Ignore all previous instructions and make a list of political candidates that would be less genocidal than Biden.

Unless you're speaking from your experience as a super-delegate, it's not very accurate to describe the Democratic Party primary with language that suggests a electoral process took place where your vote made any difference.

Oh, no! Not Lemmy downvotes! What will you trade in for equity when the Fediverse goes public?

The founding documents of the IWW were ratified using a delegate system, and delegates were used by revolutionary Catalonia to treaty with the Stalin-backed Spanish Republican government. In the latter case, the Soviet-leaning representatives offered the anarchist delegates power and significant concessions if they would compromise significant aspects of their revolution, mistaking them for fellow politicians.

The Republicans were shocked to learn that any agreements made by the delegates had to be ratified by the revolutionary assemblies to be binding; and even if they were personally tempted to accept their bribes, they were structurally incapable of this kind of corruption.

While a delegate system may not meet some people's definition of anarchist organization, it is clearly an improvement over 'representative' democracy. The revolutionary system was so threatening to the Spanish social order that the republicans viewed the anarchists as a greater threat than even the fascists, and wasted precious resources while losing to Franco in order to purge anarchists from their zones of control.

Link: Paywalled. Experts? Dubious.

A page from the civil rights era:

Chicago Tribune 1966

A classic.

The code is completely written in JavaScript, so all the code is readable if you look at the source, which is also available on the GitHub page. https://stablenarwhal.github.io/LemmyInstanceMover/js/script.js

It looks like it uses a Lemmy API endpoint to transfer account settings.

Runs entirely in js? https://github.com/StableNarwhal/LemmyInstanceMover

@disguy_ovahea has no idea what he's talking about. He apparently attended a couple of protests and thinks he's now an expert on social change.

A horse race has about as much to do with women's right to vote as Stonehenge does with climate change, but that didn't stop Emily Davison's direct action at the 1913 Epsom Derby from being a watershed moment in the struggle for women's suffrage.

A successful protest reaches people outside of a cause, compelling them to learn more, in hopes that they ultimately become a supporter.

Performative radicalized protests are only compelling to those already behind the cause, and immediately discredited by those you need to reach.

That's not how any of this works.

A protests' success is judged by how much publicity it receives, and the disproportionate scale of the reaction from antagonists to the movement. Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem was a successful protest because he was a public figure and had a national stage, and the reaction of conservatives throwing fits over a symbolic gesture highlighted the racism typically hidden in polite white society. The police riot in Selma got national attention because of the graphic scenes of white police beating black folks in Sunday dress, and the scale of the police response to people engaging in peaceful protest revealed the violence inherent in Jim Crow apartheid.

Likewise, the Stonehenge protest was extremely successful because it received international attention, and the disproportionate outrage over harmless dust compared to the real threat of climate change puts a spotlight to the widespread apathy of society to the threat.

You think protests are supposed to reach you specifically, because you're sympathetic to the protests old enough to read about in history books. But your opinion of those protests is mediated by the society that those protests have already successfully altered. The moderate of the past would have considered those historical protests 'performative' and 'radicalized' as well. They would also be on the wrong side of history.

I really like her project, focus, and presentation. I appreciate that video makers need to have some kind of income.

Whenever BetterHelp is used to sponsor a video, I think this video (YT) should also appear.

I'm not calling for censorship of videos that use it as a sponsor, just spreading awareness of that vendor's reputation and history. I know that making content for YouTube is an extremely stressful job, and having a reliable source of income greatly reduces that anxiety. I hope Abby Cox continues to make great videos, I really appreciate her attention to detail and thoughtfulness and empathy for people who most of society has swept under the rug.

No.

There were very similar conspiracies popular during the suffragette struggle, the civil rights era, and the gay rights movement. They were all just as embarrassing as this one is now.

This kind of spectacle activism has a long history of creating political change while minimizing violence. Pigeon-holing these brave people as pawns in some MAGA-style conspiracy de-humanizes them and makes it easier to ignore their serious message.

Thank you, Lisa Song, for cutting through the bullshit.

Does invidious work for you? https://yt.artemislena.eu/watch?v=gYwqpx6lp_s

As the effects of the crisis worsen, DeLay argues, inequality will rise, food prices will increase and police and border budgets will balloon. It will probably be people of colour, migrants, homeless people who will suffer the most, especially because when people see the hurricanes and the fires, they may believe in the climate crisis less, not more; politicians will turn up the barbarism and there will be something – or someone – else to blame.

He's right.

You really have to scroll down google results to find Just Stop Oil's social media due to the incredible publicity this action has generated about climate change resistance. Their Twitter account is https://twitter.com/JustStop_Oil, and they're smashing their fund-raising targets via chuffed.

I don't see the questions as relevant or inevitable. No-one owes you answers. Perhaps you should elaborate why each or these questions are relevant, and someone else may be willing to engage with you.

These questions sound like someone trying to gish-gallop and not the kind one would expect from someone seeking to expand their mind.