The_Sasswagon @ The_Sasswagon @beehaw.org

Posts

0

Comments

101

Joined

2 yr. ago

Very well said!

When it comes to business being driven out, it's not even just the direct replacements to existing local business, they also draw traffic away from existing commercial centers which as the local grocery store goes out, the local restaurants, cafes, etc. close down too.

Additionally, often times the big box stores are offered huge uncentives to move in, so not only are they taking away jobs but they are also not paying local taxes and have land purchased and prepared for them to purchase at a discount.

It's bizarre but many cities are run by folks with no real knowledge of how cities are run, so it makes sense why it happens.

Generally yes but specifically no. It takes more than that to offset the racism built into the system. Since the article was written from a US perspective I'll talk from that point of view, but the same is true in other countries (In the UK, Black women are 3x more likely to die in childbirth than white women, a symptom of this concept there).

In the US, the system we live in is quite literally built on racism. From the founding document when compromises regarding slavery were baked into the way we vote, to our criminal system which rose from the ashes of reconstruction after our civil war, our foundation is racism. Our government is alternatingly unwilling or incapable of correcting these wrongs, so the onus is on individuals to do so.

Being a good person is the first step, but beyond that is lending a hand to dismantle the structures where we can, and many of the 100 things listed in the article. This isn't "oh sweetie bless your heart" this is "I'll show up and fight for you."

I don't have a lot on the content other than I read the article and while I don't think I learned anything new I think it's probably good to have reminders. This article is pretty clearly intended to be read by people who are already receptive to anti-racism and intersectionality, and this seems like a good spot to post it.

I think people get defensive when they read that headline (and don't read any further), if they haven't grappled with the fact the responsibility is on all of us to actively make the world less racist. Just being there isn't enough when the system is built wrong to begin with.

I also wonder if the time for these kinds of articles has passed. Back in 2018 it was, I think, far more common to find people on the left who hadn't grappled with race before, content to say they were color blind but open to changing their view. Today I imagine that group is much smaller, and those remaining are doing so out of ignorance, defensiveness, or explicit racism.

I don't think you're going to find peer reviewed studies on something that happened a month ago, but I would be very sure to say someone is working on it.

But if you've used Twitter you can recognize when something changes. I haven't used it for years, but secondhand I've heard it was pretty egregious. Obviously this could be due to external parties heightening a disinformation campaign, but I'm not sure that really matters.

American social media platforms creating an environment where propaganda and misinformation flourish and refusing to take action against it has the same net effect as TikTok altering internal algorithm. Arguing that somehow TikTok is worse because it's a foreign government is nonsense when every social media platform is manipulated by foreign governments to the same effect.

Doesn't help the US government just keeps saying "trust us bro, we have reports that say China is spying on us" while they threaten to ban one platform. Nobody trusts that, it looks like a witch hunt, and sounds racist when they single them out this way.

Okay all done TL;DW:

Q: Are Americans stupid?
A: No, just not engaged or educated in matters of politics.

Q: What about the decision makers at the DNC and Harris campaign?
A: Yeah, they sure do appear to be, or more charitably, in the pocket of big business interests while attempting to be R-lite.

Q: Okay, Liberals, specifically pundits and media?
A: More defensive than stupid, they got the campaign they wanted but lost and don't want to take any responsibility.

Q: Republican leadership and media ecosystem?
A: Some are, others motivated by racism, others money, and onward, you know the stuff, it's the normal list.

Q: Is the show stupid along with their viewers?
A: Not stupid, misjudged the threat of Musk and Ben Shapiro types, clearly left leaning media and viewers should be shifting gears and approach to better reach disaffected Americans.

Q: What do next?
A: Prepare for the worst, push for the best. Connect with people in real life. When the bad things happen that we know could happen, don't brag, but draw attention to the fact that there are people out there who knew this bad thing would happen.

TL;DR: Nah people aren't dumb and that's both good and really depressing. Be good to each other and reach out when you need help.

Yeah I think "evangelical vegans" or "bad vegans" are a sort of caricature made for comedians and then everyone else to punch down on. Sure annoying vegans exist, and so do annoying meat eating people, but diet isn't necessarily why these people are annoying.

I imagine there's also an element of defensiveness from meat eaters as well. Even reasonably stating "I don't eat meat because of the cruelty in the industry and the negative environmental impacts" is implicitly challenging a meat eater to consider those things, which they likely never have. And being faced with the certainty that the vegan is making that statement (the cruelty of the industry and environmental impacts are objective), the meat eater is possibly going to feel like they are being judged or attacked.

It's been a while, but doesn't approval carry a very heavy risk of 'unfavorable' outcomes where a less popular candidate wins if everyone votes normally? I remember it seemed to reinforce two candidate contests and encourage simply voting exactly like we do now (with the similar outcomes).

-Reading into it more, that happens because if you vote for your second favorite, they may beat out your favorite, but if you do not vote for any but your preferred, you won't risk spoiling your own vote. This of course can lead to neither winning and a third candidate nobody wanted winning, similar to first past the post.

I think that RCV, being fairly widely used now, seems like a pretty good alternative to first past the post, and while it's not perfect, doesn't have those obvious strategic voting issues that Approval has. I'd still take approval over first past the post. Might even take a dice roll over first past the post honestly.

Edit - for disclosure, I'm also iffy on approval voting because it's constantly referred to in a way that makes it sound like it's a kind of panacea, paired with a list of why x other voting method doesn't work. It's also being pushed by conservative groups all over the US, which raises my defenses for better or worse.

Why blame the people who didn't vote? They didn't vote for a reason surely, just as you and I voted for a reason. Just because their reason isn't the same as yours doesn't mean it isn't just as valid. Maybe it's ignorance or perhaps it's misinformation, but at this moment there's no way to know that, so discounting 10 million peoples conscious choice only serves to widen divides and alienate more people.

Blame Harris and the DNC for running bad campaigns and candidates. It's on them to win the voters and an election, and it should have been clear that 'the same campaign as last time and the time before' wasn't working.

No matter who we point at, we're going to have to start reengaging with our communities and supporting each other, and having those 10 million (likely somewhere left of moderate right) people on side going forward is vital.

That's an awful lot easier but likely less accurate and what happens whenever establishment Dems lose. "Hillary lost because of Bernie Bros" is the first and loudest instance that springs to mind. But even if that statement were true, In hindsight we know that she and her campaign sorta rigged the primary, which looked more obvious than they probably intended. That disenfranchised some voters and they didn't vote.

That's not the voters fault, the candidate did something that made those voters not vote for them. Just like Kamala/the DNC did with running an ancient dude, not having a primary, running the ancient dudes VP, supporting the genocide of Palestinians, loving fracking, and onwards. I was really optimistic early on with her VP pick but that seemed to be the moderate leftmost edge of her campaign.

I'm of the opinion that until the DNC stops appealing to disenfranchised Republicans this steady slide right will keep happening. Running as R-lite hasn't really been paying off as well for them as it did in the 90s.

Don't blame the left for the failings of the moderate right. Just like Biden before her, Harris spent the campaign appealing to theoretical disenfranchised Republicans and confidently ignoring the calls for action from the left. She even abandoned some of Bidens more left leaning campaign promises along the way (her climate policy was a clear back step). On top of that we had no primary, which however flawed, shapes the campaign in the image of the some voters and solidifies support for the candidate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the two candidates were equivalent, but it is easy to see why people might be feeling disenfranchised and might just not vote, and elect instead to hide from it all.

Anecdotally, I stopped engaging with election news around the dem primary, when everyone was very excited, so I could vote for Harris without thinking about the baggage that would come later. It was all just overwhelming, and I'd call myself a pretty engaged and resilient voter normally.

All that to say, remember the humans who voted or didnt are the ones with ethics and empathy. I'm not sure you can say the same about the ones who voted for the fascist.

To be clear, the EU developing an operating system for EU use is not a dystopian vision without assuming many things about the theoretical future project. The petition is asking for this for transparency and independence from an actual dystopian vision coming to fruition in a 'forced' Windows standard. That doesn't really lead me to imagine a dystopian nightmare where the EU forces everyone to install their distro (A potentially comical vision on its own).

I rather like the idea that governments contribute to open source projects, sounds a lot better than the same contribution going to private institutions. The use of open source software may introduce some vulnerabilities, but those are replacing vulnerabilities that are already there. I would also imagine investment in some open source projects would encourage more development in adjacent areas, much like Valve, Proton, and gaming.

I would be interested to hear what alternative you have to solving the problems that the project in this petition is attempting to solve. It's easy to shoot down something for not being perfect but it's pretty challenging to come up with a theoretical proposal that pleases all.

So much of our modern political system is poised around vibes, because that's all the older voters (seem to) really care about. If I had a dollar for every time I heard some variation of having a beer with George W, I'd have more dollars than I do now.

I think in contrast younger voters care about a vast array of issues very deeply, making engaging in politics a much more complex task that they probably don't have time for. Given that so much of the coverage consists of no-meaning political lines with no coherent policy right now, engaging in traditional ways is pointless until they stop having vapid "debates" and "interviews" with no content, and start forcing real policy discussion.

I think Bernie was popular with younger voters because he brought so few vibes and so much policy. I went to a Hillary rally and a Bernie rally during the primary in 2015 and the difference was night and day. Hillary talked about the positive feeling of continuing the Democratic legacy, while Bernie talked about sustainable agriculture and straw polled the attendees about wind power.

To be clear I bet this held true 50 years ago when our old voters were young too, no hate on the olds here, priorities change, though I hope mine don't. Also I wonder if this is all still true for the new young voters, most of my interactions are with millennials and gen z. My few interactions with the folks graduating now have been tainted by my old and out of touch self and by their (in my opinion) under-practiced interpersonal skills from covid years at home. Again, no hate intended.

I use MXLinux, picked it somewhat at random when I was frustrated with windows 10 privacy settings and haven't looked back since. I tried mint, mint cinnamon, Ubuntu, and Fedora before MX, and Fedora is the only other one I have stuck with, to use on a Surface Pro (I needed Wayland for the touchscreen).

MX has been really stable, light on resources, and has worked really well through two complete hardware upgrades. I play games on steam, some brand new some old, and I haven't found one that I can't play yet. That is due to steam/proton/proton GE more than the OS I expect but I'm happy nonetheless. I also run my home entertainment box on MX on an old PC (I know there are better choices for os for this, I was just comfortable with it).

I like it because I haven't felt any reason to try anything else, perhaps someday I will and I'll just find a new OS then, but until then it's my favorite I think.

Probably? I don't eat meat at home save for very specific occasions and I would but, you know, there are a lot of different people out there.

I never played BioShock 2 or Infinite, but I watched full playthroughs of each, and I thought infinite was great! Different to be sure in most ways, but it was a neat expansion of the world and themes hinted at in the first two games.

I seem to remember a lot of sideline criticism when it came out that boiled down to "NPC sidekick not love interest but hot so I don't like game". I thought, and think that is ridiculous, and fortunately I think that criticism has faded with time because Elizabeth is such a positive part of the game, from my view.

I should play through the BioShock games...

I don't follow this, how has this person voting 3rd party in 2016 led to facism starting in the 80s? For that matter, how has 3rd party voting led to facism at all? I'm very much struggling to make sense of this.

By definition, an agenda is "a program of things to be done or considered" which does not equate to wanting to do something. It more closely resembles a daily planner or task list.

So in as much as you and I have an "agenda" when we get out of bed, you are right, the person submitting the PR did likely have an agenda of waking up and going about their day. There isn't a 'woke agenda' at play here, however, as the person I replied to seemed to imply.

Imagine you have been purposefully targeted for harassment or excluded from activities in the past due to your preferred pronouns or perceived gender. Seeing "he" with that context would likely feel excluding, which is a reason someone without an 'agenda' would want to see it changed.

I made the leap a few years ago now, and since getting a (slightly) newer AMD GPU I haven't had a single problem that I didn't create by messing around with things without knowing what I was doing. I use steam and the Glorious Egroll version of proton and every game I have wanted to play has worked, even ones that are brand new. No tinkering past the initial steam setup. I don't really play competitive online games with anti cheat so you may encounter problems that I haven't if you do.

I use the advanced hardware support version of MX Linux, if that really matters. I had bad experiences with Ubuntu, but haven't tried it with this machine so I don't know if it was the OS or the hardware.

I'd say give it another shot on its own drive when Microsoft frustrates you again, you can always swap windows back in if you don't like it.

If I'm reading that right, that could also say that Instagram is suppressing anti-israel content? It's just saying that in comparison to Instagram tiktok is showing more x, y, z. But Instagram is absolutely not a neutral point to measure from.

For starters there's different demographics on each one, but I'm sure you could adjust for that, maybe the study did. But I don't think you can adjust for the impact the US government has on Meta. I don't believe for an instant that some US agency isn't manipulating algorithms or requiring certain tweaks to steer discourse just like they did with US news outlets.