@TheDemonBuer - eviltoast
  • 3 Posts
  • 440 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle

  • Do you mean the Democrats? If so, yeah, the Democrats do seem willing to accept anti-Trump conservatives into their party.

    The Democrats really want to be a big tent party. They’ll take just about anyone within a certain ideological range, centered around the American political middle. This definitely includes many conservatives.

    I question the effectiveness of this strategy, though, as when you include too many opposing ideologies in a single party, it can be difficult for the party to choose a clear path to take. It’s often the case that when you try to appeal to as many different people as possible, you end up not appealing to very many people at all.


  • This really isn’t that surprising. The Republican party has become a cult of personality around Trump, putting it at odds with actual, ideological conservatives.

    I don’t know what Trump’s ideology is, or if he even has one. He seems to only believe in his own ambition, for wealth, power, and control.

    However, conservativism does lend itself to people like Trump rising to power, because it promotes a central authority and/or aristocracy that preserves tradition, culture, and the established social order. Conservatism doesn’t just tolerate social hierarchies, like class, it promotes them, and, in fact conservatism believes that such hierarchies are not only necessary, but natural and essential. It makes sense that malignant narcissists would take advantage of such a system to try and take their “rightful place” at the top of the hierarchies, because they believe that they are inherently superior to everyone else.






  • In a system where a single person gets full executive authority,

    Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it. No single person should have that much authority. But, regardless, does this debate platform really tell us all that much about how a person is likely to perform as chief executive? I’m not so sure. I think a person can do relatively well in a debate performance and still end up being a poor president.

    I can’t vote for policies.

    But you can vote for a representative (two, actually) who can vote for policies. That’s where our focus should be, I think. I’m not really sure why we need a president, to be honest. A single individual with that much power, who isn’t even elected by popular vote, seems undemocratic to me.


  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldQuit Windows Fun Now
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    I used to advocate for Linux, because I wanted more people to use it, so that more software devs would support it. I care a lot less about that since proton came to prominence. Linux still doesn’t get all the support from devs that I want, but there’s so much great software available now, both open source and proprietary, that I don’t really worry about non Linux users anymore.

    So use whatever OS you want, folks. I don’t really care.






  • Not to be hyperbolic, but this reminds me of when cult members describe the process of them becoming disillusioned with the leader until they finally decide to leave. I’m serious when I say that modern corporations, especially in tech, can often be quite cult like. There is often some charismatic, visionary, larger-than-life personality at the center. Many of the people who work at these companies aren’t so much employees as they are disciples. They are members of the leader’s cult of personality. Many investors, too. They have fully bought in to the leader’s vision, and some will follow their leader seemingly no matter what.

    This person even has that kind of wistful tone of a cult member who had to leave the cult because they couldn’t ignore the leader’s increasingly problematic behavior anymore, but still believes in their vision and wishes things could have turned out differently.

    There’s nothing wrong with having a vision or wanting to build a better future, but be very, very cautious about any movement centered around a single personality. In the case of Musk, the warning signs have been there for a while. I think the best representation of this was when Musk guest starred on the Simpsons almost ten years ago, and was introduced as “possibly the greatest living inventor!” It was the height of Musk propaganda.

    I will never buy a Tesla, so long as the Musk cult exists. I’m sure Teslas are good cars, but I will not support the cult of Elon Musk. He is too dangerous.



  • Every corporation should have a worker advocate, a consumer advocate, and a community advocate on their board of directors. It is ridiculous that only the investors get to make the decisions, currently. Investors only care about one thing: maximum return on their investment. They don’t care how the company is run, they don’t care how many employees get laid off, they don’t care if the company is benefiting the community, they just want the value of their shares in the company to go up, and/or to receive the highest possible dividends at the end of the year. They want passive income, they want the value of their asset to go up so they will be wealthier. That’s it. It’s unacceptable that only the investors are given a vote, and that others, who are also deeply affected by how the company operates, don’t.


  • When people are told that depression is an aberration, we are telling them that they are not part of the tribe. They are not right, they don’t belong. That’s when their shame deepens and they avoid social connection.

    And that’s not the only reason people are made to feel they’re not part of the tribe, that they don’t belong. There are many things in this modern (post modern?) world that cause us to become alienated from other people, even and especially those in our own community. The nature of community itself has changed. Many relationships and social institutions feel more tenuous or impermanent.

    It’s a vicious cycle: people feel alienated from others, it causes them stress, the stress causes anxiety, that leads to the immobilization response and depression, the effects of the anxiety and depression cause people to become further alienated from others, and the process accelerates and perpetuates.




  • Revolution is a process, not necessarily an event. A lot of people seem to think of revolutions as single events, usually wars, but those revolutionary wars are only parts of a much larger revolutionary process. The industrial revolution, for example, took place over about a century, and then the second industrial revolution occurred over multiple decades. These industrial revolutions coincided with the rise of capitalism. It’s likely we couldn’t have had one without the other. In that regard, capitalism didn’t emerge as a result of a single, revolutionary event, it emerged gradually, organically over decades, generations, and even centuries. The revolutionary process that led to the emergence of capitalism involved many reforms. There’s no reason to think socialism would be any different. Any revolutionary process is likely to involve, or even necessitate, many reforms. I don’t think there is a strict dichotomy between reform and revolution, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

    I think people just get impatient. They see reforms as too slow, they want the end of capitalism, and the transition to socialism, now. These people think that if they just have enough guns and soldiers they can force the end of capitalism, but this is simply wrong. No one can force the end of capitalism, it must come about organically. The only thing that can end capitalism, is capitalism. It must be allowed to run its course. Socialism will arise as we look for solutions to the problems caused by the internal contradictions inherent to capitalism. I think where direct revolutionary action will be most necessary is to counter reactionaries.