anti-Conservative

There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whatever-the-fuck-kind-of-stupid-noise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:
The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

Frank Wilhoit, American Composer, 2018

Also, those who insist on political purity tests reveal themselves to be temporarily-inconvenienced-dictators-in-waiting.

While I am totally in the "bind all and protect all" camp and really against the "in group protect, out group rules" and I think conservatism is often in practice "protect me and rule others", I am not sure if I agree with it being called conservatism.
I think fundamentally the hierarchy in right wing politics imply an in/out group. But just like conservatism is a form of right wing political views, so you could argue that the hierarchical political views are a Form of "in group protect, out group bind".
Whatever you want to call it, is part of conservatism, I believe. But I don't like to call it conservatism, so it feels like we are defining two related but different things with the same name, which will be confusing and could be used by e.g. "progressive" capitalists to claim that they aren't conservative and therefore not "in group protect, out group bind".
- I am not sure if I agree with it being called conservatism.
  Yes, Wilhoit, if I'm understanding his treatise correctly, addressed this point:
  For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
  The corollary label could be "Anti-Establishment". Perhaps, "Anti-Authoritarian".
Also, those who insist on political purity tests reveal themselves to be temporarily-inconvenienced-dictators-in-waiting.
I hope this isn't about leftists refusing to support biden/kamala in the US.
- You didn’t have to support them. You just had to use your brain and choose the lesser of two evils. Like which one of these people is more likely to illegally deport me for exercising my first amendment rights? I think you’ll find the answer to that question soon.
the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
it's a nice sentiment, but you really need to have criticisms of the political economy if you want to address the root cause. the reason "the law" doesn't protect everyone is because the law is set up to prioritize the will of people with money and property over everyone else. I think the more common through-line is anti-capitalism rather than "anti-conservatism".
- I think the more common through-line is anti-capitalism rather than "anti-conservatism".
  I will concede that this clarification makes sense if one regards capitalism and conservatism as de facto interchangeable.
  Personally, I like the "Anti-Conservative" label as defined by Wilhoit because it more accurately describes my own political position within the specific constraints of voting and engaging in political discourse as a U.S. citizen.

The kind that got chucked off reddit for being mean to Trump, Musk and Netanyahu.

An armed one.

The anti right wing/trump kind.

You are a leftist.
I just think the GOP needs to burn.
We are not the same.
- Do you advocate for the status quo? Because that’s what it sounds like
- Here in the USA you'll get lumped in with us just the same.
- Stop calling them the GOP or Republicans
  They're NAZIS.
  They have Nazi goals, Nazi tactics, Nazi personnel, Nazi legislation, Nazi ideology, Nazi violence.
  They are NAZIS.

yeah I'm a centrist:

I'm the leftist from the Church of the SubGenius.
And Slackware ftw!

fnord
I'm one of today's lucky 10,000.
Scrubs shut up when Slackware users stand up.
- Ehhhh, Slackware has a lot of parallels to Archlinux when fully set up, with a lot of assisting cli tools for handling packages easily, I quite liked messing with it.

Idk. The kind where I believe that every adult over 18 should be given 80m2 by the government. Apartment, office space, storage space, workshop, lab, whatever.

I believe that you shouldn't need to worry about a place to live at the bare minimum, and I believe that not having space for people to use and experiment with is one of the main hindrances of economic development (development, not "growth")

It took me too long to figure out that you're the ubi-style left, and not the pew-pew style and I didn't know what type of gun an 80M2 was. 80M^2 or 80 square meters is super different from what I was picturing.
- We can mix it, every family gets a rifle and plot of land.
They can keep all the other stuff if they are giving me 6,400 million dollars
Yeah and what else? Everyone wants free stuff and no one wants to pay…
This is why I hate permanently online leftism. It’s basically “give me free stuffs”
- I already pay the top rate of tax in Denmark. I am completely fine with it. My personal belief is cheap accessibility to work and living space is what generates prosperity.
  To say "no one wants to pay for it" to me when my marginal rate is over 52% is ridiculous.
- Where are you getting that no one wants to pay? I always see people saying the world would be better if their taxes were used to give others something.
  I would love it if my taxes went to giving everyone healthcare, education and housing.
  When you get down to it, I get more value out of my neighbors being healthy, educated and safe than I would out of the money. And that's setting aside that I'm already paying for those things inefficiently.

A drunk one.

I feel like your faction is always in complete opposite opinion to the knurd leftists.

What kind am I?

Not a neo liberal or a Tankie.

I'm in-between. I'm caring enough to not agree with Conservatives and want a change to the status quo. I'm educated enough to know how the world actually works and that things can't be free and other people won't do stuff for free. Capitalism has its place, but needs to be highly regulated.

You can be anti-capitalist without being a "tankie." It seems like your position is driven by your aversion to those you perceive as being to your right and to your left rather than on a consistent ideological framework.
I'm educated enough to know how the world actually works and that things can't be free and other people won't do stuff for free.
This is capitalist realism. Your education has not made you smart enough to see that capitalism is reality, it has made you so set in your constrained worldview that you've become incapable of imagining anything outside of the framework of capitalism. For the majority of time that humans have existed on earth they have organized themselves in a myriad of different ways without the need for private property and exploitation of others. I recommend reading some anthropology, I personally prefer David Graeber.
- Hey tankie, I've had conversations with other tankies that believe no business should be making a profit and there is no such thing as a good company. They think a business should provide services for free, while they sit on their ass and collect UBI. UBI is something I support, but if I create a business that aims to help people one way or another with a product or service, I'm not doing it for free.
  There are other forms of societal framework and I'm sorry, but Marxist Lenonist communism isn't it. There's a reason communism always devolves into authoritarianism. And we don't need to go back to feudalism, which is primarily what has been throughout history, which you ignore.
Even Adam Smith was pretty clear what happens when capitalism is unregulated:
We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of...
The liberal reward of labour, therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth. The scanty maintenance of the labouring poor, on the other hand, is the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition that they are going fast backwards.
The “socialists expect people to do stuff for free” trope only exists in capitalist strawman rhetoric.
- Cool. Never said that. I consider myself a socialist democrat. I was referring to a conversation I had with a Tankie claiming both sides and said, "Businesses should not earn a profit." And in a later sentence said, "Everyone should be on universal basic income." In those exact words.
Ye, if you don't manage capitalism, the demon capital manages you.
I would like us to seriously try alternatives, but failing that, at least put the mad dog on a leash.
I am not going to prod you the minutia with questions and then try to guess precisely what ideological camp you might fall into, but from what I can gather from your comment, you could either be a social liberal or social democrat. But practically speaking, there is hardly any difference between the two.

I wish there was a test.

Not a bullshit CosmoBuzzfeed quiz, but an actual "if you answered A on these three questions, you tend towards MarxoCapitalist. Here's a community full of people who mostly agree with you about political stuff."

We'd still have Home and Local and All, but it'd be nice to know who my people are instead of needing a college degree to navigate the bullshit everyone says about everyone else.

I don't think anyone knows what socialism is.

I’m glad there isn’t, sounds divisive
- Hot Dog or Hamburger?
  Pepsi or Coca-Cola?
  2 wipes or 3 wipes?
https://leftvalues.github.io/ Is kinda like that but not exactly. Fun test to take either way.
- I'm a Democratic Socialist, apparently.
  Marxism-Leninism: 0%
  Good.
- We must grill the means of production.
  https://leftvalues.github.io/results.html?a=52.9&b=73.4&c=36.7&d=71.4&e=51.9&f=31.9&g=16.2
socialism is whatever country owns the most state owned companies and gives you the cheapest housing I think /j

Oh, I'm not a leftist. My perspective is a bit more nuanced and complex than that. I am unburdened by ideology. I am the adult in the room. I am a centrist. 😌

"I am unburdened by ideology."
Ahh, you gotta love this line. It's akin to a person here saying they're unburdened by language because they only speak English, 'the default'.
"Apolitical" people are not neutral or outside of politics, they preserve the status quo. Which, looking around the place, is not a good position. "Centrist" can mean wildly different things in different countries, but it's essentially just conservatism (as in, conserving, avoiding strong changes in either direction) - the center in Nepal^[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Parliament_of_Nepal] ^[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastriya_Swatantra_Party#Ideology] is wildly different to the center in the US because their status quo is different.
Once a society decides some people need to be denied rights inevitably the monarch takes them all.
This cant be real.
Haha, eveyone laugh at this centrist. Pick a lane you spinless coward /s
I’m pretty sure you meant to say coward.
Nice bit, lol
- 😌

Left handed leftist!

You know those means of production?

Well I have an idea...

Vibe-leftist. Any time I think 'what should I do in this situation?' I ask AI what the opposite of what Elon Musk would do.

flexible on range of solutions for dealing with the billionaire problem

“Ally? That’s a funny way to spell FASCIST!”

-the American left during the 24’ election

Your parties are seriously a mess, though. Sorry to say. Yes, come the vote under a FPTP duopoly I agree maximum impact is to vote for the lesser of the two, but I honestly don't think much is going to change for you guys if all you do is vote.
- I honestly don’t think much is going to change for you guys if all you do is vote.
  As an American, I agree. That said, I find it hard to do more due to my situation.
  But, voting is the beginning of political engagement, not the end. It's probably time for a general strike, but even failing that, finding primary challengers (or being one), drafting voter initiatives and gathering signatures for all of the above, communicating with your representatives, legal protest. It's also possible to work outside or even against the system, founding or being active in non-governmental community organizations, illegal protest, sabotage.
  Even if we had a "perfect" voting system (Arrow's Impossibility Theorem aside), there are going to be times when the majority compromise is just wrong, and "getting political" is how you change/survive that.
  (I'm all for voting system improvements. I'm a big fan of Condorcet methods, and I'd like to see more direct democracy. We could even adapt a system like Debian's "default option" of "more discussion" so that issues could remain open while a quorum was gathered / the voters suitably engaged to decide one way or another.)
Yeaahh, american left needs to learn how to accept an imperfect ally.
*Doesn't vote to enable fascism.

https://youtu.be/LWkSB-D-hYo

"You leftists sure are a contentious people"

Ay, you made an energy for life!

The fundamental objective of leftism is the dispersion of sociopolitical power as widely and evenly as possible, with an ideal (neither realized or considered possible) in which each person has no more and no less power than any other.

The internet is going to ruin leftism just like it did atheism. Bet.
Finally, yes, someone actually knows the actual definition of the word.
leftism
What does this mean? It sounds like you've described utopian egalitarianism, which is certainly not common in all 'left-wing' ideologies.
- Considering the right side of the court was aligned with the king and the left side was opposed, its essential to what is leftism.
  Many despots assert left-wing alignment that their rule is democratic no matter how autocratic it actually is, so a lot of confusion has been sewn.

truly be like that.

Don't think about dissenting even a bit, you will immediately get a ban from a community you've never been to. Big brother is watching you, comrade 🫡

Remember how Snowden is still wanted by the U.S. for exposing the NSA and it literally changed nothing other than we now know we’re being spied on and it doesn’t matter because no one in America gives a shit about having rights?
Cool. So cool. Cool and good. Loving it.
How do you help a society that refuses to help itself? I don’t feel like we, as a country, deserve anything good at this point.

Everyone is welcome to join my Fascist Communist party. The 2 sides end up balancing everything out to a perfect center.

Don’t think I’d use the words balance or perfect when describing Nasbols
- How about final compromise?
It sounds like what I call Boomerism, where old people live in an alternate reality and are told that their extremely racist and backwards ideals have occurred, but in actuality, the world continues on progressively and environmentally without their actual input, bubble of bigotry, if you will.
what~~~~why~~~~ is quark ~~having~~ doing ~~an orgasm~~ in your profile picture
- Profit

Anarcho-communist

Ditto

Syndicalist

Who composes the syndicate?
- The Orions.
- Labor. Nobody else is entitled to that which they create.
  Personally I don't hate a system of Soviets bound by basic principles of individual rights. But radical unions seizing the means of production and the reins of government and creating a system where workers coops are the default form of businesses and there are strict rules for contractors is the system I find is the best combination of acceptable and possible

I'm a noob leftist. Maybe a reformed (reforming?) liberal. I am anticapitalist.

I don't think a 19th century European necessarily devised the perfect economic system. Maybe we don't have to be obliged to label ourselves by which 19th century European we agree with the most. There are a lot of people smarter than me who know more than me who disagree with each other, I don't know if we can move society in my lifetime enough that the difference between anarchism and communism will make a huge public policy difference. I'm more concerned with stopping fascism and working for universal healthcare.

Welcome to being a leftist. The first thing you’ll want to do is find a slightly similar but different left ideology and hate them with a passion.
- Jokes aside, there are people I respect who call themselves anarchists, communists, socialists, and other labels. Most of the real vitriol I see is from Democrats at all of us and from Leftists right back.
  "Leftist infighting" is a meme for a reason, but I think too often honest disagreements about principles get written off as such.

/c/ArmedDemocrats

A libertarian myself thanks for asking.

Someone who doesn't want to pay taxes or follow age of consent laws all while co-opting an anarchist term for themselves?
- Not everyone has US brain rot, in most of Europe "libertarian" still means "anarchist"
- Nah as using it with some respect to its orgins of being coined by Joseph Déjaque as a synonym to anarchism as it was illegal at the time. Personally use it as an umbrella term for anti-authoritarian socialist thought. Not whatever "Libertarians" do in the USA.
Are you also into boats?
...no reason
- No? I prefer trains. (Not referring to anything special its just that public tranport is goated)
Eeew
- Eeew? Sad leftist noises Can't we just conquer bread or something together? sniff sniff
I'm pretty authoritarian-leftist, but I have some respect for libertarians after reading Scott Alexander. Do you know his blog?
- Also what kind of authoritarian leftist are you? The left landscape is kind of weak where I am so I am actually member of an authoritarian leftist party as they are the only ones locally I know whose comfortable carrying the label of revolutionary. Feels like grasping at straws but its something for now maybe.
- Can't say I heard of him. I try focusing on reading anarchist theory atm. Halfway though conquest of bread at least. Though some personalities like Noam Chomsky and David Graeber are interesting.

As far as I can tell I'm an anarchist collectivist. But I don't really read much theory (because of a memory retention disorder) or try very hard to categorize myself.

But I don’t really read much theory (because of a memory retention disorder)
I'm in a similar boat for the most part. I can handle news stories and short articles. But if I'm reading a book, it's gotta be science fiction or else I get bored as fuck with it.
And the overlap between theory and science fiction isn't as big as I'd like it.
- Kropotkin's the Conquest of Bread is a good read, and surprisingly readable, if you do want to try some theory.

not one

a rare sighting on lemmy
- Somewhat yeah, but I think there are a few others, just mostly not people who are that vocal about it
Same. Only been here a few days. yeah, my comments will get downloaded to hell, but so far the responses are somewhat civil. It's a step up from what im used to! I also like how very downvoted comments arent automatically buried.
- If you're coming from Reddit, 100%. Its also gotten better from when lemmy initially started popping off, there were many who were quick to personally attack others.

Punk bitch…. :P

The type that really like logistics, respects anarchists, and wants universal militia.

Nah bruv, this is bullshit. I'm straight up a centrist. It's just that anyone who isn't goose-stepping fascist swine is "leftist" these days. Shit has just moved so far right, it's fucking insane. Back in the day, repubs would agree with me about minding your own fucking business and let people live the way they fucking want. They'd agree with me that you need to pay for shit, instead of just charging it to your kids. Which also means you need to prioritize shit, and it better nothing be for fucking moneybags over there. Bring back fucking Eisenhower-era taxes, FFS. Those cunts used to believe in free speech and freedom FROM religion. There used to be some common ground. These days? Fuckem. They can all choke to death.

I don't like other leftists. What am I?

Leftist. 🙂

marxist leninist

Have you tried like not being one
- I used to be a neoliberal.
Me too. Join a lefty instance so you can choose when you deal with .worlds reddit-lite crap and not be force fed it.

I’m a Democrat.

That's illegal!
Most of Lemmy: EAT THE RICH!!!
Me: Idk, liberal democracy with reasonable social safety nets, some wealth anti-accumulation, and a robust education system? We should get there by showing up to city council meetings.
Most of Lemmy: LINUX!!!!
Me: but I want a computer where I don't have to troubleshoot the wifi driver every 3 months...
- Me: but I want a computer where I don't have to troubleshoot the wifi driver every 3 months...
  That's what we said, "Linux." I haven't had to troubleshoot a driver in like seven years.
- I don't have to troubleshoot the wifi driver every 3 months...
  Seriously I haven't seen an actual WiFi issue on Linux for years.
- Me: but I want a computer where I don't have to troubleshoot the wifi driver every 3 months...
  So, you have no control over your own decisions?
- You had me until you started shit talking Linux like that. WiFi used to be an issue on Linux systems, but it hasn't been a major issue for like an entire decade now. WiFi on Linux pretty much just works outside of libre only distros, or using Linux distro versions older than your hardware. Now WiFi on FreeBSD is still a bit of an issue, which is entirely there own fault.
- I think you’re reading the room accurately. Nothing flops here like exposing childish extreme views to reality. If you’re not an extremist for their side, you’re worse than a monster.

I want a society that is a democratic communist society ruled by a democratically elected council. None of this single person has ultimate authority, because that's the worst weak point. All laws apply to the leaders as well as the masses. Money should either be abolished, or capped. No individual should be able to acquire enough influence that they can dictate anything about others lives. Democratize and co-op all workplaces. All basic rights of humans are absolutely not allowed to be profited off of.

In our current system, no individual should be able to acquire enough influence that they can dictate anything about others lives.
Humans are fallible. Any council can be corrupted or dominated slowly, especially as long as currency and power corrupts and hierarchies can exist. Democratic socialism is a utopian idea of a fallible system, when what you are really asking for is the abolishment of corruption, prejudice and greed itself, the cancers that ruin otherwise harmonious societies.
Until a form of government arises that rewards the participant for seeking purpose rather than fame or reward, we'll just be replacing fractured systems, destined to fail, over and over and over again.
but, per my own personal bias, I don't believe people are inherently good enough to act that way. I believe we will destroy ourselves before we ever get there. The individuals that would dominate the next system of government will be the ones holding the pen to craft it, so it goes...
- The Baha'is have a system that kinda works like that. They don't have clergy, the have democratically elected spiritual assemblys. The rule is that no one that wants the position can have it. The communities elect people that have proven they can lead with humility.
Your ideal society in the best case scenario is... 500 or so years away!

Liberal Left, kinda believe in a free market for non critical infrastructure (critical would be smth like food and housing), but you can't profit from a company and everyone gets the same independent basic income and everything has to be open source

So basically a company is nothing more than a bunch of nerds who are passionate about something and want to make it ASA team, but you can still view and change their Idea and make it bettwr

kinda like the Relation between Arch Linux Staff and community maintainers

Also I have a violence Fetish, that should explain 90% of my deleted posts

Great movie

Weirdly I couldn't watch it again, even though I wanted to. Just hope we get to the end of the movie without having to go through the rest of it...

Yes.

Level 5 Δ

I'm a mid 90s Liberal Party OF Canada Leftist. That used to mean center left and right leaning on a few fiscal issues. I have no idea what it means by today's standards.

Now it mean Oil and cute chaussette for the media

Personally? For me, I don't care what kind of leftist you are.

For now, we are united against one singular goal, the total annihilation of Donald Trump's fascist regime of religious cultists and billionaire oligarchs.

Before we throw a single punch at one another, we have to solve this first. We'd all rather eachother's ideals than him if given the choice.

I'm a leftist that has guns , and was raised in a very religious conservative family, then moved to being liberal, now I'm somhwere in between liberal ans leftist? I dont know what to can it. I dont like religions that try to force their views on me, I dont like capitalism and billionaires, I just want universal health care and basic human rights and liberties for EVERYONE.

only if you go to .ml and hexbear instances. or if you go on politics.

.ml users love telling people "kys" and actually threaten you with death for not sharing their opinions. Also they will judge you according to your nationality and then deny being racist. At least that was my experience. Although i'm sure it's not all .ml users, just a very radicalized minority.

Anarcho-transhumanist. I believe that you just can't trust humans to govern each other, so the best solution is give them all the tools to survive independently.

How does that work for disabled people? Where do these tools come from?
- Up to us to sort what can't be done individually. But everything we can do ourselves, we should. Because every time you are dependent on someone helping you, they also have leverage over you, and can literally make you suck duck with enough leverage.
What happens if somebody tries to tamper with those tools to gain power for themselves?
- Good fucking luck with that.

I don't subscribe to an ideology per se, but I believe we should give everybody everything, and that the government should take care of every one of our needs, every last one.

Even social needs?
- Even intimate needs?

The 'Libertarianism is better than whatever this shit is supposed to be' leftist.

Leftist unity can only be done within reason, at some point it becomes so watered down that its no longer leftist. Im willing to support and work with anyone who pushes forward workers liberation. However, if someone is willing to backstab their fellow workers by accepting compromise with capitalists then they have no place among any unity alliance.

ah yes, because leftists are such unreasonable people always fighting each other

The one that wants to provide universal basic income based on a wealth tax.

I know this is a meme but i fundamentally disagree with what lots of other people call "left politics". I'm against immigration (for purely economic, not for racist reasons!), and i think that "men are the root of all evil" is a false and meaningless statement. It creates unnecessary tension within society and in my opinion provokes a civil war. It's literally that meme:

I'm against immigration (for purely economic, not for racist reasons!)
I really hope you are being sarcastic here.
- I am not anti-immigration because I prioritize social factors in my country's situation, but that is a real position that people make valid arguments for.
  Immigration is a real economic factor used by the owning class to lower wages. It exploits both local and immigrant workers. Look at Trump voters complaining in the news about how anti-immigration has ruined their workforce - they were exploiting immigrants to save money instead of paying local workers a (...relatively) reasonable wage.
- No, i'm sick of being lied to.
  I'm not a nationalist in the sense that i think my country's any better than any other country.
  But I do comprehend the significance of borders. Imagine people had no skin. They couldn't survive. When you go to a restaurant and ask for a glass of apple juice, you wouldn't expect a server of another restaurant to give it to you. Because one server is associated to one restaurant, and not to the other restaurant.
  That has exactly nothing to do with thinking you're superior. It's just a concept to help organize the world. I hope i've made my point clear enough.
“men are the root of all evil”
I've never heard this claim, only "money is the root of all evil".
Patriarchal society is profoundly harmful, but that's not an issue that divides sex or gender - patriarchal culture also directly hurts men. Men aren't immune from its problems simply because patriarchy systematically positions them above others. We can generalize this false-attribution error to other identity conflicts like sexuality, race, ethnicity, appearance, etc., it's easier to notice and then blame the tangible benefactor rather than identify the underlying system and its roots.
- The love of money is the root of all evil.
- “men are the root of all evil”
  I’ve never heard this claim
  well then i guess it's dependent on your environment and who you spend your time with. i've definitely heard a friend say it just this week, although she said it jokingly.
If you have a country that's below it's replacement rate then you need net positive immigration to compensate for this. Likewise if your above replacement rate and have problems with overpopulation then you need net negative immigration. This is fairly straightforward demographics and economics. Being too far below replacement rate without immigration leads to an aging population, and even countries like China which used to have serious overpopulation issues can fall fowl of this. Aging population is the root of a lot of economic and cultural issues. Saying immigration is bad is not just wrong, it's the exact opposite of what the situation calls for in most European nations, the USA, Japan, and South Korea.
- 2% of workers produce enough agricultural output to provide for 200% of society. And it's similar in other branches of the economy. We'd be able to live well with a significantly lower number of workers. The reason why people still work so much is because we're not actually working for the wellbeing of society, but mostly towards the pockets of the rich. That's what causes a shortage of workers.
  There's not actually a shortage of workers if society produces for the wellbeing of society, instead of for the pockets of the rich.
  On top of that, if AI replaces workers in the near future, we'd have the opposite problem of a mass unemployment crisis. Having fewer people in the country is then a good thing because there's less workers to fill the remaining workplaces.
  Note that it doesn't matter whether you think that AI can replace workers. What matters here is what companies think. And we're already seeing mass layoffs due to AI.
I'm against immigration (for purely economic, not for racist reasons!),
I'm against brown people (for purely cultural, not for racist reasons!)
...facepalm so big it became an asspalm