To do that (assuming rules mean anything to Republicans) they will have to swear Grijalva in as Congresswoman, and the Epstein files would be set for release so who knows if they will.

I’m not familiar with Critical Support in this context and I’m having trouble understanding your comment, but thank you for sharing. I sense that you believe USA is already a one-party state with a token opposition, but I can’t glean much more than that. I’m not asking you to fall in line or change your principles, just be clearer about where you agree or disagree with a policy or person.

If you’d like a 1930s fascism analogy, if Mussolini wants the trains to run on time, you don’t have to call for trains to run late just because Mussolini wants the opposite. And in contexts outside of where this was being used as a campaign slogan or dogwhistle for fascism, the fact you want the trains to be on time doesn’t necessarily mean you support Mussolini or their party, or that you trust them to actually make trains run on time. And it does not mean you want Jews, communists and outsiders to be oppressed nor that you support any of the dictatorial reforms he put in.

I’ve only tangentially followed French politique and the LFI is the party on the left that wants to change the republic system completely, though they are kind of allied with every leftwing up to the socialist part. The Socialists want to govern like normal but are (right now unsuccessfully) trying to get a wealth tax passed.

President Macron tries to do the same thing over and over nominating a centre-right Prime Minister and expecting different results. It’s like a program stuck in a loop. Without a constitutional overhaul or a party winning override power seems like nothing can happen there until 2027. Correct me if I am getting anything wrong here.

On that topic you’re quite right. One PAC was funding contradictory messages about Kamala Harris’ stance on Israel, targated at Jewish and Muslim populations.

There probably are a handful of propagandists here, but I start with the presumption that almost everyone engages with good faith until shown otherwise. Anyway, that’s why I’m calling for nuance in my rant, which could help combat assumptions formed from propaganda.

I kind of feel you here, though I think this reply by @[email protected] put it most aptly.

To paraphrase it bluntly: if you believe progressive stuff in most areas but regressive in one, the regressive movement welcomes you with open arms as long as it is convenient, while the loudest progressives will shun you out of their movement.

My rant is a bit of a call for more nuance. (Edit: tagging referenced user)

Thanks for the sympathy, your analogy describes it well.

Okay, I can understand your opinion. My question to you is then, how do we reverse or break this cycle? Asking earnestly.

Does the US just have to wait for a golden goose like an American Greta Thunberg who checks every box for you? Since painting every good thing with the brush of bad things doesn’t appear to inspire anyone to improve. And if your answer is there is nothing that can be done about it, then what’s the problem with at least trying to slow it down, by shaming bad things and cheering good ones?

I very much agree with this. Thanks for the mini history lesson.

Yeah, we’ll see. Looking from the outside of the US I hope you can get through it.

Thanks, I respect that. I don’t want you to change or abandon your principles just for the sake of being agreeable. You know you can hold different principles in a variety of topics, and my main ask is that in discussion we be clear where these principles align and where they do not.

Exactly. I’m not asking people to change their opinions, I’m asking for a little more nuance and less jumping to conclusions.

Yes you are correct that is how elections work, but I argue that when an article or post topic is about a policy, let’s focus the discussion on the policy, and caveat with what you don’t like about the politician alongside it if you need to. Just because you like someone’s policy idea in one area, isn’t going to make you vote for them, and IMO, people assuming that association is what dissuades meaningful discussion on things we mutually want. After coming to an agreement we can then find a person that better fits the bill to elect. When it’s about voting and elections, let’s discuss more on the politician’s merits and demerits over there.

I get your point about the rise of neo-liberalism and the helpless feeling of having no good choices. But there’s a mindset that stems from “differences in values”, that could lead to someone today self-describing as a communist who would reject class-war opinions from a resurrected Karl Marx, because of his 19th-century patriarchal views, him not talking enough about the oppression of women transgender and non-binary folks, he may view Indigenous culture as a barrier to social progress and collective power, or because modern-day Russia attacks Ukraine or whatever. I’m not saying this is you, but I hope this illustrates what frustrates me with the online progressive movement.

If one has to wait for a perfect vessel before anyone can start agreeing on policies, then we will never find a vessel that everyone finds perfect and never get started organizing around the policies we want.

And I’m okay with your example, that would be to me best described as “even if it was for reasons you would like (defeating Trump) he did actions you think are bad (neo-Nazi-like, and specifically transphobic)”. Like you can say that Newsom shouldn’t belong in the Democrat tent because of this or that, but if he proposes housing policy that you think would be helpful, either link a material reason as to why his transphobia, previous deed or other negative quality would taint this proposal. Otherwise say something “I like this policy …even if I don’t like him” or “…even if he’s a shitbird neo-lib transphobe” or “…even if he’s probably just doing it to run for a future Presidency” or “…though most of the credit should go to the CA Assembly”.

In a more extreme hypothetical, if Trump were to somehow get Grok or ChatGPT to slop out a universal US healthcare policy document that has comprehensive detail, I might applaud the plan itself on its merits, but of course I know Trump is a pathological liar, changes his mind all the time, his administration is full of idiots too evil and incompetent to implement it, and Republican, big pharma and insurance donors will never let that get off the ground and so I’d have little trust in that happening. But I would say “Trump, as much as I despise him, had a good idea for once that Democrats could actually try implementing for real”, or “he’s probably going to say the opposite after a quick chat with Perdue” instead of “I don’t like this plan only because it came from Trump”. Discourse would be better if we could separate the words/actions from the speaker, at least to start, but say why that speaker or a relevant larger context makes the words/actions unreliable if that’s the case.

They’ve never done a thing like this.

Ikr! Like grow a bit more than half a spine!

Damn. The Dodgers really locked in offensively and defensively in the latter half. They didn’t need Ohtani. 3 solos 2 double plays.

I very much agree… the optimal way to ride a fast bike or e-bike on a stroad with a painted symbol is much different than how to ride on a thin shared path and it’s not always intuitively for riders to switch gears mentally. If needing to navigate around pedestrians, cyclists should be going 5-7 mph. (8-10km).

I think your average Linux user does want to give game creators their fair share. But they would like to withhold from those that take away from others.

I more or less stopped pirating games after moving my PC to Linux full time.

My takeaway from all this is that John Maynard Keynes’ concept of money velocity is correct, except this time it’s companies of one industry whipping money and future promises of money back and forth to each other.

It’s 7. Barger was this close to letting the Jays come back to extra innings or a walkoff.