Charapaso

joined 4 months ago
[–] Charapaso@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago

I'm not following your argument, though I am slightly drunk. The disproportionate representation that's the focus of the post means that less than 51% of the populace could wield the levers of power in the Senate. That's minority rule, which is even worse than mob rule.

I get that mob rule is bad, and that we need checks in place to curb the possibility of abuses of power, but I see that as necessitating laws for super majorities and ranked choice or other ways of ensuring less extreme representatives getting into power.

[–] Charapaso@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Thank you for the reply: because we can go back even further to Hunter S Thompson with Fear and Loathing on the campaign trail 72, where he makes the same observation about every election cycle being "the big one".

It's just that I do think the GOP has gotten more extreme in many ways, and the right wing media sphere is a major part of that. At least in my experience over the last few decades. Looking back at what the John Birch folks said back then, it's a lot more mainstream. Just some of the demographic groups targeted are different

As for the elections: it's going to be interesting, since you're absolutely correct...the right showed up to vote, and enough of the Democrats stayed at home that the GOP might take that as a sign they don't need to ratfuck so much. I'm just not as confident that the anti democratic sentiment isn't just rhetoric meant for political theatre. Hopefully I'm wrong, but the mainstream right seems to be trending toward authoritarian more than libertarian these days.

[–] Charapaso@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Do you think the GOP - and trump's camp specifically - have gotten more or less extreme/vengeful in the last four years? After the 2020 loss, have they gotten more or less friendly toward the norms of a democratic system of government?

[–] Charapaso@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Exactly! I also haven't bought more than ten items from Walmart in the last fifteen years.

It can cost a little more, and requires patience, but I can think of very few times I've actually needed (versus wanted) some item before I could get it not via Amazon or Walmart. Even with the added expense for some individual items I'd wager I've spent less overall since it makes impulse purchases easier to avoid.

It's probably not amounting to much in the way of resisting these mega corps, but it isn't as difficult as some folks imagine.

[–] Charapaso@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago

Climate change denial. That's the biggest thing for me: they apologized, but it took fifteen years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManBearPig

I never jived much with the general nihilism and both/all sides-ism I felt from it, which is probably unfair given it's meant to be a crass comedy.

[–] Charapaso@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Outer Wilds gave me that sensation

[–] Charapaso@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I've just realized that my tendency to start comments irl and online with "Yeah..." might in part be a defense mechanism to avoid being misunderstood as disagreeing.

[–] Charapaso@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Yeah, given that it's around a hundred bucks (at best) a month for a pickup, and I can rent a pickup from a big box store for 20 bucks...the math works out to do that as often as weekly and still save money, considering registration/tag/maintenance. That's considering that my wife and I have one car, and one motorcycle: the differential in going from a car to a truck isn't as egregious as motorcycle or no second car, of course.

Also, it's always fun to get a huge haul of materials with my motorcycle gear on, seeing folks clearly wonder if I've thought through my decisions.

[–] Charapaso@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

We could also achieve universal peace if everyone just threw down their weapons, and no one would go hungry if everyone would stop being greedy. Unfortunately, people aren't rational, and there's cultural/social constructs that keep these things from happening.

If we want to change them for the better, we unfortunately have to operate within the constraints we're faced with. We can change those constraints with hard work, but can't just act as if those constraints don't exist. It's the same way folks pretend that being "color blind" re: racial issues will solve things. Would be great, but sadly plenty of folks are incapable of not being racist, and historical harms mean that we can't just pretend that perception is the only problem.

[–] Charapaso@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Have you tried seeing if any sugary snack give you the same effect? Sounds like the effects of a dip in blood sugar.

[–] Charapaso@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The point folks are making is that Stardew was finished on release, it's just that the developer has the passion and financial ability to continue to improve it.

If it was 1994, maybe the game would have been released on a cartridge and never changed for myriad reasons (publishing rights, being on physical media, etc).

Example: Super Metroid was one of the best games ever made, and was complete when it was released, but you better believe I'd take free updates that further improve on it. There's always improvements to make, because nothing can really be perfect. Those hypothetical updates wouldn't retroactively make it an incomplete game. Maybe it's too a subtle philosophical point

[–] Charapaso@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

I truly don't understand your reasoning here. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I just simply don't get it. Even if the parties were functionally equivalent, wouldn't a better treatment of folks domestically be a better option than changing nothing? It seems like functionally abstaining from voting is saying that some kind of protest vote is more important than the treatment of folks who are being demonized by the far right...or more important than people's access to abortion and proper medical care...or even shitty attempts at combating climate change.

You claim that voting for the Democrats is inflicting genocide on Palestinians to save one's own skin.

I'm going to say that not voting, or voting for a candidate that has absolutely no chance of winning, is inflicting genocide on Palestinians and folks domestically.

It absolutely pains my bleeding heart that the DNC is so deeply corrupt and shitty, and way too happy to bomb civilians abroad. Absolutely despicable.

The GOP is worse. The GOP is also worse on the domestic front.

Trump has literally said that Israel should "finish the job". https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-criticized-palestinian-insult-debate-with-biden-2024-06-28/

So yeah...it's morally compromising to vote for the DNC candidates for any number of reasons, but until the way we vote changes in the USA, it's the least worst option when it comes to voting. It also does not preclude us from trying to change the system outside of voting. It doesn't stop protesting, or mutual aid or other actions.

TLDR: It's just the trolley problem, and call me a maniac, but if I can press a button that saves even one life, even if it makes me feel slightly morally complicit in the deaths of others, then shit...I consider it the price of being human in the world we're shackled to.

view more: next ›