DavesWorld's recent activity

  1. Comment on eBooks cost too much in ~books

    DavesWorld
    Link
    Trad publishers, for the last fifteen years now, have been pursuing the same strategy with their ebook pricing. Keeping them high. Why? Partly for profit, because the ebook costs a fraction to...

    Trad publishers, for the last fifteen years now, have been pursuing the same strategy with their ebook pricing. Keeping them high. Why? Partly for profit, because the ebook costs a fraction to deliver (and the actual file, the content, was already formatted and prepared for readers to traditionally publish anyway). Any ebook sold is mostly pure cream, and the trads are happy to drink it.

    But mostly they price their ebooks at or beyond physical books to prop up those physical books and the sale of them.

    If they priced ebooks more 'reasonably', and of course people are going to have differing opinions about 'reasonable' they'll argue vociferously over, then that would tend to make ebooks more popular. Trads don't want that, because their advantage is in the physical.

    For a century and more, trad publishers have built up connections and business arrangements with printing presses and book stores. They have deals and friendly relations with bookstore buyers, with critics, with the media, that rely on and leverage physical books.

    That's the advantage they continue to weaponize against independent publishing. They need the general public to believe "the only real books are dead tree books on a physical store shelf." It delegitimizes independent authors, who focus on content (aka, the actual story, the actual book, rather than its physical or virtual form). It's the sole lever they have, and they continue to pull on it.

    Trads aren't going to give that up until they either have zero choice due to shifts in the market (a shift they're working against by propping up physical books in the eyes of consumers), or enough independent authors with high visibility force that shift.

    A couple of years ago, you finally started seeing "big name" authors begin to break away from trads. Brandon Sanderson is an example. He's operated adjacent to the independent spaces for more than a decade now. He's met, talked with, interviewed, even highlighted wildly successful indie authors. People who never went through a trad and who are making a lot of money due to their success.

    Some of those very financially successful authors don't even hit any of the traditional Trad Publishing milestones for success, such as being on the NYT bestseller list. A list, by the way, that is basically just a handful of New York bookstores that report sales to the newspaper. So it's not "bestsellers", it's "best selling physical books in a handful of physical bookstores." There's a reason Trads can game the list, and do.

    Sanderson saw that for years, but took a long time to stop believing he has to funnel his publishing through a trad house that takes a huge cut, an ongoing cut from each and every book forever, for things that are basic services he can pay for himself.

    What's the result been for Sanderson? He's high volume, because he's a Big Name with built in visibility and fans earned from prior success. So he has some employees now, who do warehouse and editing and PR and distribution things for him.

    Rather than having to surrender a cut of each book in perpetuity (Trad contract), he pays fixed costs for these fixed services. He's plowing his funds into not just employing people, but also into things the customers like (such as merch and signed copies and so forth).

    As he continues to write and publish independently, he's becoming more and more of a success story. His trad books don't pay him what his independent books do. And his visibility isn't just to readers, but other writers as well. Including the lucrative Big Names Trads fear losing like they're losing Sanderson.

    He's the nightmare for Trads. They know, sooner or later, Sanderson will be joined by other Big Names. Who'll see it, wonder and think, try it, and at least some of whom will start doing it too. That'll spread, two becomes four, four becomes ... and eventually even more indies become further emboldened, heartened, by that. It's the (unfortunately slow) avalanche that'll force shifts in the industry that'll hammer the lid down on the coffin of trad publishing.

    Extortion level ebook prices are the Trads trying to cling to what they have. To resist having to change. To try and avoid letting their sole remaining advantage that props up the entire house of cards that is Traditional Publishing, keeping it from tumbling to the table.

    13 votes

  2. Comment on Selfishness in AI in ~tech

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    The closest I ever was to suicide was when I worked at a call center. Everyone who calls in is angry, impatient, and thinks they're the single most important person in the world. There's no...

    The closest I ever was to suicide was when I worked at a call center.

    Everyone who calls in is angry, impatient, and thinks they're the single most important person in the world. There's no kindness, no consideration, nothing except demands for instant action.

    And the bosses do not give a fuck. On the clock. Numbers, timer. I got yelled at for having a damn notepad document full of standard ticket text, things like "Customer cannot log in. Asked to try again after verifying caps lock key, still unable. Had customer confirm (identifier information) and reset. Customer can now log in."

    I was supposed to custom write that standard bullshit from scratch, every time, simply because it meant "I was dedicated to providing the highest standard of customer care."

    One afternoon, I got home and opened my freezer. Took out a bottle of vodka. Chugged it. Had to have been ten seconds, head tipped all the way back, just gulp-gulp-gulp. Went to bed, slept fifteen hours. And then I had to wake up the next morning and go back to hell.

    AI "taking" call center jobs is saving lives. Is making the world a better place. People are horrible to other people. Especially when they have a little bit of power. When they know you have to bow and scrape. Their lives aren't any better than yours, but they can feel better about themselves for maybe a few minutes by calling a Customer Support line and being an asshole to someone who's not allowed to respond. Who has to constantly apologize, show deference, no matter what.

    13 votes

  3. Comment on Donald Trump nominates Fox News host and Army National Guard Major Pete Hegseth for US defense secretary in ~society

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    That is a civil war indicator. Hello historic moment, we're living in it.

    That is a civil war indicator. Hello historic moment, we're living in it.

    5 votes

  4. Comment on If our worst fears about Donald Trump play out, how will we know when it's time to leave? in ~society

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    More or less, yeah. Most of the people who have not just the money, but the means (education, status, banked wealth, things that make them attractive as immigrants), are basically the kinds of...
    • Exemplary

    More or less, yeah.

    Most of the people who have not just the money, but the means (education, status, banked wealth, things that make them attractive as immigrants), are basically the kinds of people a lot of Trump voters were mad at. Elitists. When you're poor, paycheck-to-paycheck, anyone who's comfortable is at least a bit of an elitist to you.

    Those poor folks won't get the time of day if they try to emigrate to another country. America is unique in that it accepts significant numbers of non-elite immigrants. Most countries, they want to see education, a resume full of experience in key industries, wealth you'll transfer to the country. When you don't have those things, you need provable and relevant lineage as that country defines it.

    Otherwise they tell you no, you're not immigrating. You might not even be allowed residency, because that country's non-elites see you as competition. Something that's playing out all over Europe. Lots of European countries (in the past decade) have accepted some refuges, and their native populations have pushed back hard. It's part of why right wing sentiments are rising in so many places; lack of economic opportunity. New workers willing to take less than you is competition for your job, however angry it makes comfortable elitists to hear a poor person saying.

    Meanwhile, in America, significant numbers of immigrants can just show up and say "but I made it, I need to live here now" and they have a much higher chance of being allowed to. Which, again, is something a lot of Trump (and poor) voters are upset about.

    So talking about leaving is kind of proving some of the points those Trump voters had in mind when they pulled the lever for him. They feel forgotten, abandoned, and left to suffer while others charge ahead successfully. They want help.

    Again, of course, Trump is exceedingly unlikely to actually help them. But he actually verbalized their pain, with clear messaging that landed. He didn't ask them to wait, or read between the lines; he stumped on their pain. They listened because he was the one talking about them. It's too late to quibble over "but he's lying", because he won.

    As for OP's question, the line is probably somewhere around habeas corpus being abandoned. If and when MAGA and/or Trump begin suspending the rule of law on a broad scale, that's probably where the rubber will meet the road. By that point, you will have seen lots of those comfortable, fortunate people with money and means having left the country. Those who are left will have to face it, and some will fight back.

    Whether or not they succeed depends on how many people decide to fight. Revolutions often fail when the dominant power manages to scare enough people into refusing to come forward to fight. There's a balance, where the powers-that-be can (somehow) offer enough scraps to convince people maybe they don't have to fight.

    Past that tipping point, people decide they have nothing left to lose and more of them will go into active opposition. The trick for a smart dictator force is to figure out just where that line is. To know "we can have this much, but any more and the resistance will go active and it's war".

    When elites begin leaving in notable numbers, that will accelerate the changes that had brought about the MAGA desire to even begin removing basic civil rights for large numbers of people. Now, to be clear, I'm not talking about "round up the immigrants." That's probably not going to do it. If someone's in the country illegally, I don't see vast numbers of people being willing to take to the streets to push back.

    When those vast numbers of folks being rounded up are legal residents, second, third, fourth generation citizens, when it's people who "don't believe the right things" religiously or politically, when it's courts and local governments or even state governments, that's about the point where the fracture will have become very real in many minds. That's where large percentages of the country will be actively deciding "do I fight, do I hide, or do I give in?"

    Mostly, until that question is being asked by more than a handful of people, you'll continue to see people calling you "dramatic" if you wonder about the possibility. People fear change, hate it, and will instinctively push back to avoid having to Do Anything themselves. The thought of America falling to civil war again is mostly a fantasy to many people here, because they can't envision it being real.

    Until it's a Niemoller situation, until they begin seeing first hand people being taken, until they see courts being disbanded, until they see state and county and city level governments being disbanded by MAGA, they'll call it dramatic. Say it's not that bad. Make excuses.

    Lots of people leaving will just make it more real, btw. It's abandoning not just your (failed) country, but your fellow citizens. The poor will always be caught in the middle of the kind of thing Project2025 could bring about. They never have any real chance to escape it. They have to answer that question with either Fight or Give. There is no hiding for someone without money or means.

    29 votes

  5. Comment on Chegg is on its last legs after ChatGPT sent its stock down 99% in ~tech

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    Yes, but see, most people (especially kids and their parents) don't view college as a chance to get an education. It's nothing more than a ticket to be punched in route to A Good Job. Period,...

    Yes, but see, most people (especially kids and their parents) don't view college as a chance to get an education. It's nothing more than a ticket to be punched in route to A Good Job. Period, done, that's it. They view college as one long, annoying, expensive tax they have to pay in money and time.

    So cheating isn't considered cheating. It's considered "getting on it with it" so they can get on with their lives and have that Good Job after the ticket punch.

    It pains me that I have to point this out, but social media being what it is ... I don't agree with their conclusion. They're wasting their time going to college if they don't want the actual education. People like that, people who coast and cheat, are the kinds of people who screw things up for the rest of us. For all of society.

    But it's just the world we live in. Everyone wants to get on with it. Whatever it is, they want it going and they want it going now. There is no journey, only destination.

    9 votes

  6. Comment on "I’m withdrawing from DBT and this problematic language is why" in ~health.mental

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    I don't think a patient can reliably count on good results with any kind of therapy, especially behavioral therapy, if they have doubts about the therapist or doctor or whoever's involved in it....
    • Exemplary

    I don't think a patient can reliably count on good results with any kind of therapy, especially behavioral therapy, if they have doubts about the therapist or doctor or whoever's involved in it. Maybe someone does or doesn't agree on the general state of MHPs, but if you don't feel trust and like yours is truly invested in helping you, I don't think that MHP is the right fit to be able to help.

    Doctors, Mental Health Providers, are people. And people don't often like complicated things. They especially don't like having to get their hands dirty, to get up out of their chairs and need to work and dig and think. That's so annoying, when they have a whole book of explanations, an education full of obvious answers, and have been to conferences and training that tells them what's happening and how it should be handled. How easy it's supposed to be, because they know everything.

    Outliers irritate them. For all the above reasons. They want neat cases and neat, easy answers. Same as everyone wants with everything. It's irritating when people have to get out of their chairs and work.

    MHPs can be especially guilty of it. Maybe it's one thing, if a physician misdiagnoses high blood pressure or something. Sure it can be very serious, even cause deaths, but with physical injury or infirmity there are usually physical symptoms. Most of the fight those patients have is trying to get some physician to look at what's there. Maybe it's buried and needs some expensive test to confirm, but it's still probably there because physical aliments usually have physical symptoms.

    Any kind of mental issue though? So much of it is opinion, because a lot of "conditions" are up to interpretation. It's why those MHPs can get up in court, and in full good faith without any intent to lie or deceive, disagree very strenuously with each other about some case or another that's come before the court.

    When they decide to not really engage, when they sit back and assume they've got everything figured out and that it's the patient who isn't cooperating or trying or obeying ... very damaging for the patient. Especially since you can't always know they're not dealing with you in good faith to the extent of their supposed abilities. Are they truly trying to help you, or are they just taking the easy path because lunch is soon or they have a vacation coming up?

    Totally sucks. Especially since, sometimes, a patient's condition might make them question reality or intentions more than others might. Is it you, or is it them just being unhelpful? Should you try to switch MHPs again? Sometimes that's not even possible. Not like there's a surplus of doctors and therapists and psychologists and psychiatrists just laying around begging for new patients. It can take a long time to find someone, longer to figure out payment, and if they're hostile or uninvolved in you and the help you're hoping for, back to square one.

    Lots of fun. It's a mystery why some people aren't being helped.

    10 votes

  7. Comment on Dwayne Johnson became the world’s biggest movie star. Now he’s trying to disappear. in ~movies

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    He is the modern Arnold. Right down the line, all except the accent basically. Charismatic, everyman, hard worker, big tough guy, man's man, action, comedic touches, just about everything lines...

    He is the modern Arnold. Right down the line, all except the accent basically. Charismatic, everyman, hard worker, big tough guy, man's man, action, comedic touches, just about everything lines right up with Arnie.

    I'm not so sure a lot of people remember. Or even noticed. The Rundown (2003), Arnold cameos with something that it's really hard to argue didn't turn out absolutely true. Passing the torch.

    At the time Johnson was ... not the icon he is now. People had kind of laughed (not kindly) after The Mummy Returns because the Scorpion King CGI was ... cartoonish. And that was Johnson for a few years.

    Rundown was only two years later. Four years after that he was in Doom. A lot of those films usually turned a profit (which is what Hollywood cares about), but critics savaged the hell out of them. And none of them really knocked it clear out of the park. The way Arnold always did until his run ended as he aged. Johnson's family films didn't often fair much better.

    But, just like Arnold, Johnson works hard. People like to claim steroids, and I don't doubt Johnson's done a whole lot of them, but a needle in your arm doesn't mean you look like him. Not with clocking hours in the gym, drugs or not. A lot of hours, week in, week out. And Johnson's spent the twenty years since Mummy doing a little more than just gym time.

    He hits the interview circuits and dazzles with his charm (another Arnold hallmark; Arnie has always been very charismatic), he's looked for projects where he's allowed to sometimes not just be in "strong tough guy" roles, and that work began paying off as he ascended from "just another big dude" into certified A lister.

    Johnson's name on the production means it gets greenlit. That's what A list means. Studios don't care about any particular project until they feel it's likely to guarantee returns. An A lister like Johnson all but guarantees those returns. And they have. His name on the poster, "A film starring Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson" means people do something they do less and less in the past five to eight years; go to the theater and buy a ticket.

    So it's fashionable to shit on Johnson, but he's earned his success. I never watched Wrestling but a bit of reading, and listening to people who love the muscle soap operas in the ring, reveals he always played a heel. So he was paid to be shit on. Maybe it trained him to just hold his head down and keep working, when he moved beyond the ring and into Hollywood. Whatever it was, he's eclipsed Arnold.

    Except the Governator held elected office.

    Ah well, can't win 'em all.

    25 votes

  8. Comment on Understanding the leftist that didn't vote: "Everybody else gets one, but not me" in ~society

    DavesWorld
    Link
    I'm right there with you OP. Your post's point is proved by some of the unpleasant people who responded doing the exact things, saying the exact things, you describe. They're centrists, or right...

    I'm right there with you OP. Your post's point is proved by some of the unpleasant people who responded doing the exact things, saying the exact things, you describe. They're centrists, or right of you in some way, and would rather blame and shout at you, because they can since the candidate they 'voted' for will never be in a position for them to personally blame and shout at, rather than examine the failing of the failed candidate they chose to vote for as the compromise.

    Which really just makes bad worse, for you and any other really upset and unrepresented voter. Crap like what's happening in this thread is exactly why (especially) Lefties feel so detached and isolated with the political climate.

    When holding one's nose to vote for a candidate that will only do something you truly want to happen by accident is the only "realistic option" due to things like FPTP and lack of options, and then you see candidates even further Right than that non-option win anyway ... you definitely begin to wonder what's the point.

    Which just pisses Centrists off, because they want your vote for their candidate. They don't want to do anything to get your vote, and they will fall all over themselves to primly tell you their candidate just can't do any of those things or risk alienating the Center or the Center-Right, but they still think they deserve your support anyway simply because they're not Far-Right.

    They and their candidate aren't Left either (not even close, and their candidate is usually involved in beating back any Left candidates as threats), and won't ever even give lip service to even one Left issue you'd like to see action on, but boy will they light you up for not being one of their safe votes. "How dare you" and "don't you care" and "I thought you had principles" and "help those weaker than you."

    They don't care. They just care they didn't win. They don't care to change why they're not winning, they're just angry they didn't win. It's a human reaction, because humans fear change and want to win (or, at the very least, hate losing). So they lash out, and there you go.

    Happening in this thread, repeatedly.

    8 votes

  9. Comment on How Donald Trump won, and how Kamala Harris lost in ~society

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    Yes. Being "right", having the "moral ground", means nothing if you're right and moral on the sidelines. How often, really, is worthy and fair for a candidate to get up and demand his or her...

    Democratic Party is going to have to shift to the right on a lot of social issues that just are deeply unpopular

    Yes.

    Being "right", having the "moral ground", means nothing if you're right and moral on the sidelines.

    How often, really, is worthy and fair for a candidate to get up and demand his or her entire society change? To declare his or her entire society is wrong and should listen even if the candidate's position is unpopular? Sometimes historic issues do come along, and it does matter that someone stood against an entire society and demanded they change.

    But lately, especially in the past twenty years, everyone with a social want, all the people demanding everyone else in society has to shift to their view, feels their issue is historically important. Sure, to them. But to everyone? Does it really matter to everyone, including every voter?

    Worse, and far more important, how many voters are going to use that issue as the reason they won't support a candidate? That's what happens with divisive issues. When something's controversial, they feel strongly. For or against. How many feel each way? We're counting votes, not morals. Votes dictate power, and power determines whose morals can be implemented.

    If five percent of voters consider something their Single Most Important Issue, that's five percent. Is five percent worth upsetting twenty percent of the other voters enough that they vote against you? What about thirty? Fifty? Sixty-five? Where's the line?

    I say the line's where it costs you more than gain. If five percent say "this is my red line if you want my vote" and six percent say "if you support this, don't count on my vote" ... you pick the six. Or you have a serious, extremely cautious and considered reason for not doing so.

    Because like it or not, no matter what you feel about it, how many voters can you just ignore and still win? How many issues can you play "no, this is more important than your objection" over and still defeat your opponent? The reason to tell those voters "piss off you're wrong" should be extraordinary.

    And if you lose, if you don't get the votes, you're on the sidelines so your principled stance means nothing. You have no opportunity to be an ally, to offer support, to do anything at all helpful. You lost, so you're powerless, and that's that.

    Look at what those vaunted swing voters say is important. Listen. Not to the base, to them. If most swing voters don't care about something, you shouldn't either. Unless you don't mind losing. If those swings want something, you probably should too.

    Dems and the Left need to stop teeing up softball pitches for the Right to smash so hard swing voters don't just watch admiringly, but come closer and vote for that home run.

    9 votes

  10. Comment on Why US Democrats won't build their own Joe Rogan in ~society

    DavesWorld
    Link
    Sometimes, online or in person, people will spitball about "who should run." President, Senator, something like that. And it's very common, in those conversations, for people to raise a...

    Sometimes, online or in person, people will spitball about "who should run." President, Senator, something like that. And it's very common, in those conversations, for people to raise a celebrity's name.

    Why?

    Because people follow charisma. Not intelligence, not wisdom, not "good ideas", not "fair values", nothing like that. Sure, many folks want those things. Many admire those things. But that's not leadership when you're talking about mass populations.

    A small group can be swayed by a smart, fair, perceptive, and adept person, a person with those qualities. Why? Because in those small groups, that "leader" will often have the time and ability, opportunity, to reach out personally to each member of the group. Will be able to impress them, impress upon them the reasons and purposes of decisions, will be able to show them they're listening individually to that group member's concerns.

    Large groups don't afford those opportunities. Large groups follow charisma, because that's what cuts through the noise of thousands, tens of thousands, millions and more. That's what carries when it's a speech, not a small discussion personalized to that small group's wants and wishes and wonders.

    That's what carries voters. And voters win elections.

    This pisses people off, especially on the Left. Because they feel it's some kind of attack on their honor, their integrity. They protest, they say "no, I'm not a sheep."

    Everyone's a sheep. You're either a sheep, or you might have managed to make yourself a shepherd. Sheep follow shepherds because they like them. That's charisma.

    That's what the Left doesn't have. And it's what the Right, everywhere all over the world in most places I hear about, usually has. Right stands up charismatic people who harness their appeal, their resonance, to lead. They become leaders, they qualify as leaders, because of that charisma. Right finds that charisma and wins while Left stand by sputtering about how it's not fair.

    Does it suck, that intelligence or aptitude don't weigh more? Sure. But you play the game being played. The reality is when you're trying to sway millions of people, charisma is what does it. Not "good ideas", not "integrity", not "fair." Charisma.

    That's what the Left lacks that will make the most change in the impact on elections, and thus the political futures of a country.

    Part of that is on Left 'Leadership'. Or, to fumble for some other more accurate phrasing, those people in Left circles who have "intellectually browbeaten their fellow would-be risers into polite submission." Left circles at the upper levels of whatever structures exist are small groups, and small group rules apply at that point.

    So the Lefties who show up with their "it's not fair" axes to grind, if they have intellectual passion the others perceive as honest and just and inclusive, admire those grinders and those voices rise. Eventually, into senior circles where it's presumed they're going to lead the Left.

    Meanwhile, the unwashed Left masses, who aren't anywhere near those lofty Left heights, stare blankly when one of those anointed persons steps out and begins to explain how it's important and just and fair to help grind the axes held out by that senior circle. Those Left audiences then look at each other, their fellow unwashed, and check to see responses. Looking for the direction the group's starting to go.

    Because that's what people do. It's why charisma works the way it does. Most folks are terrified of the group rejecting them. So they want to go along. When they see their fellows in that mass group becoming enthused, impassioned, devoted, that carries them along too even if they're initially more reserved.

    Dialed up to eleven, of course these reactions become fanaticism. They don't have to be wielded to that extreme, for one. And another, cult leaders and other evil, horrible people use these methods because they work.

    Obama was, still is, exceptionally charismatic. The problem, in the wake of his two terms, is he mostly just used that to get elected twice and not much else. He didn't manage to turn his charisma to broader Left goals. Because, of course, he never was Left, even if the DNC held him up to those Lefties stuck under the Center-Right tent the DNC says is the only game in town unless you want to head further right to the GOP.

    But Obama's the general example most people would remember right now. The reason he rose is because of that charisma. Not intellectual honesty, not vision, not wisdom. I'm not saying he's dishonest, lacks vision, or isn't wise; I'm saying those qualities aren't why he was elected twice. The masses flocked when he decided to explore whether or not he could move up and become President because they responded to his charisma.

    That's what the Left needs. And it's what the Left won't get as long as people on the left, from social media to neighborhood meetings to key positions with inner circles on the Left insist on continually means-testing each and every Left issue when someone begins exploring a trek up to the mountaintop where they could stand before the Left masses and lead. The checklists Left wields are weapons, used to exclude.

    "Well, you're not bad, and I don't hate you," some key Leftie who's organized a charity or some other organization that's influential will say, "but I'm not really comfortable that you don't espouse X or Y, or that you think Z or Z1 isn't the single most important thing to be highlighted and broadcast so everyone else agrees with that ranking on our To Do list. So no, I won't support you, and if you protest I will call you names, explain to the ears I have you're a bad Leftie, and not be an ally as you try to rise."

    Of course, someone with messiah level charisma has an excellent chance to sway even those tightassed naysayers. That would-be leader with Charisma who can rely on steadily rolling Natural-20s would sway those objectors, and carry them along despite the reservations and objection. Most people don't have that level of Charisma. Even a very, very charismatic person probably doesn't roll Nat20s consistently.

    Tip-top of the mountain movie stars often do. That's why they became someone the entire world knows, and usually likes. They used that charisma to entertain. But the unwashed masses who are predisposed to want to like a Leftie leader won't demand Nat20s, they'll be happy with plain ordinary "successful attribute check" results from a rising Charismatic leader.

    But few of those would-be leaders can make it past the small-group inner circle environment because those inner circle occupants means test and nitpick using the Holy Left Checklist and cast aside the failures. Proclaiming them unworthy.

    Fuck the failures. So what if they're like "well, I don't disagree, but I don't think X or Y are the most important thing, and we should just be happy with general live-and-let-live rather than working on ensuring each and every person in the country agrees it's super duper important."

    Right now, when some Leftie says that kind of thing, it's the village stoning. Lefties froth at the mouth and cast them out. "Heathen, foul unbeliever, heretic begone!"

    You want to win? You want the Left to play more of an actual role in American government? Stop nitpicking.

    Learn to accept good rather than demanding ideal. Someone doesn't have to have fervor and passion for every item on the laundry list of ideals. It's probably going to be more than enough if they generally agree "yes, these are fine and fair things I don't disagree with, but we only have so much focus we can give or ask for, so some of them are going to just be things we support rather than things we will make The Essential Issue of our efforts."

    Or, maybe the Left just are fuddyduddies in birkenstocks who aren't invited to parties because they're lame and boring. Which means the Left is basically totally fucked.

    I don't believe that. I believe there are Lefties who'd be great at the party. THE party. Senior political leadership. With the position and power to effect policy and lead the nation.

    But we'll never find those cool charismatic Lefties until the Left rank-and-file and Left inner circles stop dissing any of the Leftie cool kids who might be able to stand in front of the vast masses necessary to win elections and be given the chance to do just that. Sway voters and win elections.

    People follow charisma, not checklists. You can hate the game as much as you want, but if you don't win you're sulking on the sidelines. Would you rather win, or sulk?

    The DNC isn't left, but they like to lie and say they are. None of what I've said above is different for them. Obama managed to force them into hopping on his train, so maybe he did roll some Nat20s along the way. However you want to dissect Obama, he swayed the DNC, managed to sidestep them, or otherwise carried them as his first victory, so he was allowed without internal opposition to win two elections.

    That's what the Left needs to let happen, and the DNC would benefit from it too if they ever pulled their heads out of their asses long enough to wipe shit from their eyes and recognize the game they're losing because they play like they don't care who wins. Find some charisma distilled into a person and start organizing behind that person.

    There's a line in The American President (1995), where President Shepherd is arguing with MacInerney (Chief of Staff) and becomes frustrated with MacInerney and what he perceives as MacInerney always being in the position of pushing him into political conflicts just because it's going to be politically advantageous.

    Shepherd: Now why is that? Why are you always one step behind me?

    MacInerney: Because if I wasn't you'd be the most popular history professor at the University of Wisconsin.

    If the Left wants to win, we don't need popular professors. We need popular Presidents, Senators, Representatives, Governors, and Mayors. What can little Lefties do, little Lefties who can't win national Charisma checks?

    Stop shouting down those who can. Don't just give those Charismatic Lefties a chance to rise, help them. Look for them and lift them up. Be part of the group, so others see the group growing and decide to hop on that train so it can roll to somewhere that'll actually matter rather than derail in a ditch while the Right reaches the station. Again. Litmus tests with a hundred boxes are a key reason the Left lingers in the shadows.

    People follow Charisma. Focus that, follow that, or stay in the shadows.

    5 votes

  11. Comment on Thoughts on a Democratic postmortem in ~society

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    Bingo. Spot on. And yet, all over the Tildes threads, all over Reddit, all over social media, you see non-MAGA people angry about the election doing what they've been unsuccessfully doing for...

    Bingo. Spot on.

    And yet, all over the Tildes threads, all over Reddit, all over social media, you see non-MAGA people angry about the election doing what they've been unsuccessfully doing for years now.

    Pulling the race card. Claiming bigotry. Like there exists no other reason, no other possibility, for why someone might have voted Trump. They just say "those fucking racists" and that's it. That's all they think about anyone who doesn't vote their favored candidate. That there was no reason not to vote for Harris except bigotry.

    Race and racism isn't the reason populism is on the upswing. Economics and human nature are. Even a casual look at history, even just American history though it's largely the same if you look at European history too, bears the same story out. A story that repeats.

    When times are tough, when people are desperate, they want help and they want it now. Economic help most of the time. They can't find jobs, they can't find well paying jobs, costs go up, they go hungry, they have to crowd together in small houses, they go homeless, and they get desperate.

    That's when populists rise. By definition, populists tap those fears. Trump's a fucking moron (and conman, idiot, felon, etc, many bad things), but he talks the populist talk which is why he bears that label. When populism strengthens, people want help and they fear anything they perceive as interfering with that help. Today's no different.

    Which is why people pulled the lever for Trump.

    But, somehow, non-MAGA are just astounded that someone who isn't white might have pulled that same lever. "But they're ... they're ... they're not white! Why would they vote for Trump, for MAGA, if they're ... not white!"

    Demonstrating their lack of thought, their lack of knowledge, and that they haven't even casually studied the political circumstances the US is gripped by. Desperate people grab whatever they think will help. Trump lies, but he told lies they wanted to grab onto. And maybe, accidentally I expect, some small amounts of help might come their way. But whether there is or isn't any actual help, they already voted.

    They already believed.

    And calling them all racists is one of the fastest ways to guarantee they will not listen to you. To anyone who's doing that to them. It's an insanely loaded term, and most people who want to level it at the Trump voters know that full well. It's partly why a lot of them are flinging it in the first place. They hate the Other, the same as MAGA hates its Others.

    There are reasons people voted for Trump that don't involve "fuck anyone who's not White." Many of those reasons can be addressed in ways that will defang MAGA and Conservatives.

    Or, we can just keep driving wedges and fanning the flames of polarization. Assuming, of course, we don't fall to a dictatorship or civil war. If we don't, if we do continue to exist as a country, people need to open their eyes and stop viewing "Others" as frothing at the mouth demons.

    Millions of ordinary people voted for Trump, for MAGA. Should they have? I don't think so. I consider it a mistake. But I'm trying to understand why, because without why there's no change. There's no path forward. Pissing them all off, making it clear anytime you interact with them and encouraging anyone else who interacts with them to simply insult and label them in vitriolic and incendiary ways does nothing but absolutely, positively guarantee they will hate you more.

    And you'll understand them less.

    14 votes

  12. Comment on Donald Trump's team mulls postponing Ukraine's NATO membership for at least twenty years, WSJ reports in ~society

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    Trump isn't President until after the oath at noon on 20 Jan 25. Biden, assuming he's still coherent, still has a few months to act. One thing that occurred to me is Biden could deploy active...

    Trump isn't President until after the oath at noon on 20 Jan 25. Biden, assuming he's still coherent, still has a few months to act.

    One thing that occurred to me is Biden could deploy active forces if he wanted, and push for a resolution by dislodging Russian troops from Ukraine's borders. Or he could move up a number of arms and equipment shipments and simply dump them over to Ukrainian control now, before the transition of power and he loses the ability to give those orders.

    The problem with a deployment is the same one that's already been in play; escalation. Which is a whole conversation, concern. Biden, again if he's still there, came up in the Cold War. Russia might be a shadow of a shadow of the USSR, but it still has an extensive nuclear arsenal that is the sole complicating factor in any popular solutions you'll hear. Such as my mention of deploying troops to directly assist Ukraine.

    Biden's earliest comments, when people clamored for more direct US intervention as a savior (or whatever) highlighted the concern of Russia escalating. That was years ago, and the situation is just worse now because Putin won't allow himself to be seen as week. He is, because Russia is, but that has no bearing on the lies he props up to himself, his people, and his country. Put him in a corner and the geo-strategic concern is he'll lash out simply because he lost. Again, it's a whole thing with no simple, clear, easy answer.

    The situation's extremely messy. Always has been. Hasn't changed.

    Ukraine has until 20 Jan to figure out if they can continue without being able to expect any real US support (assuming Trump will cut them off cold, as he's proclaimed he will), or find another path forward. But Trump can't do anything yet except issue press releases.

    12 votes

  13. Comment on Cheaper ways to heat a log cabin workshop (UK) in ~life.home_improvement

    DavesWorld
    Link
    You're facing one-time expenses (such as insulating the cabin sufficiently to reduce ongoing heating costs), or on-going expenses (energy for heat, whether it's fuel or electric or sun). I can't...

    You're facing one-time expenses (such as insulating the cabin sufficiently to reduce ongoing heating costs), or on-going expenses (energy for heat, whether it's fuel or electric or sun).

    I can't really think of any cheap way that doesn't involve getting something free though. Like, if you knew a contractor or construction person or something, who could give you free/cheap insulation and help install it, that would be cheap. If you knew a carpenter or someone who worked for a local shop that regularly has a dumpster full of wood off-cuts you'd be allowed to regularly show up and take for a wood-burning stove, that'd be free (or cheap).

    Most ongoing "free" solutions probably involve time (and resources like vehicle use along with loading/unloading). You might live next to an unclaimed forest, but logging or collecting deadfall would take hours each week to find and prepare and load into a wood fired stove. That's not "free" even if it wouldn't cost direct dollars to obtain, for example.

    Perhaps get some solar panels, hook them straight up to an electric heater? That's "free" after the one-time capital cost. During the day whatever power the panels can throw down to the cabin is "free heat" at that point. Doesn't help at night, obviously, and batteries are very expensive. The solar panels themselves are typically very affordable, if you can avoid having to pay through the nose to an electrician to wire them into the structure's electric panel. It's installation and the battery that break the bank on solar often times.

    Wind generator, same as the solar panels, for when the winter wind is howling? Do you live by a creek or river, could get a hydro generator, same concept.

    But free or cheap that actually provides heat ... tall order.

    2 votes

  14. Comment on 2024 United States election megathread in ~society

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    Social change won't happen until economic change makes the playing field more level. That's what both of Trump's wins should be teaching anyone paying attention who wants to figure out how to win...

    Social change won't happen until economic change makes the playing field more level. That's what both of Trump's wins should be teaching anyone paying attention who wants to figure out how to win an election, who is struggling to duplicate Trump's "mysterious appeal." It really shouldn't have taken someone like Trump to teach it, but people never learn until they're smacked in the face with a shovel.

    Is the DNC gonna change? It's nice to think they do care and do want to figure out how to best represent the non-right of the country. But they either do that, and do want to do it ... or they don't and they'll just (again) use "social change" as a distraction from any possibility of economic change.

    Bush Senior lost because he raised taxes. James Carville hammered George on that that while helping orchestrate Clinton's victory over Bush Sr's reelection with something that's memeing around online today. "It's the economy stupid." Regan ran on economic change (while lying through his teeth and sentencing tens of millions to generational poverty). Obama lied through his teeth and promised economic change (while looking and sounding totally sincere, which got him elected).

    If we survive to 2028, baring some miraculous positive change in the economic fortunes of the tens of millions of voters who just pulled the lever for a con man who promised them that change, if the DNC trots out someone who runs on "social change", that's the proof they've learned absolutely nothing. That they want no change that matters, that they aren't seriously attempting to gather the votes needed to win.

    People vote their self interest. When most people are poor, they want a better economic future. A social idealist pissed that "but it's not fair" will be pissed on the sidelines, sulking that it wasn't unfair enough to convince people to vote against their self interest. Poor people want jobs, lower costs, a chance at a life they don't live in panic.

    It's just that simple. So simple that even a complete idiot like Trump managed to use it.

    4 votes

  15. Comment on 2024 United States election megathread in ~society

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    The democratic establishment will never allow AOC to be nominated. Any more than they were ever going to allow Sanders to be nominated. The DNC is Center-Right. They're Regan Republicans with...

    The democratic establishment will never allow AOC to be nominated. Any more than they were ever going to allow Sanders to be nominated.

    The DNC is Center-Right. They're Regan Republicans with slightly better PR. That's one of the key reasons they continue to message on identity politics, social issues, and anything other than meaningful Main Street level economic change. Their money, their contributions and donations and nudge-nudge deals come from ... wait for it ... the wealthy! Corporations, billionaires, and a lot of mere nine and eight digit bank account millionaires.

    When you don't just take their money, but want it, you can't turn around and message against their interests. The money would stop. Companies don't want regulations, they don't want taxes, they don't want capital gains or equitable wealth distribution, fair wages, universal healthcare, or anything else that eats into their bottom lines.

    And they're who fund the campaigns. Who fund the junkets, the think tanks, the side jobs and free vacations, the coincidental largess that will mysteriously enrich the friends and family and actual establishment politicians.

    Don't take my word for it. Look at the DNC. Hell, just look at the past decade. They don't help little people. They make no meaningful, impactful changes to the economic futures of voters. Not plans, not long term changes. Right now changes. Things that will kick in this month or next, and lower costs or raise income for the average little person who's desperate to hang on and terrified of being left to fall without a lifeline.

    The DNC takes the money wealthy offer, waves social issues at the voter base, and win or lose heads back into the back rooms to celebrate while their wealthy benefactors pat them on the head and tell them what a good job they're doing.

    I was paying $1.31 for milk in 2020. $0.49 for a can of soup. Before that year was out, Milk had jumped to $2.53. Soup is now $0.68 each. I was thinking about this early this morning, trying to collect my thoughts, and went out for my walk. On the way back I stopped to pick up milk. And it's gone up another ten cents. $2.63 now. My entire grocery bill is like that, each and every time I eat. And I gotta eat.

    Everyone's grocery bill is like that. Everyone's paying a lot more just to put food in their bellies, along with everything else they need to survive and live a basic life. It's all gone up and there's not even a hint of a lie that it might come back down. Pony up peasant, or get lost; we're not running a charity.

    Housing used to be roughly a fifth of an American household's costs. Now it's closer to thirty percent than twenty. Landlords, corporate and private, are squeezing. Wage increases aren't keeping up, haven't been keeping up. Not for little people they haven't. Sure it's nice when someone on the good side of middle class is promoted and enjoys a little bit of juice, but it's being squeezed out of the pockets of little people who are down to bedrock and don't have much left to give.

    Everything has gone up. And while it pleases the wealthy, and economists (who are usually wealthy) that the stock market is doing so well, and the manipulated numbers the establishment politicians and elite professorial economists will praise to say "inflation isn't high", in real terms to real people who are really struggling to live their lives, real down on the street inflation is high. And it's hurting them in very real terms.

    I haven't kept close tabs on AOC in the past year or two, but last I checked, last I heard, she was Progressive who preached Progressive politics. Economic change in so many words.

    Something the people who pay for politicians are never going to sit idly by and allow to take the Presidency.

    Trump is a populist. He's a lot of other things too, and the list of his negative qualities, the ridiculous insanity he espouses is both well known and really a waste of time to again belabor. Especially now since it doesn't fucking matter because he'll have the power he craves like air in a few months.

    But he doesn't talk like an establishment politician. Which is why voters swung to him. Harris talks, acts, like what she is; establishment. She was never a popular choice, and a lot of people, even those who felt they had no choice but to vote for her, weren't happy about it.

    Fifteen million fewer voters showed up in favor of Harris than Biden in 2020.

    The completely lazy reaction to that is "the nation is racist and bigoted." Or, maybe, possibly, there are a lot of desperate people who live in a constant state of panic over how they can't cover their bills.

    A drowning man will drag you down with both arms. The only people shocked by the notion that average ordinary voters would make a decision (right or wrong, it's irrelevant to argue that it's right or wrong in the wake of an election that's already been decided) based on "selfish personal interests" are part of the problem. Are part of the "but why" protests circulating today as they struggle to understand how "but Trump bad" wasn't enough to secure victory.

    Which is definitely pissing a lot of people. They hate that "but Trump bad" isn't enough. They hate that "but the stock market is doing great" isn't enough. The hate that "well, if you qualify for these minor programs we could maybe send you for retraining and then in three to seven years you could perhaps be hired in a theoretical better paying job" isn't enough.

    It doesn't matter that someone interested in social issues, in the long term, is confused that basic human nature made more people pick the populist who talks like he might help them now versus yet another establishment politician they've already learned won't. Because the populist won.

    Will Trump help the little people? Of course not! He doesn't care a lick. And regardless, Trump's campaign was, of course, also funded by the wealthy.

    I would love, absolutely love, to see AOC in the White House unless she's pulled some kind of 180 shift I haven't noticed. If she's still the hard charging progressive I remember hearing about, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. Because I believe she'd help me. Not just me, but lots of people. But I'd vote for her because I'd be better off.

    Which is what most people do when they vote. They think about what helps them. It's what the wealthy do. AOC would devastate them and their interests. And while they only have one vote each, they have millions of times more money than the little people of the country. They use that money to buy influence and control the process to ensure nothing will change.

    There are a lot of people, here on Tildes, over on Reddit, all across social media, who are just befuddled and angry that "people voted against their interests." That "people didn't care about the issues."

    People did care about the issues, and did vote their interests. They saw an establishment politician, and a conman who sold them a story of a better life. Elections aren't about a better nation. They're about winning votes. Those voters want a better life, and the worse off they are the faster they want it, need it.

    Trump convinced his base he's their path to some piece of a better life. Harris convinced a lot of swing and independent voters she wasn't. That's one of the things that fifteen million difference in her totals versus Biden's in 2020 is spelling out.

    The best case for all of us, and thus the country since a rising tide does lift all ships, would be for economic change that helps the hundreds of millions of little people who aren't wealthy and likely never will be. They'll be less desperate, less panicked, less afraid of losing their house, of starving, of having to leave illness, injury, or disease untreated simply because they can't afford care.

    Something the wealthy are never going to support, because they like receiving such a gross outsized piece of the financial pie. Basic human interest.

    Democrats haven't done well at convincing little people they care about those things. Democrats point at identity and social issues and say "ooh, scary, do you want those people to suffer?"

    Telling that to someone already suffering falls on deaf ears. Sure it'd be nice if everyone was empathetic and kind, if everyone would help flood that rising tide so all boats would lift. But when they're drowning, they want a life preserver first, right now, for themselves. And after they're safely ashore, out of danger, you can reasonably convince a lot of them they might want to help someone else.

    Trump is a disaster. There's a non-zero chance the country's going to disintegrate on a nation-state level unless most everything he and Project 2025 have laid out were just some kind of amusing story they don't plan to implement. If they do carry those things through, then most of this doesn't matter because the US will no longer be united and historical change will either permanently divide the nation or turn it into an open, unabashed, shouting the quiet part from the rooftops autocratic oligarchy.

    But he talked about life preservers. Not "the future" in some mealy mouthed way while trying to distract things that poor people struggling to get by don't care about when they're starving, homeless, and afraid.

    The DNC will never allow AOC, Elizabeth Warren, anyone like that to run. Regan never did, and the DNC won't either. They keep the same company and embrace the same policies.

    They had four years to prepare for this election. It is abundantly clear they did not. We can either assume they really are that inept (and, sadly, isolated from sufficient consequences to encourage change), or that they never wanted to succeed in the first place. They like things just like this. The rich getting richer, and the poor being too desperate to ever fight back against a landlord, employer, or oligarch.

    There's one hope. The same hope we've had for a few decades now. There are more of us, than there are of them. You saw it in 2020 with the Floyd protests. Little people rose up when they decided their outrage over police brutality had hit a breaking point.

    That terrified the establishment, the government, the oligarchs. You saw brutal crackdowns, designed to re-institute the everyman's fear of The Man. Of Government, of police, of speaking out and standing up.

    Powder box or ballot box. If the nation survives to 2028, a candidate who harnesses the tens of millions of desperate little people could gather those votes. All that person, man or woman, black or white or any other wonderful human color under the sun, gay or straight, transitioned, whatever ... all that person has to do is convince the country's citizens that he, she, it, whoever, is going to help them immediately. That wages will go up, prices will go down, because people are desperate and being left behind.

    The wealthy have a lot of money. But they're still just one vote. If someone can harness populism and gather enough of all those little votes, like Trump did as a con, there's a chance the country could change.

    But it's hard. So much easier to just cooperate with the establishment. The Democrats, Republicans (MAGA or not) won't allow it. They'll be the front lines fighting against an AOC who truly, honestly, wants to rip apart the economic status quo and help the little people. Because the wealthy like pie, and don't want to share.

    Someone can find a way to rally those people, but the DNC has had a lot of time to "explain" things to AOC. Has she ignored them? Is she just biding her time until she can run once she's 35? Or has she been corrupted into the establishment too?

    If she hasn't, they're going to fight her. If she has, then it won't matter anyway because hello status quo.

    Living in the middle of a history book chapter sucks, huh? Would've been nice if people had woken up to how uninterested either side of the aisle is in helping them. But they didn't, and they listened to the con man who at least pretends like he cares.

    That's how you win elections. You gather votes. And, gasp, if you have to lie to do it ... this is the real world. People lie. They cheat, they steal, they abuse power. Money is power. None of this should be news. That we have idealists who think it's enough to pretend "we're better than them" is enough for the fairy tale ending is a reason why Trump's going to destroy everyone.

    Populists get votes. The clue's in the name. Even evil, lying, felonious, power hungry cheats still get votes when they smile and pretend to throw out life preservers.

    Maybe the reason Democrats suck so much is the are that principled. That they actually do think, if they can just be "moral" and "play the long game" they'll lead us to utopia. That they're unwilling to lie and manipulate the electorate, even if that means they lose, because they only want to win in the "right" way.

    Or, maybe, Democrats don't care and like things just the way they are. One seems a hell of a lot more likely than the other. An awful lot of money flows through the establishment. But nah, they're all principled moral people who truly care and just don't want to get their shoes dirty if that's what it would take to do some good for us little people. That's totally it.

    7 votes

  16. Comment on US Election Distractions Thread in ~talk

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    I've had the idea before of getting long enough cables (keyboard, mouse, monitors) so I can put the computer in another room, but still have the part that I really interact with on my desk. Of...

    I've had the idea before of getting long enough cables (keyboard, mouse, monitors) so I can put the computer in another room, but still have the part that I really interact with on my desk. Of course, the "ultimate" version of my idea is that other room would be in a freezer or something, where I can not have to even really need the fans so much since the computer would be chilled down by default.

    One can dream.

    I do use case fans connected to a USB power plug mounted to the room's return vent (on the ceiling) to pull warm air out. And thus out of the room where I (and my computer) reside. Which works really well and is way, way, way quieter than a normal big box store fan. Those are always loud, even if you mount them on the ceiling.

    2 votes

  17. Comment on Pennsylvania should not determine the outcome of the election in ~society

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    That's just game theory. No matter what system, it would be gamed. And the most advantageous and efficient methods of achieving victory would be pursued. There will always be swing votes. Whatever...

    It's really bothersome that the national election centers on pandering to swing states.

    That's just game theory. No matter what system, it would be gamed. And the most advantageous and efficient methods of achieving victory would be pursued.

    There will always be swing votes. Whatever form, whatever issue. There's always a place where the lever's set, that serves as a fulcrum.

    What if we did go with Popular Vote? You'd still see targeted campaigning, irrespective of which parties remained, what they stood for, and whatever they called themselves.

    A touch under 155 million votes were cast in the 2020 US national elections. Half of that is 77.5 million. The top nine metro areas in the US total more than that halfway mark (roughly 82 million). Two are in Texas (Dallas and Houston). NY/NJ is tops by far, LA, Chicago, then you skip down to Atlanta, DC, Philly, and Miami.

    NY and LA alone outnumber the next three combined; Chicago along with Dallas and Houston, incidentally. People who live in NY and LA would absolutely agree their opinion should matter a lot on the national stage. Even if it excludes other views, so what? Majority rules.

    Of course you could reasonably argue that not everyone votes. Obviously they don't, and yes it's a problem, but one for another discussion. So if you keep adding up, you get down to about number 33 on the list to find enough metro areas to total up past the ~155 voters. Those thirty-three metro areas have as much population as voted in 2020. If roughly half of those citizens are voters you're probably pretty much targeting those areas because they're easier to reach and comprise most of who you'd need to win.

    Many of those places are already the places being complained about as swing states. My fast and dirty calculator session got down to Columbus and Cleveland. So Ohio would still be swing. Pittsburgh and Philly are still in that top 33, so Pennsylvania is still swing. Tampa and Miami are there, so Florida would still be swing.

    Lots of Center Right Democrats on social media want Popular Vote. Why? They perceive it as advantageous. That's their sole reason. They think "we'd win more often, we should do it." The Right, on the other hand, perceive it as disadvantageous. Who's right? They both are.

    Answer me this. If you (the royal you, like the royal we) were facing a change that disadvantaged you ... can you honestly say you'd agree to the change? If you do, honestly, you're the exception. People in the modern era do not go gently into that good night. They go into opposition and fight to have relevance, if not victory. Usually victory, but at least relevance.

    Remember, you have a lot of places that aren't in that top 33 metro list. Or even in the top 50. Something like 20% of the US population doesn't live in a metro area. How are they going to react? Will they just be like "golly, those them there politician bastards sure are smart, spending all their focus on them places where all them fancy city folk live. It's right we don't count none."

    (Because of course anyone who doesn't live in a big city is a dumb hick. Just ask a big city person, they'll tell you so.)

    Or, would that ~20% be annoyed they don't count anymore? Might they polarize? Think they're more, or less likely to polarize if it becomes crystal clear they officially don't count? If they weren't polarized before, they probably are after. And they have access to social media, even if their vote doesn't count when the rules change to guarantee it.

    One of the things social media's done is modify how the national conversation works. It used to only truly matter what a couple of cities thought, because everyone funneled through traditional media. So when the Times in New York or LA spoke, that mattered. When the LA or NY TV stations broadcast, that mattered. The heartland, the "fly over states" they were basically only hearing whatever was already coming out of NY or LA anyway, and the line of communication didn't go back the other way.

    Meaning any muttering from those small ignored communities didn't matter. Because even if they did mutter and pout and stomp their feet, who heard? No one. Or, at least, no one who counted. Pissed off people in NY counted, pissed off people in the flyover states were something historians would later write about and that was the end of it. NY and LA news never said "tonight, outrage in the Midwest" because who cared? Not people in NY or LA that's for sure, so it never made the news.

    And most news in the country was NY and LA news since they fed the local stations. Mono culture.

    Now though, those angry voters who don't live in a Big City hop online and share their rage. They can find their people. Dynamic culture. Everyone's viewpoints, not a few curated ones.

    That's one of the big things no one really understood would happen with social media. Everyone assumed the consensus would solidify, because that's what we always had; consensus. Just it was imposed by a few curated media sources. Everyone thought online consensus would be as easy and obvious as the curated consensus always was.

    Now though, no matter how much of an outlier your view might be, whatever that view is, with more than 300 million people in the country there's probably at least a few thousand who'll agree with you.

    A surprising number of "minority viewpoints" actually count their supporters in the millions, tens of millions sometimes. Sure that might not be enough to count at the ballot box, when ~80 or ~100 million wins a national election, but it is more than enough for those people pissed that they "don't count" when voting to rabble rabble rabble and stir the pot.

    Because if they can't win, why shouldn't they try to change the game to one they might? Again, that's what people do. Game theory. They try to win. The modern era of electronic civilization as it applies to societal politics has seen game theory shred civility and any chance of consensus.

    It's what trying to raise up Popular Vote is doing. Change the game to be more advantageous. It's just as wrong as hearing about polarization of a "minority" view point and thinking those people are both evil and irrelevant and should just stop because they don't count. Thinking that they're simply trying to change the game because they're sore losers. Of course they are. Same as Dems are pushing stuff like PV.

    The problem isn't how we vote. It isn't even that not everyone votes (another thing you often see Center or Left people lamenting; that if only everyone was required to vote everything would be fine because of course it would).

    Polarization is the problem. No one, on either side of the aisles and divides, knows how to give. Pick any "hot" issue and you almost immediately begin hearing people demand a national law that gives them the win. How many laws have overwhelming support nationwide? Even 60% support means 40% percent are disappointed.

    Some are more than disappointed. They feel bullied. Ignored. They take to social media, rabble rabble rabble, and they find their people.

    There's no golden bullet that fixes polarization. But we need to find a way to get folks to be not just a little more flexible, willing to accept less than total victory. But also a little more willing to live and let live. Which isn't a political issue, but a social one.

    The really sad thing is a lot of people truly do seem to think they can just impose a viewpoint. Left and right both think this, and both talk about finding a way to do it.

    Except you can't 'fix' social media by censoring it. That's censoring speech. If someone advocates for criminality, that's a crime that should be charged and dealt with. But if they're simply exercising their speech, just because you disagree doesn't mean you have the right to censor them.

    Right or Left. It's evil and fascist either way you cut it, and you can't take 20 or 40 percent of the country and say "you don't count, but you'll be problematic for us if you hop on social media, so you can't talk either." That's fascist straight out of the definition.

    And the funniest part of all this? Left (and Center, including Center-Right Dem) loves to ridicule a popular notion the Right embraces. That of "the good old days." Left usually calls it racist, misogynistic, and downright evil. Only an evil bigoted fucker would long for the good old days, when of course everything was evil and bigoted.

    Yet looking for a way to ignore polarization, and simply change the political structure so some number of the country that's the ~80 or ~100 million needed to win a national election is all that will ever matter and we'll make certain those winning voters only reside in the right places ... that's a return to mono culture. The good old days. Exactly what we had before social media.

    When only NY and LA's viewpoints counted and got any airtime, got communicated, got heard.

    I bet those "irrelevant citizens" would take to social media and bitch about it. They'd polarize. They'd feel marginalized and discriminated against. I bet some of them wouldn't take it lying down, and would try to change the system so they had some relevance.

    Same as you would if you were made irrelevant. You'd look to change the game to one you can win.

    6 votes

  18. Comment on Non-college educated White men used to be ahead in the American economy. Now they’ve fallen behind. in ~finance

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    Finally a sensible contribution that's on topic and speaks to the actual issue raised by this article. Well done. This thread has turned into the Tildes version of a dumpster fire. Not much (any?)...
    • Exemplary

    Finally a sensible contribution that's on topic and speaks to the actual issue raised by this article. Well done.

    This thread has turned into the Tildes version of a dumpster fire. Not much (any?) overt flaming, mostly civilized, but definitely a lot of attempts to pivot it away from the article topic and into something else folks would rather talk about instead. By doing so, they're proving they're part of the reason why the article was written in the first place.

    There are men who do not want to sit in an office. They don't consider that work. Further, a lot of these types of men don't even really know how to do that. And couldn't be trained to sit behind those desks pushing those papers with any sort of efficiency or success. They'd be miserable and depressed, because it's not who they are and not what they want to do with their lives.

    They're people who want to work with their hands.

    They want to see what they create. They want to build the house, shape the ground, fabricate the item out of metal or whatever. They want to make stuff, carry stuff, deliver stuff, collect stuff. Physically. They want to plant seed, harvest trees, they want to work with their hands. And yeah, they'd like to take home a paycheck for that, know they're supporting not just themselves but a family with it. They want to have a simple but fulfilling life, and they don't deserve to be ridiculed or crushed for it.

    These are men who, when they were in high school, got a lot of shit from most of their teachers. Who derided them for wanting to make and create, who kept ragging on them to "study harder, go to college, don't you care about your future, don't you want to do something important with your life?"

    That upset them, because the things they want to do, the things they like to do, are important. Houses don't just build themselves, no matter how much money a six or seven figure tie wearing "professional" is ready to throw at the project. Someone has to take actual physical materials and build with them. Shape them into boards and nails and put them together, into pipes and wires that are strung through the walls.

    It pisses these men off when so much of the rest of the country sneers at them, treats them like second class citizens who aren't important. When they're sighed at, when the attitude they're given is something akin to "well, yeah, sure you make things, but what if you'd really tried to make something of yourself?" The constant accusation leveled at them being they're worthless and unimportant and thus irrelevant simply because they don't put on a tie and bang away on a keyboard all week.

    If you're someone who does wear a tie and bang that keyboard in exchange for a paycheck, you don't have to understand their attitude. Odds are you probably don't anyway. You're probably one of the people who sneers at those who work with their hands, who considers those people irrelevant and replaceable, meaningless.

    Which is fine. I mean, it's not, but a person is allowed to feel whatever they feel. But it's hypocrisy to believe that and then have the gall to wonder why tradesmen and others who work with their hands resent being looked down upon and treated like the scum of not just the economy, but society in general. Simply because they're hands-on men.

    That's what this article is touching upon, and it's what most of the posters in the thread don't seem to understand.

    If you treat an entire demographic segment (men who work with their hands) as useless and stupid, you don't get to be surprised when they decide to take you at your face value and assume you hate them. That you don't care about them.

    Who do those men go looking for? The same anyone who's rejected goes looking for; someone who'll treat them better. Here, right now, that's not Democrats. Who are center right and cozying up to big business and wealth without a backwards glance at all the little people being left behind.

    Only, unlike Republicans, Democrats cloak that, try to distract from it, by espousing social issues like gender and sexuality and so on at the top of their lungs. Which is fine, except they do it by putting down men at every opportunity, and while economically talking about how everyone in the country should be a skilled worker because "that's better."

    Trump is a narcissistic, deeply unintelligent idiot, liar, felon, dishonest cheat and crook, arguably a traitor ... but he and the Republicans don't tell hands-on men they're useless bigoted assholes who deserved to be treated harshly and ground into dust. Those ads Democrats and the left like to laugh about, where "old fashioned American values" are waved like the flag, about small towns and hard working folks who build and grow and fix to keep the country running ... the fact the left consider that comedic is part of the problem.

    That's another big part of why men are flocking to the Republicans. They don't get treated like asshole problems there. Why would they want to go Left, hang out with Democrats or Progressives, when those groups treat them like shit? Hint: they don't. When you turn up and everyone yells at you, sneers at you, tut-tuts at you, tells you you're wrong and worthless and a huge negative in general, logically you stop turning up.

    But most people do turn up somewhere. So where do they turn up? A place where they're welcomed.

    Stop belittling men who want to build the country. Skilled knowledge jobs are wonderful. But someone still builds the office that knowledge worker sits in. Someone still runs the plumbing, picks up the garbage, makes lunch, landscapes the grounds, butchers the meat, harvests the vegetables, assembles the computers, trucks in goods, and all those other "useless, worthless, meaningless things that aren't as important as real work like knowledge labor."

    The article has captured a segment of the population, men, who've been purposefully driven off. Who've retreated to any safe harbor because who wants to live a life where they're treated as bigoted, sexist, neanderthals simply for existing?

    Anyone who's surprised that working class men are flocking to Republicans, who don't treat them like that, who do tout and laud the work ethic of a common man doing common but valued work for his community and family, is who needs to sit down and think about the article. Think about the trends it's showcasing.

    Of course Republicans are every bit as committed to big business and building wealth as Democrats. A bit moreso arguably. Of course Republicans have no actual interest in helping men or any other little person in having a better life. But the difference, which this article captures, is where Democrats tell men "fuck you for not wearing a tie and being a gentle feminist", Republicans say "old fashioned values are the heart and soul of America."

    One message resonates better with men than better. Political branding, of course. Obviously. That's what branding is though. The message you parrot to attract voters. Republicans are talking talk men want to hear, so even if voting for Republicans is dangerously misguided, men still want the constant belittling to stop. Democrats are who belittles them, so most of those men drift toward the branding that doesn't proclaim they're worthless problems who deserve a life of misery and poverty.

    The way to reverse those trends is to not drive men off. It'd be nice to actually treat everyone with respect and dignity, to provide for well paying jobs that enable a solid ordinary life, but let's not get crazy. What are we gonna do, eat the rich? No, of course not. But we could at least stop tearing each other down. And here, if it's so important to keep the Republicans from power, finding a way to make rejected men feel worthwhile and valued would remove a key component of the Republican base.

    Which should be the goal. Right? To weaken the right? Finding ways to draw the right in your direction should be a serious thing being seriously worked on, rather than something just left to a shrug and a careless hand wave.

    "Oh, men? Fuck men, they're probably racist sexist assholes anyway. That's why they have dirt on their hands and aren't cultured enough to vote Democrat. Shame really, that they're so stupid and misguided, but there's nothing for it but to ridicule them and make it clear we feel they're worthless. Guess we should get to it."

    And I'd ask this. Very simple. If you'd treat a woman or a minority the way you treat a man, and object, why is it okay to treat the man like that? Are you really surprised the man doesn't think your treatment is fair?

    One of the things standing in the way of political change is how so many on the left assume anyone right of them is a racist, sexist bigot. Stop that. If someone demonstrates with actions they are, that's when you label them and treat them accordingly. After all, they just proved it. But until they do, saying they are, treating them as if they are, isn't just stupid and incorrect.

    It drives them away.

    Drives them from you, from the left. Stop it. Want them to listen? Want them to come away from the right? Treat them like valued members of society, people with dignity and worth. Not like misguided problems.

    8 votes

  19. Comment on Character.AI faces US lawsuit after teen's suicide in ~tech

    DavesWorld
    Link
    First, the NYT is currently in litigation against OpenAI, Microsoft AI, and probably other AI companies I may have forgottena bout. Trying to push the argument that AI processing of any and all...
    • Exemplary

    Sewell was diagnosed with mild Asperger’s syndrome as a child, but he never had serious behavioral or mental health problems before, his mother said. Earlier this year, after he started getting in trouble at school, his parents arranged for him to see a therapist. He went to five sessions and was given a new diagnosis of anxiety and disruptive mood dysregulation disorder.

    some (chatbots) market themselves as a way of combating the so-called loneliness epidemic.

    And when users are experiencing a mental health crisis, their A.I. companions may not be able to get them the help they need.

    First, the NYT is currently in litigation against OpenAI, Microsoft AI, and probably other AI companies I may have forgottena bout. Trying to push the argument that AI processing of any and all content the NYT might have published at any point is a copyright violation. So there's an inherent conflict of interest in NYT AI "coverage."

    If you look back over the recent months, as they've posted pieces targeting AI, it's easy to see how they have a vested reason to keep fanning flames and inciting fear mongering with anti-AI stories as a way to try and "subtly" build public sentiment in their favor (and against AI).

    Second, on the specific case cited, we have here (again) an Autistic person who's being frozen out of basic social interaction. "Trouble at school" when combined with an autistic person is very often the autistic person being themselves, which upsets, alarms, and irritates non-Autistic people. Other students as well as teachers and administrators.

    The school punted to a counselor, who came back with yet another diagnosis. Nothing is mentioned about what help Sewell might have been offered. Which, to be clear, needed to not be drugs but some sort of therapy that would have provided him an outlet to understand and learn "how to fit in."

    And that is a super dangerous and volatile subject, since most such 'therapies' basically consist of telling the autistic "stop being yourself." They want the autistic to sit down, shut up, don't fidget, don't ask questions, stop being "problematic" with curiosity and interests and so on. But, theoretically, a good and invested therapist who tried to act as a bridge between Sewell's behaviors and how they're perceived, and who worked with Sewell to understand these perceptions and look for ways to fit in more gently and non-invasively ... that could have been helpful to Sewell.

    Could have saved his life.

    Helpful here is defined as an outcome where Sewell stops feeling so isolated and outcast. A non-helpful outcome, which is what will usually be pushed, would be one where Sewell is very aggressively 'taught' to "stop being yourself" as mentioned above.

    Third, a lot of people do not have access to "mental health resources." Waiting lists are insane. Trained mental health professionals and services are often few and far between, and expensive even if available. So that little comment NYT threw in about a chatbot not being able to get them the mental health help they might need is just missing the forest for the handful of pine cones laying scattered around on the ground.

    Sewell had "access", but he only got five sessions. And there's zero mention of what "help" was provided, just a diagnosis that doesn't involve his autism. Which, again, isn't a disease. Or a problem to be fixed. Autism is the same as being gay, bi, being black or white or latin, being young or old. Autism is who you are. It is incredibly offensive to be told who you are is wrong, and you need to cut it out.

    So what "fix" were they going to offer Sewell in five sessions? Especially when they just ended the fifth with a foisted off "diagnosis" of something that's not going to address the autism that is likely the reason Sewell was referred in the first place.

    Most people won't have access. Many folks are budget crunched for all the usual reasons thanks to the society we live in crunching them. When a therapist or doctor is going to charge two to three hundred per hour ... a lot of the time that's food for the week and gas to get to your low pay job. Many therapists aren't even well trained in autism or in how autistics aren't "broken 'normal' people". So the money you scrape up by going without is just wasted.

    Reference the line in the second X-Men movie. "Have you tried ... not being a mutant?" That's what a lot of untrained "mental health professionals" will lob at autistic people who do end up in front of them. "Have you tried ... not being autistic?" Very few such "professionals" have any specific knowledge of or training in autism, and resultingly are often doing more harm than good when they sit down with an autistic.

    Further, there's a very clear theme in autism. That of becoming invisible the moment an autistic becomes an adult. You rarely see autism discussed in an adult context. Most of the time, any mention (certainly any media mention) will be of children. Autistic adults just don't count, aren't important. Which is why the dearth of affordable and autistic-specific therapists, counselors, and other mental health professionals trained in autism is such a huge problem, and the reason I mention it.

    Which brings us back to these AI chatbots. Most autistic people are socially shunned, simply because they're "weird" or "strange." Because they act in ways, or have interests, that make neurotypical people "uncomfortable." Note, I'm not talking about autistic people who are criminals, who engage in criminal behavior. Just a normal neurodiverse autistic person who, simply by existing, bothers neurotypical people who respond by pushing that ND person away.

    Isolating them.

    Solitary confinement is known to be cruel and unusual punishment.

    Solitary confinement has been associated with significant negative effects on mental health.[68] Research indicates that the psychological effects of solitary confinement may encompass a range of adverse symptoms including "anxiety, depression, anger, cognitive disturbances, perceptual distortions, obsessive thoughts, paranoia, and psychosis."[69] These symptoms are so widespread among individuals held in solitary that some psychiatrists have labeled them "SHU Syndrome," with SHU standing for Special Housing Unit or Security Housing Unit. In a 1983 journal article, Stuart Grassian described SHU Syndrome as a "major, clinically distinguishable psychiatric syndrome."[70] Grassian notes solitary confinement can cause extremely vivid hallucinations in multiple sensory modalities including visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory. Some other effects include dissociative features including amnesia, motor excitement with aimless violence and delusions.[70]

    For those who enter the prison system already diagnosed with a mental illness, solitary confinement can significantly worsen their condition. Incarcerated individuals with mental health conditions often "decompensate in isolation, requiring crisis care or psychiatric hospitalization."[69] The lack of human contact and sensory deprivation that characterize solitary confinement have been shown to cause permanent or semi-permanent changes to brain physiology. [71] Alterations to brain physiology can lead individuals to commit suicide or self-harm.[72]

    Social isolation is effectively the same thing. And, to be clear, we're not talking about "has only a few friends." Many autistics have none, no social outlets or inputs. As a developing child, when you're just beginning to try to figure yourself out, explore your maturing mind, it's crippling to be so isolated. Children are cruel, and teenagers are basically devils eager to see what happens when they push the buttons and pull the levers that Make Things Happen To Others.

    That isolation happens in school, it happens in life after school. Here, it was probably happening to Sewell. And he found an outlet that seemed to ease the pain of rejection, of isolation. Then he did something irreversible for some reason that made sense to him at the time, but that he thought would help him, that would ease his pain.

    Autism is a risk factor for suicide. Some studies show a seven times greater likelihood of an autistic committing or attempting suicide. Medicine may argue over the exact rate, some sources point to it "only* being three or even four times more likely, but it's fairly well established that autistic people are less likely to die by non-suicide than a neurotypical person.

    Something else that rarely gets any mention. Why should it? Autistic people bother neurotypical people. Out of sight, out of mind. Oh, the weirdo killed himself? Hmm, bummer. Well, what's for dinner?

    Chatbots aren't the problem. AI isn't the problem. Estimates vary, but somewhere between two and five percent of the world's population is autistic. It might be higher by a few more percentage points. But it's not high enough to make it a problem for neurotypical people when they shuffle the bothersome, disruptive, irritating autistic people off to the corner where they won't bother "normal" folks.

    Why are suicide rates higher in autistics? What could it be ... hmm, guess it's a mystery. But we should totally ban any outlet that might provide a little entertainment, interest, or even faint hope to the weirdos. Yup, fuck chatbots. They're disruptive.

    Just like autistic people.

    30 votes

  20. Comment on Alright, you sly son-of-a-gun, you got me. I'm going to run my first Narrative TTRPG. What do I need to know? in ~games.tabletop

    DavesWorld
    Link
    It heavily depends on the table, on who's involved and what their goals are. A blunt way to put it would be this: if your players lean toward munchkin as opposed to narrative (roleplay),...

    It heavily depends on the table, on who's involved and what their goals are. A blunt way to put it would be this: if your players lean toward munchkin as opposed to narrative (roleplay), everyone's going to have a bad time.

    If the players are on board, and willing to delve into narrative and roleplay, then it's just about flexibility and creativity. There aren't many wrong answers, as long as the table's cooperating to spin a narrative.

    Some common problems are people (GM or player) who get too welded to their own idea, especially if that idea leans toward things like "but we have this planned so why are we deviating" or "but I wanted to do X." Some players decide they're The Hero and might not want to cooperate (well or at all) with a narrative that pushes away from them being The Hero. Some GMs plan stuff and then become very uncooperative if the players come up with other ideas, other plans, or other strategies.

    Most of that's pretty basic, even if it does come up a lot because people are gonna people and be difficult.

    One that I've found a significant percentage of gamers (even RPG gamers) run afoul of is what I call Good Gamer Bad Storyteller syndrome. Most gamers want to win. And winning isn't always good storytelling. Most winning is short, simple, and often boring.

    A super simple example might be Joe is a Bad Guy in a city, and the GM planted Joe to lead into a kidnapping plot, that'll reveal a syndicate the players can investigate, and so on. When Joe's introduced, the players just off Joe. Or capture and interrogate him. Sure those kinds of things make sense from a zero sum "solve the problem" perspective, but they can often strangle the hell out of storytelling, which narrative RPG leans on.

    Gamers will repeat the same move non-stop, because it's a winning move. Boring. Why do you see movies and TV shows "mix things up" when it comes to action sequences or decision making on the part of The Good Guys? To keep it interesting. Sure Frank Fantastic might be a hero's hero, but watching Frank just punch people once each in the face for two hours (or three game sessions) can get boring because ... it's boring. No variety, no innovation, no chance for story to develop.

    If Frank has to work for things, by being creative and innovative, if he has to bring others in to his plans, cooperate with them, support their dreams and needs, and that kind of thing ... lot more opportunity for story. And what story comes out often has a chance to be much more interesting than "... and Frank just punches everyone once in the face because when Frank punches someone in the face it's game over."

    Good Gaming (when Frank punches bad guys in the face to win), but Bad Storytelling (because now everything's just over since Frank 'won').

    Look for story, not winning. And try to steer the players into looking for story, not winning. Narrative RPG is basically collective storytelling. Good stories involve failure, on-the-spot improvisation because of failure, and desperate attempts to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Boring stories are "and then they win, the end."

    Flexibility and creativity are the short version. You and the players. The best narrative tables marry themselves to the idea of "it's not about winning, it's about a great story."

    Sometimes great stories involve loss, sacrifice. Sometimes even heroes die.

    When that happens in storytelling, you just create a new hero. The next hero. And tell her story, because now it's her turn. You might be creating new heroes, new bad guys ... and so might your players. It's all about the story.

    3 votes