Let me preface with this: I know this is a hot topic, I’m not looking to have a fight about guns; I’m interested in discussing the practical aspect of the question in the current context. I hope we can have a discussion without dragging politics or name calling into it.

I’m not from the US so I don’t have a dog in that race. I’m very curious however about the perspective of people living there: ever since I can remember, one of the most common argument for the right to bear arms is that it keeps the government in check: if it ever oversteps its powers or becomes fascist/dictatorial then the people will have the means to defend themselves against it and overthrow it.

From abroad, it looks like the trump administration is pushing the limits further almost weekly, behaving in ways that are not democratic, enriching themselves personally through their government position/power, and dismantling the people’s rights.

There are so many guns in the US, kept by people to presumably prevent the above.

So what gives? Why aren’t people using these guns to take back control of the country when the man in charge looks (from my perspective abroad) like he is abusing his power like a despot would and breaking the social contract (if not the law)? And if not, what does it mean for the right to bear arms if they’re not being used to safeguard the people’s freedom given all the collateral damage they cause (regular school shootings, murders, etc)?

Edit: This thread went off the rails a little in that the top comment is an indictment of religion (and me as a purportedly religious person) rather than an answer to the question. For the record I am not, and have never been, religious. I did go through a spiritual period, long ago now, but it wasn't associated with religion or God. Cheers, though, to the non-proselytizing religious Tilderianites who are trying to be good humans.

Clearly I should have done a better job of anticipating the potential misunderstandings but the ship has sailed.

I didn't want to steer the conversation by leading with my own thoughts about what the answer might be, but I've posted them now that the thread, like religion, is waning.

Don't let it stop you from posting your own take!

The question, rephrased is: As religion plays a progressively smaller role in society, how will we fill on the gaps that leaves? See below for example gaps.
[/edit]

I realize that the title is maybe evocative because it presumes that religion is going to wane but statistically it's reasonable. The percentage of the population that identifies with a particular religion correlates inversely with the education level and wealth of a country.

As countries develop, religiosity decreases. There are probably exceptions, but I don't think the numbers leave room for much debate about whether or not religion is declining globally. In fact, if you look at just the western world, excluding developing countries where both religiosity and fertility are high, the numbers are even more stark. Presumably as education level and quality of life in developing countries improves they will have a similar decline in religion to other developed countries.

Assuming climate catastrophe doesn't dramatically set development back for everyone of course. Totally a possibility but humor me and, for purposes of this thread, let's not speculate too much about that.

I realize also that none of this is really new information, just establishing context, in that spirit...

Historically religion has served some very important needs. Among them:

• Community. Religion has been a key part of community in much of the world. We know humans need it, for all sorts of reasons, and I believe that right now we can see some of the problems that arise when they don't get it.

• Meaning. Vitally important to mental wellbeing and well covered by most religions. I think some of modern society's ills are partially attributable to the meaning void left by declining religion. Meaning here referring both to meaning in the personal sense as well as meaning in the larger sense of being part of something bigger than yourself that feels deeply important.

• Mortality. A key selling point of most religions is that they answer the question of what do do with the problem of impermanence. I think it's clear that, under the surface, many people are deeply insecure about their mortality and that it subconsciously informs their behavior in often not so great ways. So solving that problem with eternal rewards or whatever has been very important to the health of societies.

• Decency. Religion usually lays out what constitutes being a good or bad person and establishes rewards and punishments to encourage people to be good. Note that I'm not saying an external set of guidelines is required for people to be decent, only that historically that role has often fallen to religion. As a result, a lot of our modern values have their roots in ancient belief systems.

• Organization. Religions have often been at the core of important initiatives to improve people's quality of life and step in during disaster. They provide an ostensibly well meaning third party around which to centralize efforts.

• Faith. There are definitely downsides to believing things without evidence but as a temporary coping mechanism when things fall apart, faith is hard to beat.

And more of course, I'll stop there for brevity.

I'll skip laying out the downsides of religion, for better or worse it's declining and will likely continue to decline. I think that's enough for purposes of the question: How do we replace it?

What are we going to fill the voids opened up by waning religiousity with? I have a lot of thoughts about the topic but no real universal answers. And I think it's a question we're going to need answers for, especially as we go into worsening global insecurity caused by climate change, wealth inequality, fascism and so on.

We're going to need foundational shared values. Is that possible without a centralized authority?

I realize it's a giant topic, I won't bias it with my own thoughts going in, feel free to take it in any direction you want.

so, Trump's first term, from what I remember, the news media didn't try to kiss the ring or pay him off to stop him being mean. they took an antagonistic (maybe too antagonistic) role to the trump presidency. Which fair enough, that's their job, to hold the government to account.

But this time around, I never fully understood why the left leaning news media is kissing the ring?

• Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski flew down to Mar-a-Lago to kiss the ring
• Trump and CBS '60 Minutes' near settlement in $20 billion lawsuit

There is also Jeff Bezos revamp of the 'Washington Post' although that one surprises me a bit less given the tech oligarchy and Bezos being a modern day Lex Luthor. Surprised that soulless sack of s**t left the Washington Post alone as long as he has tbh.

There may be more instances of the left-wing media kissing the ring but these are just the ones I am aware of.

An easy answer to the second instance is: cause the executives at these news agencies didn't want to deal with a lawsuit by Trump and the money it would cost them, but if that is true, then how come this didnt happen the first time around? Did Trump just not sue the news agencies until this time? Any ideas why?

And that doesn't answer the first instance of those MSNBC hosts flying down to Mar-a-Lago to appease the baby in chief?

I know he is full of shit when he says he believes in freedom of speech and he just whines and complains and accuses the left/trans people of abusing victimhood cause apparently he believes the label belongs to the richest man on the planet instead.

But I am genuinely curious if the guy who kept saying he wanted his critics on Twitter as well to call him out, ever sat down for an interview with a critic who didnt feed his ego like Faux News or Bill Maher. Cause say what you want about Bill O'Reilly (and there's not much to say) I gotta give it up to the guy for going on left-leaning shows and actually engaging with the other side of the aisle.

the closest I can think of is that one he did with Don Lemon where his feelings were so hurt by the pushback, he cancelled the show after it :joy:

But I wonder if he ever did a hardball interview after and I just missed it?

Disclaimers and trigger warnings

The purpose of this mediocre and pseudo-philosophical diatribe of mine is to foster discussion.

I’ve come to understand that this is what Tildes is for. This isn’t a “platform” (I don’t think that I can even call it that) like Reddit, which has become like any other social media app, that is designed for retaining attention, make money from ads and in-app perks, and give people the means to build a following on the Internet.

As such, I’m proposing to you that we, well... discuss... something.

Now, we do discuss a lot of things in here, but it’s obviously more interesting to discuss hot button issues, am I right? I’m talking about those that we seem to be all be up in arms about these days. lol

I know that some of the topics that I will bring up can be very triggering to a lot of people.

I want you to know that I do not intend to harm nor hurt anyone with my words.

I spent hours (I’m not exaggerating) carefully crafting this, uh... “““essay””” of mine, to make sure that the words contained in it will inspire you to engage in a meaningful discussion by sharing your opinions in a polite and humble manner, think more deeply and nuanced about these issues, and perhaps (I can only hope) extend a hand to those who disagree with you.

When I wrote this piece, I did so feeling completely at ease. In my head, I heard my own words, as if I was having a dialogue with you all. I imagined sitting with you in a big circle, talking with you face-to-face. My tone was natural and calm, and I occasionally used a humorous tone (marked by every instance where I wrote “lol”, which always refers back to the sentence immediately preceding it). This is how I’d like you to imagine that I’m talking to you through these words, because that’s exactly what I’m doing. Even if my choice of words isn’t the best (for which I apologize upfront, if anything that I wrote offends you), then know that in no way did I write any of these words with an accusatory tone in mind. I hope that this visualization makes it easier for you to chew through the bits where you disagree with me.

Also, I was recently made aware that in some online circles, the use of italicized or bold formatting, is equivalent to CAPS LOCK, meaning, a way to express “loud screaming”. That is not how I use these formatting tools. I use italics for emphasizing certain words in my “speech”. Again, imagine that I’m speaking to you face-to-face. A natural part of my speech will be to give emphasis to certain words that are central to the point that I’m making. In writing, I emulate that effect via the use of italics. I hope that makes it clear what I mean. As for bold text, I just use it to highlight a point that I think is particularly important, and that I wish to be easy to find if you ever return to my essay.

(I keep calling this an “essay” for lack of a better term. If you can think of a better word, then please do let me know. I intend no offense to actual essayists. lol)

Finally, if you want to discuss scientific facts with me, then please do so, but know that I’m aiming more for a philosophical discussion. I will admit that, despite my best efforts throughout the years to read as much scientific literature as I can, I have been unable to memorize any studies, papers, or “facts” on any of these topics. I don’t know why that is. Maybe my IQ is too low. So, all of my arguments here will be 100% anecdotal. Either way, I don’t intend to make those of you who do want to cite research or link to news outlets uncomfortable, so feel free to do so. Just know that I will probably not have anything to reply to you in that case. I mean, if the research proves your point, then that ends the discussion, right? lol

More than anything, I’m good at asking thought-provoking questions (I think, I hope), and that’s what I came here to do.

I want to remind you that here on Tildes, there isn’t any “karma”, so I have nothing to gain from posting this (apart from some interesting discussions for a day or two), and have everything to lose.

And with that, I’d like to say that it was nice knowing all of you.

(Just in case I get banned. lol)

Introduction

Over the last few years, much has been said about the political polarization of society, particularly in the United States of America (though this has since spread to much of Europe and other places, I feel).

I often hear folks say that there used to be a time when people’s opinions did not vary so widely as they do today. Allegedly, the majority of the population held politically moderate beliefs that orbited the “center” of the isle. Also, allegedly again, there used to be a culture in which it was acceptable for people to “agree to disagree”.

I have heard from these people that all of this has radically changed. One can now simply not have moderate opinions on any topic anymore. One must pick a side and blindly adhere to it, 100%. It is also not possible (nor safe) to engage with the opposite safe, under any circumstances. There are only two camps: red and blue, right and left, liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat, Christian and Atheist, carnivore and vegan, fossil fuels and green energy, Windows and Mac, PC and consoles.

The last two dichotomies are just a joke. lol

The more I think about this, the more I doubt if there ever has been a “golden age of tolerance” in “recorded” human history though. I say “recorded”, because as far back historically as we can look, I see that all that humanity has ever done is to be at war with itself.

Maybe back then, it made a bit more sense that we looked with suspicion upon each other, after all, we didn’t know three things:

1. That we all resided on the same globe.
2. That we’re all the exact same species.
3. That the planet can sustain all of us...

...if we properly steward its resources.

But now we do know. We do know how big this planet is. We know more or less to what extent its resources can support our way of living. We also know that all of us are part of the same human species. We know (or should know) that fighting each other is pointless, and that we have more to gain from cooperating and living in harmony.

And yet, we still choose not to.

But it’s not only about resources, living space, and ethnicity that we fight each other now. Now we also fight over ethics, morality, societal norms, culture, or in one word: politics.

Now, politics is a bit of different debate than the other three items.

I think...

Because resources and living space are a thing that a group can have and lose to another group, for example.

But is a “political opinion” the same?

Well, if you think of politics as a tool for securing a group’s “rights”, then I can see why you would think that way. To give an over-simplified and sadly caricaturized (but often and hotly debated) example: The liberal side of the isle argues that if a country enacts and enforces a law stating that trans women are not entitled to using public restrooms assigned to women, then they lose that right, making it so that one group has more rights than the other. But the conservative side of the isle will argue that “biological women” have a right to have the restrooms assigned to them be private spaces where no “biological man” can enter, which is a right that they would lose if an opposite law was enacted and enforced, meaning that a different group would have less right.

(oof That was a mouthful. lol You wouldn’t believe how long it took me to craft those last two sentences. lol)

Notice how even the language employed by both sides wildly differs, for example, with the terms “trans women” and “biological women”.

So, does that mean that polarization is pre-programmed into the human species? Will we always want to fight over resources, living space, ethnicity, and which political ideology is the “correct” one? Are humans designed to seek reasons to disagree with each other?

And taking these questions to the absolute extreme: Are civil wars inevitable?

Could one in the US be on the horizon?

A lot of people sadly seem to think so.

(And it’s even more unfortunate that we have plenty of historic precedent for that.)

Or...

...is there perhaps a way for us to agree to disagree, to live and let live, and to ensure that everyone has the freedom to do as they choose, no matter what set of politics they believe in, and yet not have their freedom interfere with the freedom of any other?

Are the “culture wars” just a distraction?

Some say that we’re all just being made to fight each other, so that we’re distracted from what is really going on, which supposedly is the fact that there is a “tiny and elite cabal” that sits on the capstone of the pyramid of society, which wants to retain all of its wealth and power, and can only do so if we don’t notice that they exist, because if we did, then we would depose them.

I won’t deny that our world’s society has a clear elite that exercises a lot of influence over all of us, but I don’t believe that this tiny cabal that sits at the top really exists. I find it more plausible to say that there are very many competing groups of “elites”, and that there is no society that we can take refuge in where we won’t end up having to submit to one (meaning, a governing power). Some elites just happen to be slightly more benevolent and open to feedback from those who they rule than others.

(I even question whether in human society, it would even be possible for a political system to arise where, from the “peasant” all the way to the “president”, everyone is treated equally and has access to the same amount of wealth and influence. Notice that I couldn’t even find the language to avoid using words that denote a difference in class.)

But let’s assume for a moment that the “tiny capstone cabal” does exist, and that they are just pitting us all against one another. How could we stop that? Could we all join hands, climb the pyramid, and topple the capstone? Could we overcome our extreme differences of political opinion to focus on dethroning corrupt political leaders and installing fully trustworthy and competent ones?

(Do such politicians even exist? Or does power always, inevitably corrupt those who have it? I sometimes imagine myself trying to get into politics only as far as it would take for someone to try to bride me to peddle my influence. My gut tells me that I wouldn’t even get into any office before the first “buyer” appeared. lol So, on a more serious note, aren’t humans just inherently self-serving? Doesn’t everyone has a “price tag”? I do sincerely wonder what my price tag is sometimes, and if I would truly be willing to die for what I believe in.)

So, what I find somewhat amusing about the discussion surrounding this idea that the elites are to blame for the polarization, is that neither side seems to be willing to give up on its ideals. I have heard some on the left say: “Reproductive and trans rights aren’t the issue and aren’t going to hurt anyone. The elites are the problem.” But to very many people on the right, “outlawing abortion and banning gender ideology” is something that is going to “prevent” a lot of people from “getting hurt”. It’s a hill that they are willing to die on. In other words, what one side thinks is “obviously” a minor issue, is a major issue for the other side, and vice-versa.

So, who gets to decide what is and isn’t an important moral principle that needs to be protected by the law, and which side is willing to change its opinion on the matter, or at least, agree to concede its position on it?

Let’s look at some more concrete examples:

“Abortion” versus “reproductive rights”

A few months ago I stumbled on this podcast episode, moderated by one Ellen Fisher, where a “liberal feminist” influencer, Bronte Remsik, hashed it out with a “conservative wife” influencer, Isabel Brown. The topic of the debate was abortion.

I felt so nervous through the whole thing. The tension was palpable. I felt as if the two would jump on each other and viciously tear each other apart at any moment.

But maybe it was just me. Maybe I’m the unreasonable, overly sensitive one here. Maybe the two of them actually felt calm throughout (or at most, a little nervous) the whole thing. I should say that Ellen Fisher did an excellent job (I think) at giving both sides equal opportunity to build, consolidate, and defend their arguments. I don’t think that anything was left unsaid. I therefore highly recommend this podcast to you. It’s probably the best debate on the topic of abortion that I have ever heard.

However Remsik and Brown may have felt about each other and the debate, they kept it together. They remained polite. They looked in each other’s eyes while they talked. They didn’t use any bad faith arguments (not that I noticed anyway). They kept a calm tone of voice throughout. They didn’t get sarcastic with each other. It felt as though they were trying to listen to understand, rather than to reply (to a certain extent anyway). And surprisingly, they even agreed on a few points.

Wow. Refreshing. As intense as it was, I loved listening to both of them.

What I thought was the high point of this debate, was when they reached the bedrock of the issue. It turns out that their opinions on the matter are built on entirely different foundations. This was best illustrated, I think, when Remsik argued that forcing a woman to take her pregnancy to full term, violates her bodily autonomy. Brown countered by arguing that an abortion always violates the bodily autonomy of the baby. The discussion then moved to a debate about whether it morally matters more that the “already living and conscious” woman gets to choose if the fetus continues to “exploit” her body for its development, or the baby is given the opportunity to be born as he or she “naturally intends” to in order for him or her to later decide what to do with his or her own life. The debate boiled down to: “Which of the two ‘lives’ ‘matters’ more?”

Notice how, again, I tried to emulate the specific (and differing) language used by both sides. There was even a moment where Remsik was referring to “people who can get pregnant” in these terms, and Brown insisted on calling them “women” and “mothers” instead. Honestly, I’m worried that someday we won’t even be speaking the same language anymore and will become unable to understand each other. I think that was what George Orwell warned us about with the concept of newspeek, among other things.

With such a fundamental disagreement, it was inevitable that Remsik and Brown would end the debate at an impasse.

So, I’m not sure that they could become “friends” outside of this debate, and that saddens me.

But at least they were able to agree to disagree. They were willing to face each other and discuss this difficult topic without vitriol.

It probably wasn’t easy for them, but I think that it was worth it.

“Gender ideology” versus “LGBTQ+ rights”

I’m a Christian, and I have a very close gay friend.

I know. It’s a cliché. I understand that.

But it’s true.

And in fact, we met all the way back in 2015. We were very close friends for three to four years before he felt comfortable enough to come out to me.

Yes, we have discussed his sexual orientation at length. I have given him a fully open ear to tell me about his story and experiences. We never had anything even close to resembling a heated argument. I have never told him to seek any sort of conversion therapy. He told me that he knew that he was gay from whence he was a child. He told me that he has a good relationship with his parents and siblings (which I know he does), and that there isn’t any some sort of “repressed trauma” that “made” him gay. For all that we know, he was born that way, and he can’t change.

Now, his friendship has been one of the most important and meaningful to me in the years since we’ve met. We come from different countries but have spent a lot of time together. We have even traveled together (some of my fondest memories). We often update each other and talk just about anything. No, he’s not secretly into me (he’s into blondes, and I’ve known a lot of his crushes, lol), and he has known and been friends with my wife for about as long, because we all met around the same time. In fact, it’s a bit of a long story, but if it wasn’t for this gay man, then I wouldn’t be happily married today to begin with.

I won’t pretend that I don’t know what the Bible says about homosexuality, and how offensive and hurtful those eight short pieces of text are to people within the LGBTQ+ community. But tell me sincerely, what can I do about it? What can we do about it? Can we just pull a Nineteen Eighty-Four, erect a “Ministry of Truth”, and redact every statement about homosexuality in every Bible that’s in circulation? Should we just get rid of Christianity and the Bible altogether? I’m sincerely asking you to tell me what the solution here is.

As for me, I have long decided that I don’t want to be a part of this “us versus them” circus.

My friend is gay. That won’t change. I don’t want to change him. I know that I couldn’t anyway. We cannot change others. We can only change ourselves.

Therefore, I have chosen to accept my gay just friend as he is.

Gay.

Time will tell if I made the right choice. I’m willing to die eternally (as per the beliefs of my particular Christian denomination), if my choice to embrace this friendship is “a sin” that I’m unrepentant of. Ultimately, I’m not worried about whether I will “be saved” or not though. It’s not up for me to decide. I’m worried about my relationship with God. He is also a good friend to me—my best friend, in fact. I worry that what I do and say things that offend Him—Him who created me and died for me. And I have come to believe that it would be exceedingly offensive to God for me to antagonize my friend for being gay, given that He died for him as well.

All of this is to say that, it seems that a gay man and a Christian man can be close friends, agree on many things, work together (as we have), and live in harmony.

All it took, is for both of us to be willing to be friends.

Now, of course, I’m not suggesting that anyone can be close friends with anyone. That’s a different topic altogether.

My point is that we had the potential to become friends, and we didn’t let the political polarization that needlessly pits members of the LGBTQ+ community and Christians against each other to get in the way of that.

But I’ll be honest with you about something.

As careful as my (admittedly introverted) gay friend is to conceal his sexual orientation from those whom he feels he cannot trust...

...as careful am I to conceal my religious beliefs in the vast majority of the social interactions that I have, because I know that they will not be tolerated. And that leads me to the next topic:

On being a “social double agent”...

...as opposed to a “social butterfly”. lol

As you can imagine, as a Christian, I often hear opinions that deeply offend me and hurt my feelings. This is particularly true when I interact with people in my “secular social circles” (I’ll use that term for lack of a better one). Even those who tout themselves as “tolerant”, feel at ease to equate all of Christianity with bigotry of all kinds, including but not limited to sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, you name it. I hear this list of evils that I’m supposedly guilty of all. The time.

When I was younger, I would get angry whenever someone unfairly characterized my religious beliefs.

These days, I just take a deep breath and... say nothing.

In fact, I have stopped the act of telling my people about my religious (or political beliefs) upfront, unless prompted. And in the case of this thread, I bring up Christianity a lot just because of my personal experiences, and because it is an excellent example of the points that I’m making, since it has become such a devise religion.

It just isn’t safe to be open about my religion anymore.

I have at times gotten into very ugly fights with people (both on and offline), as well as lost friends, or even been excluded from entire friend groups.

A lot of it was justified. I’ll admit that. Still, if you think about it, isn’t that counterproductive? That is, for me, a Christian, to be excluded from “secular social circles” because of some of my beliefs?

Think about it: If I keep being excluded from social circles where the majority of people have opinions different from those of my own, then where am I supposed to go? Well, back to my “echo chambers”, of course.

Isn’t this a self-perpetuating, circular problem that we have in our society today?

People keep excluding each other from social circles for dissenting opinions. Therefore, they retreat into their echo chambers. This makes them exclude dissenting opinions even more, further radicalizing their beliefs. And the cycle continues.

Now, I am aware that I’m about as intelligent and mature as a molding aubergine. lol So, I know that I desperately need to be exposed to a variety of opinions, thoughts, philosophies, ideologies, etc., in order to not become some radical fundamentalist myself. Of course, I’m not willing to adopt any opinion that is out there just for the sake of appearing “tolerant” or open or whatever. However, I know that I can learn from all, and will definitely come closer to a more balanced worldview if I do (cue the cliché) “keep an open mind”.

So, what have I done in these last few years to ensure that I retain access to “secular social circles”?

As I said, I have kept quiet.

I mix and mingle with folks of all kinds of strokes, and when I hear them criticize an opinion that I hold, if I feel that me “coming out” will start a fight, then I just choose to stay quiet and nod.

Experience has taught me that, in many cases, an opportunity will eventually arise for us to discuss that exact opinion on good faith terms, sometime in the future.

But in that particular moment, it just may not be the right time to do that.

Yes, on occasion I meet people on either side who are just completely obnoxious and can’t be reasoned with, whether vocally or silently. They will demand that you either side with them or against them. In those cases, I just distance myself. Acting like a doormat doesn’t help anyone either.

And yes. It could be that I never get an opportunity to “set the record straight” about who I truly am or what I truly believe in.

So what though?

I don’t think that I’d like my epitaph to read: “He always made sure that people knew his opinion about every single thing.” lol

I lose nothing from occasionally “swallowing the frog” (as we say in Portuguese) and keeping quiet. My “opinions” won’t be offended if I don’t defend them. lol

Now, does that mean that sometimes people think that I agree with them when I actually don’t? Would they be offended to eventually find out? Probably. But, I mean, what’s the alternative? “To always say it as it is”? Because that’s really going to benefit both parties, right? lol I mean, the choice is yours. You can be my friend, have meaningful interactions with me, and accept that I may secretly not see eye-to-eye with you (which, let’s be honest, none of us 100% agree on everything), or you can continue to retreat into your echo chamber.

But do my opinions really matter that much? Am I somehow incapable of being a good person to you, and enrich your life with my friendship, because I have opinions that are different from yours? Do my opinions define who I am?

I won’t say that they “completely don’t”, but I’ll say this:

Years ago I learned this really useful principle (starts at 1m 6s) from CGP Grey, that a better way to relate to our opinions, is to think of them as items that are “separate” from us (as in, bodily), and sit somewhere in a “box” (if we were to mentally visualize this principle), so that when people inevitably “attack” them, we don’t feel like the attack was directed at us. This also makes it easier to swap them out if we find better ones, and in turn means that our opinions aren’t what fundamentally defines us, so “hiding” them isn’t tantamount to deception. Rather, we are then primarily defined by how we interact with others. To simply this principle: It isn’t what you think or say, it’s what you do.

Is me adhering to this principle dishonest on my part? I’ll let God decide that. I think that it matters to Him more that I live in harmony with people, though I could be wrong.

But do know that adopting this attitude is very difficult. It took me a lot of painful practice to get to the point that I am at now (and I still have such a long journey ahead). And it just so happens that I subject myself to opinions that I disagree with on a daily basis, not just in discussions with other people, but even through the media that I consume (where some sources are those that often express views that disagree with mine). It physically hurts me, sometimes. I feel a knot in my stomach. I won’t pretend that I’m stronger than other people. I’m not. I often think to myself: “My goodness. That is such a horrible misrepresentation of my opinion!”

And believe it or not...

...that even happens to me in my church.

I generally agree with the tenants and fundamental beliefs of the denomination that I am a member of.

But boy, oh boy, would I be quickly burned at the stake if some of them knew what I actually believe concerning certain topics. lol

(And this includes what I wrote earlier about my gay friend.)

It seems that we’re just not allowed to hold opinions from different camps in one brain anymore.

And this leads me to the next topic:

The appropriation or co-opting of lifestyles and the death of variety

A lot of Christians these days say that the carnivore diet is the best and most “natural” one.

I’m a Christian and I don’t agree with that.

Surprisingly, my denomination happens to be one of the few ones out there that mostly subscribes to veganism.

Unfortunately though (in my opinion), politically conservative Christians (especially the loudest ones on social media) have made the carnivore diet a part of their “brand”. And very many of them do push the idea that vegans are always weak, unhealthy, and leftist.

In other words: Vegan = left wing. Carnivore = right wing.

If this sounds dumb to you, then welcome to my club. I also think that it sounds dumb.

Yes, I’m vegan because of my religion... and also because of the environment, animals, and my health.

And speaking of the environment, yes, I think that humanity has a (God-given) duty to steward the earth, and I think that green energy is the technology that we should invest in.

Crazy! Who would think that Christians, who believe something as ridiculous as the idea that God created the earth in seven days, and told the first two humans He created to take care of a garden, could be environmentalists? lol

One attitude that I think contributes more to the polarization of politics than almost anything, is this co-opting or appropriation of lifestyles, interests, and political opinions, by the two tribes. And what saddens me the most about this, is that I have observed that many people “choose their tribe”, and then end up subscribing to all of the other ideas of that tribe, even those they disagree with, just because the tribe demands complete loyalty to its entire ideological program.

Just to give an example in the category of “interests”, I find it astonishing how unwelcome Christians are in the FOSS community. Believe it or not, I would love for FOSS to grow and become mainstream. I think that decentralized, free, and open-sourced software would benefit us all. My denomination branched off from Protestantism, which may deserve criticism for a lot of things, but not for being closed to technological and openly-shared innovations, as printing Bibles in the vernacular (German) was central to the popularization of the printing press. So, I don’t think that my religious beliefs make me somehow incompatible with open-sourced software. Would a FOSS app get offended that I believe that its was “code” was “programed” by a “higher intelligence”, and that it didn’t evolve out of the silicon and copper by pure chance? lol

This “death of ideologically diversity”, if I may call it that, is what led us to this situation where, in the words of the guys from The Juice Media, we are left with all but two tribes to plead our loyalty to: Shit™ and Shit Lite™. lol

And that leads me to the next topic:

How I vote

I don’t.

I voted once, in a parliamentary election, not long after I turned 18 in 2007.

Side note: I’m still a babe with regards to politics, but I was a political zygote when I became old enough to legally vote. What is holding us back from using our much neglected systems of education to teach students about how our political systems work? How they can participate in politics? How they can obtain information about politicians and parties? Call it “Political Literacy 101” if you will.

Either way, I never voted again. A big reason is simply because I began to spend more time abroad than at home when I turned 22. And since I’m 29, I’ve been permanently living abroad, with no plan of returning to the absolute dumpster fire that the Portuguese political landscape has been in the last few years.

But another big reason is just because... I don’t “who” to vote for.

First of all, it seems that every party that makes it into power, is ultimately caught in multiple scandals. And given enough time, every politician will turn out to have done something deeply corrupt and/or outright illegal. Very many of them get blatantly away with it and laugh in our faces.. We keep “voting for change” (which the candidates and parties promise), but after the victory celebrations are over, it’s back to the status quo, or maybe even a step deeper into the mire.

Furthermore, no politician or party seems to represent me. Until 2022, in Portugal, there was a Christian, center-right party (they would have characterized themselves as such) named CDS-PP. But that year, they lost all remaining seats they had (and that after being existing since 1974, founded right after the military coup that returned democracy to the country). Whats particularly unfortunate about this, is that an actually dangerous, populist, far-right party rose to replace them. CDS-PP are kind of back now, but in a way that makes them even less representative for me.

You will tell me that abstaining from voting is the same as casting my vote with the powers that be. But I have also heard from many people that casting my ballot in favor of a small and independent party, has the exact same effect. The big parties are “guaranteed to win”, so any other option is not a “useful vote” (which is an expression that I dislike, and is, as I understand it, what we call a “strategic vote” in Portugal) So, as much as the system seems to encourage (or at least, not be effective enough to prevent) the polarization of the isle, it would seem to me that the voting habits of the population do exactly the same. It would require a large majority of us to collectively agree to refuse to vote for the two, primary, ruling parties, for any real shakeup to occur. But how can we achieve that agreement?

I live in Latvia, and it isn’t a perfect system either, but the people here do one thing right: They have and vote for a lot of small parties that hold seats in their parliament, giving voters a real choice and forcing politicians to compromise, compromise, compromise when forming coalitions. Again, I’m politically ignorant, so correct me if I’m wrong, but in theory, this should make it more likely that moderate policies end up the ones that are enacted, right? Which in turn should displease every citizen only slightly, rather than pleasing either only one half or the other.

I brought up The Juice Media YouTube channel before, and I’d like to recommend to you this very funny three-minute-long video, that is as much a parody as it is highly informative, where the creators warn Australians about how the two-party system is about to become entrenched in Aussie politics. The video lists the large number of alternative minority parties that can be voted for, and how the red and blue dinosaurs currently in power are working to use the system to make it impossible for any of them to get a seat at the table. Talk about kangaroo politics! lol

I don’t think that packing a parliament (or the chambers of the US Congress for that matter) with many small parties, is what is going to solve all of these problems. I know that. And unfortunately, in a way, the polarization has even affected how parties form coalition governments, creating all sorts of chaos. We’ve seen that recently in my country, as well as in Spain and France. I haven’t been paying too much attention, but it seems to be an issue in Germany as well. If you happen to come from any of these countries, or know a lot about their political systems, then please do enlighten me. This is all to say, that I acknowledge that coming up with a better system is a complex and complicated matter.

Still, I cannot imagine that having lots of small parties in an assembly would be worse than what we have in the United States at the moment, which despite all the talk about “checks and balances”, seems to be a popularity contest that is an eternally swinging pendulum of “winner takes all” politics.

And by the way: I say “we”, because when the United States “sneezes”, the rest of the world catches a cold. My lungs have been coughing up “tariffs” lately. It’s rather painful. I think that, as important as it is to respect the sovereignty of a nation’s electorate, we also need to stop pretending that any countries’ politics are completely inconsequential to their neighbors, or worse, the rest of the world. They’re not, and the US is a particularly heavy link in this chain. In other words, as “apolitical” as I feel these days, politics affect me nonetheless.

Can we accept the outcome of elections?

And that leads me to my last point.

I would like to see an utopia where those who are pro-choice and those who are pro-life, live together in harmony, and don’t clash with each other.

But inevitably, they will. A woman will pregnant and want an abortion, and someone close to her (or the state) will want to prevent that.

And this is just one example where the freedoms and right of one group can clash with the freedoms and rights of another group.

So, sadly, I have to admit defeat. I don’t think that we can reverse the political polarization. I also don’t think that we can prevent more civil wars. They have happened in the past, and they will happen in the future. I just can’t imagine what thing could possibly make everyone stop for a moment and think: “Hey, maybe it would be best to just let others live however they choose to”, and then cooperate to build a system that somehow, magically makes that a reality.

And even if one cohesive ideology could conquer every single human mind and take control of the world (which would be a horrible idea, but for the sake of the argument, let’s imagine it for a second), I’m willing to bet that, given human nature, sooner or later, some new kind of division would come out of it. A good illustration of this are episodes 12 and 13 of the 10th season of South Park. They were hilarious, for various reasons (including for making fun of the launch of the Nintendo Wii), but the overarching story in those two episodes is that, in the future, there are only atheists. They, however, broke off into three factions and started a war because... well... I won’t spoil it, but you can watch it for yourself in the 13th episode, between 16m 45s and 17m 55s. It’s hilarious.

I try to act in a manner where I accept the outcome of elections, and more broadly speaking, the societal shifts that go along with them. I’ve been a Christian since around 2004, and the world has only become more hostile to my kind, but I just move on with my life. At the same time, I try to avoid to cause any disturbance to anyone around me, especially those who associate my religion with painful lived experiences.

But even the Bible warns me (or at least, that’s how I interpret it), that a day will come, when I will be persecuted for my beliefs, particularly “keeping the Sabbath holy”, or said differently, refusing to work on Saturday. And I have felt that this is a real and growing danger, as it’s becoming the norm for businesses and companies to expect their employees to work on Saturday. I have been unemployed for a while now, and part of my difficulty in finding a new job is that no employer wants to give me Saturday off (I should add that I always offer to work from Sunday to Friday). This state of things is partly due to politics. But there was once a group of people that was persecuted and killed, and they happen to also refuse to work on Saturdays, so it’s not impossible that something like that might happen again. And if that day comes, then... well... I’ll take the bullet.

It worries me that people are increasingly dissatisfied with election results, unwilling to accept them and move on, and that more and more are openly (or secretly) calling on those around them to start a violent uprising. J6 may have been a foretaste of that. We also saw the “mostly peaceful protests” that took place in 2020. More recently, a bullet missed its intended target by one inch, preventing what could become a complete catastrophe (though causing the electorate to vote for a different one). I would like to the Americans among us to take head, because we saw how absolutely brutal a civil war can be, when all the weapons at your disposal are primitive firearms. So imagine what a civil war would like with very effective, modern firearms. I’d rather not imagine that. So, shouldn’t we take a deep breath and turn the heat down?

If you have made it this far, you’re a trooper.

I want to give a special thanks to the kind people maintaining Tildes for allowing me to participate on here (especially if I’m not banned after posting this, lol).

I can’t wait to read your comments.

Much love from Latvia.

Even with all the political upheaval, my day to day has not changed. A sign of some level of privilege, but also something of growing discomfort. I feel like i should actively doing something to fight or preparing for the worst.

I often hear that we need to organize but i find that vague and not helpful. Going to rallys and protests shows public anger and frustration but dont see how that directly affects the current administration when they just dont care. Its still a start, but how are people turning that frustration into a action?

How have your lives been changing and what are you doing to confront the change?

What are some ways groups have organized to take direct action?

There is still resistance of a sort within the government, but dictatorships don't require 100% consolidation of all power into the Executive. And if that struggle is being ignored by the Executive, then what difference does it make?

Just had a thought that the 3 countries considered the biggest powers have leaders who are all 70+. So I looked into it and found that the average age of the leaders of the 10 most populous countries (and EU) is 72.

Has the age of major countries' leaders ever been higher?

Has it always been like this?

I understand it irt. authoritarian countries. Democracies trend way lower.

I keep seeing this phrase, mostly with relation to USA-Canadian politics right now.

I was curious enough to look this up and it seems this phrase came from a famous hockey player, Gordie Howe.

Now, I want to say that my initial thought before researching this was, "oh, elbows up must be passive resistance, it's like someone folding their arms waiting for you to calm down, it's like putting your elbows up on a table refusing to eat/being rude on purpose to prove a point"

What I found, and the crux of the question, is it seems like a license to practice violence, when you deem it necessary. It seems very, "ends justify the means" -- because it is inherently a very violent rhetoric. I feel the current use of the term is, "don't take shit from anyone if they are bullying you". But this completely disregards its origins.

My further search into the hockey part of it sounds like the player didn't just use his "elbows" in retaliation, it sounds like he was really actively violent (on the ice)...so...I guess I just don't get it, I don't get why a society would glorify such a violent backed terminology, to combat...extremely violent behavior (threats of annexation).

Genuinely interested to hear anyone's opinions on this phrase.

Bonus, I saw one explanation of the player that I thought was funny, his "rational and expert application of violence"

I recently had a (mostly) civilized discussion with an older gentleman who mentioned reading a book about how newer generations have not learned how to suffer, and that is the root cause of many evils in the world today. He then expressed a sort of excitement at the thought of self-induced suffering through our supreme leader's terrible economic and geopolitical decisions. It would "make us stronger on the other side."

To which my question was, and is still: "You're a top 2% earner in the most powerful country in the world. You have everything you could ever want or dream of. Why do YOU want to suffer?"

My second question/point was: "What you're describing as people being too comfortable, I'd counter that it's just the advancement of technology and industry -- most of us don't HAVE to suffer by breaking our backs working the fields from sun up to sun down because we have equipment to do that for us. Instead, we can work our desk jobs and play games on our phones."

And my final question/point was: "Why would anyone ever wish suffering upon anyone else? That doesn't seem very biblical."

I'm really struggling to understand the line of thinking that I am hearing from the very top levels of the government all the way down to the working class. The thinking that "we deserve to suffer." In a sense, I feel that it's a sort of disguised retribution or malice, i.e. "I don't want to suffer, but there are a bunch of people I disagree with that do need to suffer."

Please help me understand so I can be better prepared to debate the next person who tries to make this point to me. I'm looking at you, Dad.

There were supposedly 1200 simultaneous protests in the USA on Saturday. The one I went to seemed like it was mostly attended by people who had never protested before. That's great: more people are engaging in the civic process and learning about how to make a difference. I'm writing this as a short guide for people who want to make a difference beyond that.

Understand types of advocates

You can roughly classify advocates into the following stages:

1. Unaware: people who simply have no idea what's going on and/or don't care. In general, these people are completely unreachable unless an issue affects their livelihood in an immediate and obvious way.
2. Stay-at-home: people who broadly have opinions but have no reason or structure to voice concerns. In general, these people show up only to events if solicited by family/friends.
3. Sporadic activists: people who are receptive to calls to action, but do not seek them out proactively. They may be on a few mailing lists, but probably ignore some CTAs. If a cause gets their attention, they'll be very engaged! (but just for a day or two)
4. Core demonstrators: people who reliably attend relevant direct action events and proactively spread the word to acquaintances, also going out of their way to look for additional opportunities (surveys, government engagement, etc).
5. Initiators: people who take the initiative with event organizing and calls to action. A subset of core demonstrators in leadership roles who steer advocacy campaigns.

Most Americans fall into category 1 or 2. Most people protesting on Saturday were probably between 2 and 3. People on Tildes skew higher. Each successive category is easily 1/10 the size of the previous one.

Event organizers implicitly target certain audiences for their events. In practice, events tend to be primarily composed either of people around 3-4 (smaller events) or 2-3 with some 4s (bigger events).

This is a simplification, but helps to appreciate the different personas in play.

Understand the purpose of different actions

You can broadly categorize direct action protests on a grid with two axes:

• Specificity (ask is more general/multi-faceted/long-term, vs more specific)
• Directionality (event is focused on protestors themselves or internal/allied speakers, vs. focused on external and probably non-allied stakeholders)

Specificity can measure the difference between "we're mad about the government" (yell about everything) and "we're mad about line 67 in HB 1234" (yell about something in particular). Specificity mostly corresponds with actionability. The more specific the thing you're protesting, easier it will be to identify constructive ways to follow up. Successful advocacy uses both of these models at the appropriate times during an extended campaign.

Directionality can measure the difference between "we're mad and we're gonna get riled up!" (cathartic release/venting; perhaps social) and "we're mad and [external stakeholder] is gonna know!" (targeted, though not necessarily aggressive). While both are public, the first is implicitly focused on base engagement and the second is more focused on pressuring an external stakeholder. Successful advocacy requires the appropriate balance of "community-building" (advocates feeling good about themselves) and action (advocates literally forcing a response).

In general, specificity and directionality are correlated: as protests become narrower in scope, they tend to become more directed at specific individuals (usually elected officials or other public figures), with a few exceptions. In theory, all 4 quadrants of this plane can be very successful direct action events!

• Unspecific and directionally inward: rallies with broad thematic goals publicized to a lot of people, possibly involving marches and chants and inviting famous speakers. In my opinion, the 50501-type protests today fall into this category. I would call these unspecific because while they were broadly "anti-Trump," they were also "anti-Elon," and variously "progressive/pro-rights," which is ultimately a fairly loose collection of themes without an obvious follow-up. I would call these directionally inward because they were fairly non-disruptive marches/rallies and therefore mostly cathartic vent sessions of like-minded people. People want to feel like they are doing something, and this is a useful way for them to get connected with each other and learn about next steps.

• Specific and directionally inward: similar to the previous category, but with a more clearly articulated scope. I think this comes up most often with legislative issues that are currently novel/fringe but perceived to require significant public support. For example, getting up on a soapbox in a public space and preaching about the need to add or abolish a particular Constitutional amendment. I'd call this specific because, well, it's about exactly 1 amendment --- you could read out the text of your proposed change if you wanted. I'd call this directionally inward because, while the point of this is ultimately to get some legislator to sign a bill into law, your direct action is really distant from that goal; the immediate purpose is more to proclaim your personal opinions and to create an audience saying "Yeah, I agree! What a great idea!" Later iterations of this can involve recruits, and can shift toward being more directionally outward.

• Specific and directionally outward: actions with narrow, articulated goals; with clear external stakeholders (target being like 1 person or 1 defined group) and ideally time-bound and repeatable on a timeline if needed. For example, a tiny biking nonprofit in my city had a campaign last year in the wake of a biker fatality. The campaign protested a quasi-legal/illegal arrangement that some wealthy/politically powerful churches had made with local government to permit temporary bike lane obstructions during worship. The direct action involved bikers physically stopping worshipers from parking cars in bike lanes, therefore forcing the attention of the congregation and pressuring church administrators to voluntarily relinquish the permits in the bike lanes (the bikers offered an alternative parking proposal), while also garnering media attention. The ultimate goal of the campaign was to force the city to upgrade signage, enforcement, & physical barriers along bike lanes along that corridor, but the goal of the direct action itself was far more granular. I would call this specific because it had an extremely defined ask (to the point of delving into absurd minutiae), focused on churches along a specific corridor (1 at a time), and offered a clear & easy solution for all parties. I would call it directionally outward because it was not about activists letting off steam [about something], it was about making an external institution look selfish for effectively endangering people riding bikes.

• Unspecific and directionally outward: in practice, this sort of event is not actionable but also not necessarily an effective forum for community-building. For example, a digital protest/rally asking a Senator to "support science." I'd consider this unspecific because "science" is actually many things, and "supporting" science could come in many forms, not all of which might be what you care about. I'd consider it directionally outward because it nominally focuses on an individual external stakeholder. The problem with this kind of event is that presenting an external stakeholder with an unspecific set of demands is not compelling and will result in you being ignored. Additionally, digital protesting has zero of the community-building benefit of real-life interaction (no energy, no vibes) and all of the technical difficulties. A lot of campaigns failed during COVID when organizers attempted to move online and couldn't keep up the momentum. I could see this type of event working for specific internet-savvy demographics or specific edge cases of politicians, but rarely.

This is a spectrum, so the hundreds of different varieties of "direct action" you can think of all fall on a range. There are also some outliers!

For example, protestors may travel to the state capital to lobby legislators about a specific bill as a group. I would call this specific because it's about exactly 1 bill, and the action involves physically talking to the people who have the legal authority to enact that bill. I would call it directionally outward because it's clearly focused on achieving a legislative objective by engaging external stakeholders. However, I would also call it directionally inward because this sort of "travel somewhere with a smallish group of people" event is extremely good for community-building in a volunteer network. And indeed, a good directionally outward project should have an aspect of inwardness insofar as any direct action should be moderately to very fun. So these categories aren't completely exclusive.

Understanding the pipeline

So, really, a lot of campaigns start with unspecific and directionally inward protests: huge rallies with people waving around signs and not doing a whole lot. These are important because they expose people to protesting in ideally digestible and non-scary formats, they can get a ton of media attention (because they're usually about very well-known topics), and they can make people feel included and part of a supportive community --- which is essential.

But any unfocused rally needs to fairly quickly splinter off into specific campaigns. This means a lot of behind-the-scenes planning work needs to be done. One of the most important ways you can help turn energy into real-world change is to pick an issue that's meaningful to you, get involved with an organization whose mission statement covers that issue, and volunteer to do paperwork, planning, or logistics for them! (Sometimes, no such group will exist, so you may wish to create a new one. This is challenging, but very doable, and maybe I will talk about it in a later post.)

For example, according to Wikipedia the 50501 movement calls for: the impeachment of Donald Trump, an investigation into Elon Musk, investigations into all other Trump appointees, reinstatement of DEI at the federal level, protection of LGBTQ rights, protection of (racial?) minority rights, protection of the Constitution, reinstatement of military aid to Ukraine, and the lifting of tariffs on other countries. That's like 20 billion different ideas. Some of them are kind of related to each other. Most of them aren't. Ideological fragmentation in a movement this large is absolutely inevitable and could forestall a lot of change from an organizational insider perspective. More importantly, it's just too complicated to keep track of. No one is an expert in more than 1 or 2 of those subjects. Even just 1 of those issues is extremely broad. For instance, protecting the US Constitution: there are entire nonprofits dedicated just to protecting the 1st amendment! You have to get granular.

(There's no problem with teaming up with allied organizations to co-host a rally about a few topics, and no problem with attending these. But they're only impactful if they're followed by more specific actions.)

Some of the most impactful campaigns are ones which start with general, big-turnout events... and then have a clear pathway toward multiple small actions with defined success criteria. If you go to one unspecific protest for one organization, that's only as useful as the follow-up. Did you join their email list? Have you looked at their website? Did you talk to anyone who volunteers there? You have to do some legwork. Great organizations will have simple and easy onboarding processes, but not every group is so fortunate! As long as you can stay in touch, that's the important part.

Your role as an advocate

You also have to think about how, as an advocate, you want to fit into the puzzle. Is your definition of (personal) success to be a participant in broad-movement rallies, or do you want to take a more involved role? Do you want to lead chants, set up sound equipment, or file for road closure permits from local police departments? Or do you want to lobby a specific politician to adopt a specific piece of legislation? Or run a website or develop a strategic plan on behalf of some organization to do these things?

If you plan to volunteer with an existing organization, some things to keep in mind are:

• You have significantly more influence over local politics than state or federal politics. If you ask me, the #1 place you should be volunteering is in your local community, solving problems on the neighborhood level.
• If you do enough direct action, you will potentially end up in a situation where you risk arrest. If you don't want to do that, don't. But if you do, be aware of what it entails. A night in jail is not fun!
• Volunteering with a specific group is a temporary thing, as long as you want. But for some, it's a lifestyle, not just something to do when fashionable. Advocacy never truly ends. There will always be more battles to fight.
• Most direct action campaigns fail. Most lobbying campaigns fail. Most plans fail and need major revisions. Most things fail, and most people fail a lot. Sometimes, you will work very hard on a project/event, and do a great job, and a stakeholder will derail it anyway.
• All organizations are composed of people doing their best. When people are working on projects they're passionate about, emotions can run high. Take a deep breath! You're all on the same team.
• There's an enormous cultural difference between grassroots, all-volunteer nonprofit organizations and large-scale NGOs. Small nonprofits can feel exciting to work with because they're so flexible and open to new ideas. The larger the organization, the more bureaucratic volunteering is likely to be, which may be demoralizing. However, they'll probably have more funding, and they'll probably be managed in a less chaotic way.
• In general, you will only have strategic volunteering opportunities in grassroots organizations. But if you prefer to be assigned things to do or say, pretty much any org will have something for you to help out with.
• Joining the Board of Directors of a nonprofit is a great way to make an amazing long-term impact. However, being on a board comes with a fiduciary duty and various other legal considerations.
• Volunteer burnout is real. It's easy to become tired and jaded. Many people who volunteer for nonprofits in administrative roles avoid direct action for this reason (and vice versa).
• You can't individually solve every problem with an organization, you can't manage every other volunteer, and you can't work on every project. It's just not possible, and even if it were, it would be bad practice.
• Many large corporations offer matching donations for employee charitable contributions. If you want to make a difference, but can't see yourself volunteering on a regular basis, making a qualified donation and having your company match it would be impactful for that group.

It's getting late so I need to call it, but I hope that was helpful to someone.

Despite the awful prospect of four years with this man and his goons, I look at how totally chaotic the previous two months have been on all fronts and wonder if he's able to keep this level of nonsense for much longer.

My question is, what are your odds that he leaves office early and what are some of the ways it could happen?

I'm not great with odds, but I think there's a strong chance that Republicans throw him out after their constituencies begin to feel the pain and everybody's out for blood.

I'm going to put 20 dollars into the pile and say he's out in a year and a half if this keeps up at the pace it's been going.

Any wagers out there?

The current political climate in the US sucks, and I want to do something about it. I'm a software engineer and I've been feeling lately that I need to apply my skills towards something more important and impactful than building a product for a private company. Honestly, I like my current job for many reasons, and it's been mostly quite fulfilling up to this point, but every executive order by Trump feels like a step backwards and makes me less comfortable with not being involved in the opposition.

I'm looking for advice on what I can do to meaningfully contribute to progressive causes and resist the threat that this administration poses to our democracy and society. What kinds of organizations are doing the most in this area, and would be in need of a software engineer? How can building software help with this problem (if at all)?

For context, I live in Massachusetts, so while I feel proud of how my community and local government is pushing back against Trump, I'm also well-aware of how much worse things are, and will get, for people elsewhere.

Foreign money and tech billionaires have bought control of the US government, they're looting the system and weakening it, and then they're going to crash it so they can install a new system that they can better control.

Prove me wrong?

Not just a U.S. question... I think we're in the midst of seeing much of the world's political order being rearranged. So that's got me wondering, are we going to see some new nations emerge from this? I recognize that's a very sanitized framing, and such things don't just "happen" without a lot of turmoil first, but I'm trying to make some optimistic projections about what could come after that.

So as a thought exercise, imagine you're participating in a constitutional convention for a new democratic government forming where you live. What are some things you would want to see included? What should be omitted?

There have been frequent and repeated comments by Trump about "annexing" or "absorbing" or taking over other sovereign countries.

NY Times How 51st State talk became seen as deadly serious

White House Asked US Military for Panama Options

CNBC - Trump on US Annexation of Greenland

I think anyone paying attention to this should be extremely alarmed, especially when you connect this to the purges that he is doing to the US military and other organizations that would limit the power of the president, and of course recent supreme court rulings about presidential power.

It appears like he's trying to get people used to a new colonialism. Maybe if he attacks Panama and there isn't much internal resistance, then he'll attack Greenland, and so on. Sure we can guess whether he is doing this to help Putin, or to normalize Putin's invasion. In any case just the discussion of these things harms the other countries, the reputation of the US, and world stability.

Frankly I think this stuff, and the attack on federal workers and social programs and social security, is an attempt to not only do these things, but to generate mass protests which will be used as an excuse for martial law and the removal of other rights, including future elections.

Here's another article, This is by David Frum about how we allow people to minimize Trump's actions at our peril: The MAGA-Strategy Spin Machine

I don't think it's possible to overreact to this. A functioning US Congress would remove him from office right away.

Heretofore, I have held the idea that, 1)Russia is a despotic aggressor, 2)Ukraine is largely innocent holder of resources and land, and 3)Ukraine is largely winning due to a combination of pluck and western supplies.

But I heard a recent podcast, however, that caused me to question my line of thinking. The podcast was Chapo Trap House* and they had guest podcasts hosts War Nerd or something, who seem to have some expertise in the slavic world. And they presented a very different narrative. Namely, 1)Ukrainians really want the war to end, even if the country loses some land, 2)There’s tons of corruption in the military, as bad as leaders demanding payment from soldiers to avoid deployment to the front lines, 3)There are fascist units in the military, and they shake down the civilians, 4) Zelensky was of a mind to deal with Russia until Biden asked him not to, 5)Russias economy is very resilient and has adapted to sanctions, and 6)Russia has been very adept at neutralizing new western military tech, and 7) there is a conspiracy of silence about Ukrainian casualties. Side note, there may be problematic funding of all the open source intelligence arms, especially bellingcat, by US Governemtnt intelligence interests.

I managed to confirm at least partially one of the objections:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/05/politics/russia-jamming-himars-rockets-ukraine/index.html

But some of the claims seem less strong:

https://kyivindependent.com/a-very-bloody-war-what-is-the-death-toll-of-russias-war-in-ukraine/

Mixed on some of the others:

https://theintercept.com/2024/06/22/ukraine-azov-battalion-us-training-ban/

The podcast was a useful reminder, at least, to retain a humility about my beliefs, and that news media is especially suspect in our present moment.

It’s not like I have any power to influence the outcome, but I do still buy into the myth that a responsible citizen retains some degree of information about events around them. My query to tildes is, what’s your narrative about the war, and what sources of information are you drawing upon?

*I’m vaguely aware that there’s somce controversy around these guys. I find the podcast entertaining, however, and they seem to share some of my values about how a sane society would function, and, like this report, they sometimes really challenge my understanding of what I think is going on.

I recently was at a brunch with a friend and their friend. Their friend works at a startup who buys, very cheaply, pictures of mammograms from hospitals, something something AI anonymization, and resells the data to ‘researchers’. I asked several things, for example, what responsibility does her company have for breaches or failures to protect identity? Her response: we have reporting requirements.

In my mind, that something like this exists at all is a complete social failure and consequence of hypercapitalism. The goal of using hospital data for research is obviously a good one. But in my mind, that data should not exist in a non-anonymous way outside the control of the hospital, and, in its anonymous form, should be available to all researchers for free. It seems obvious to me the best way to innovate real solutions is to get as many smart people as possible researching the data, and not just those who can afford it. Less obvious, but still problematic: if we limit the availability of the data to those who can afford it, we are limiting the availability of the data to those whose primary incentive of research is profit, as opposed to public interests like health.

I’m very tired of pretending for the sake of equanimity that this work is somehow OK. But neither is it productive to be argumentative at brunch. I guess one approach is simply to say, gee that’s swell and move on to a different topic, or just not ask people about their work at all. But I’m a prophet, I feel compelled to tell the truth, and sometimes to an unhealthy degree make people feel uncomfortable.

I don’t know what the solution is, it’s one of the reasons I went to divinity school: to gain access to a potentially practical platform for advocating meaningful change. But the problem is so well integrated and so insidious. Am I doomed to always be in isolated despair?

Do you think that the future will look back on our last late stage capitalist system and see the brutalization of marginalized populations around the globe? As our society looks back on chattel slavery, feudalism, etc?

I would like to imagine a socialism or a different system. Rooted in humanism.

TL;DR: I'm trying to work through what the future looks like and my brain has been awash in negativity since last November, so I figure putting something on paper may serve as a form of therapy. The long and short of what I've typed below is I'm trying to piece together USA's current geopolitical situation and rationalize what the likely or possible outcomes are.

I'm posting this through doomscrolling-tinted glasses, so bear with me. But I'll also mention that I've always tried to be empathetic to both sides, understand differing arguments and motives, and generally believe that people act or vote the way they do because it's what they think is best for the country, their communities, and their families.

I'm afraid I have given too much faith to humanity.

Overnight, we've just switched our allegiance from Europe/NATO/Ukraine to Russia -- our arch-nemesis for the last century. This comes on the heels of threatening to make Palestine disappear and "punishing" our brothers and sisters to the north and south (and across the Atlantic for that matter) for no apparent reason. The mutual trust and respect we've worked on for so long with our neighboring countries and Europe are vanishing... just like that. Unless there's something huge that I'm missing, we're not playing smart geopolitics here. We're just giving up hegemony for the sake of what... making it easier for rich men to hoard more money and get away with corruption?

I'm not a single-issue voter, but geopolitical implications have always received the lion's share of my decision-making. We've been able to maintain a relatively* prosperous and safe world order. More importantly, we've been able to keep the M.A.D. lightning in a bottle. Selfishly as an American, I think it's safe to say that our geopolitical situation has afforded us, the citizens, our current luxuries and opportunities. Sure, we have some other MASSIVE issues, but why would you want to take this one away?

• I know, we've done a lot of bad shit in the past. I'm not going to argue or defend that here.

So as the threads of democracy unravel in America, what does our path forward look like?

I believe we are at a crossroads right now. As all of these executive orders are being created – some of which are valid but we don't like them because they're coming from the other side, and others of which are clearly unconstitutional – the judiciary is getting to work making rulings on them, one by one. It is a slow process, but at the end of the day we should have a bunch of directives -- these EO's get to stay, and these other ones are unconstitutional so they must go.

The left branch of the crossroads is the one where the executive branch chooses to play by the rules. As much as Democrats would hate to admit, I see this as democracy playing out (in the worst possible way, but hey, I'm looking for silver linings). "These EO's can stay, and these EO's have to go." Then, in two years' time, the mid-terms will provide another opportunity for voters to swing the pendulum back toward the middle a bit -- or not. And then we can start the long, slow rebuilding process of restoring relations with our allies.

The right branch of the crossroads (where the executive branch becomes more and more powerful) is the one that I think we simply call "fascism," and there's plenty of historical research and precedent as to where things go from there. I don't see a clean exit from this. I see the following possibilities, from least to most horrible.

1. Americans just give in and accept the new government. We turn into a single-party state, corruption grows rampant, basic welfare benefits are taken away, etc. But, because there was no fight or give-a-fuck, we just accept it. And hey, maybe life is still fine for many people. But maybe we watch the indicators slowly tick in the wrong direction -- life expectancy, upward mobility, homelessness, crumbling infrastructure, innovation, general happiness. Given our current state of apathy and lethargy, I believe this is the most likely scenario.

2. Military intervention from within. If things get screwy enough, there comes a point when the military has to decide whether it's time to step in or not. In general, military interventions are a BAD thing. Furthermore, I believe there is major support for the President within the armed forces. Could there be a clean exit here, one where the military removes the current executive and benevolently allows for a new election? Sure, maybe, but if you think MAGAs believe all blame belongs to "the others" right now, this will be a whole 'nother level. More likely, this would lead to an outcome like most other military interventions historically.

3. Some flavor of a fractured republic, civil war, etc. The exact opposite of a clean exit. It would also most likely lead to...

4. Military intervention from outside, a.k.a. war. This is my greatest fear -- that we have now become the "bad guys," and the rest of the world realizes they have to band together to stop the tyranny and restore order. This option almost certainly ends in M.A.D.

I can't believe I'm typing all of this with any semblance of sincerity. I always subscribed to the thinking that "things always work out in the end," and it has done good for me so far. At this point, I could use some reassurance. Please tell me that I'm completely wrong and am simply being dramatic.

I watch CBC pretty regularly and all I have seen for the past month is coverage about Trump's comments about annexing us and I can't tell if I am missing something obvious or am just naive but I can't take the threat seriously and I am starting to hate that CBC is talking about it so much and that we have Canadian politicians actively addressing it rather than just dismissing it (the fact that Doug Ford went on that idiot Jesse Waters show to push back on it made me facepalm).

Cause from my point of view, let's say Trump in his immense stupidity is serious about the threat. He wants to bring back American expansionism and apparently misunderstood his history classes from back in the day and thinks "manifest destiny" is a good thing.

and given that he has installed loyalists as his heads of departments, let's even say they all either agree or are too chicken-shit to oppose it and get cancelled by Trump.

Canada would never agree to being annexed so that means Trump would have to launch a war against us to annex us. You are telling me that if push comes to shove, that the men and women in the armed forces would actually be willing to invade a sovereign nation that they might even have ties to (given Canada and American culture+society are so connected)? and you are telling me that the generals and people in power in the American military industrial complex would be willing to follow an order to invade Canada?

I mean sure, America has been known to invade countries in the Middle East for their natural resources and pretend its for national security but imo there's a big difference in being able to sell the idea to the American people and the viewers of Faux News that invading a brown country far off in the distance and saying its cause of Islamic extremism vs invading a country whose stereotype is literally that we are too apologetic and nice.

Am I missing something obvious?

And just to clarify, I am not saying that Trump isn't serious about it. he probably is and it probably has to do with our natural resources as Trudeau was caught on a hot mic saying as much in a meeting and our politicians need to address it. but for our politicians to act like there is a legit chance of an invasion seems odd to me. and the CBC talking about it so much and giving so much airtime to it is really getting on my nerves.

What I will say is the one thing that bugs me about all this honestly is just Musk and Trump calling Trudeau a "governor". not that I like Trudeau. The day he decided to break his campaign promise of election reform, he was dead to me, but I just don't like it when people dish it out when they can't take it and Musk and Trump are the most thin-skinned c**nts on the planet. If Trudeau responded to either of them on Twitter with something as condescending, they would both cry like little babies and somehow find a way to blame the woke mind virus and trans people for Trudeau being "nasty" to them.

Yes I know the "deep state" is just a phrase that means different things to different people. But Trump is completely out of control and undermining the very fabric of American society and world politics. Siding with Russia, undermining long time relationships with close allies, threatening invading Canada and other countries, calling himself a King. His next step seems to be dismantling the military industrial complex (drastically cutting military spending, reducing American power worldwide).

Isn't there supposed to be some people who are sort of secretly in charge and prevent a single traitorous idiot from destroying the world order, whatever that is? "The Invisible Government"?. Don't most of us sort of believe that JFK was removed by internal actors for much less?

What is really going on here? Is a large amount of the US government completely captured by Russia? Or is it exactly what it seems to be - nobody expected a handful of rich corrupt idiots to just take over and the handful of people who could stop it are just letting it happen. I mean, I can see how it was a serious of unfortunate events, mostly caused by the corruption in the Republican party which allowed a seditionist to get away with trying to overthrow the government and Biden's DOJ just sleeping for about 3 years. But along the way you'd think there would be better checks against all of this.

In an age of increasing misinformation and division, I've found that it's increasingly easy to find yourself in an echo chamber of opinions (of people and/or bots). And when I go searching outside that echo chamber, I usually don't find well reasoned discussion, but a different echo chamber with the opposite opinion.

This is especially true on sites like Reddit and Twitter, but also applies to pretty much every website (including Tildes) to some extent. Even newspapers aren't helpful as they are all largely owned by a handful of billionaires with an agenda. And real life isn't much better. My friends and family all share similar values and ideals, which is great for getting along, but it doesn't help me figure out how many people actually support something in particular.

The closest thing I've found to objective polling are elections. Unfortunately, they largely group everything into one of two buckets and don't have room for nuance on individual topics. Also, a lot of people don't even vote, which doesn't necessarily muddy the data, but it does leave out the opinions of a lot of people.

Is it even possible to determine this without an individual referendum on each topic? Am I worrying too much about something unknowable?

This question was inspired by a question from a US immigrant citizen who came from a country that had been under Soviet political hegemony. They said that in their experience authoritarianism and corruption were kept camoflauged for fear of political backlash, but our new US government is shameless.

I'll put my tentative answer in the comments. I'm very interested to hear your thoughts if you care to share.

I would like to hear your opinions. 1MM eur is not a lot; how do you spend it most efficiently? Do you use it as a lever to raise more money? Do you tackle grassroots efforts?

This is a “how do we fight back” question.

My requirement is that the suggestions are practical and relevant for today’s world, not an idealised version of it. But nothing is off limits, be creative.

If you have suggestions for different amounts I’ll also hear them.

Succinctly as possible, what is the purpose of government? And with genuine effort to avoid condescension or disparagement, what do you think someone politically opposite to you would say if they were to thoughtfully articulate an answer to the same question?

I'm increasingly bothered in the last few years in the crisis of ethics in the United States government. It isn't very important to the leaders, and it isn't very important to the voters. I don't think it is a "conservative vs liberal" issue. It isn't about religion. It is about basic morality and doing what is best for a functioning society.

I think about ethics more about once a year when my job has everyone take a small course on ethics. There is a lot of basic and obvious stuff in the course, but a big part of it is that even the appearance of conflicts of interest should be avoided. And I'm sure if this is important for the general workforce, it should be even more important for public figures.

I'm well aware that the government has done unethical things in the past, and some of them were horrific. But I don't remember a time when unethical behavior has been flaunted so openly. The president is fundamentally unethical. He constantly lies and takes open bribes and enriches himself at the expense of the proper functioning of the government. The supreme court is fundamentally unethical and barely tries to conceal taking bribes. The president's political party openly ignores their duty to hold the president accountable for crimes, and participates in them, including sedition. The top leaders of businesses and the press have been obviously captured by money and corruption.

For years we were concerned about "dark money" and who was funding the propaganda and disinformation. Well now we have the richest person in the world openly buying an election and taking over fundamental functions of the government.

This crisis of political ethics is a direct result of a crisis of ethics in all parts of society. I think it flows back and forth like a disease. The voters do not hold the leaders accountable because the voters themselves are not ethical. I don't think supporters of Trump are completely the victims of propaganda. I think they made an unethical choice for selfish reasons. Part of ethics is taking responsibility for making sure you have the correct information when you make a choice. I'm not sure that most are capable of learning that the price of eggs is worth the collapse of being able to trust each other and make progress as a society.

By the way, I think a lot of us are hoping that this open feeding frenzy of greed and dishonesty is part of a pendulum that swings back and forth. But I'm reminded that in 1977 Jimmy Carter was elected to help restore ethics to the presidency. He only served one term as president and was replaced by a highly unethical person who was supported by highly unethical people who created a right-wing propaganda network of talk radio and Fox News.

Maybe that's the point of a blitzkreig, but I'm thinking back to 2016 where we saw huge numbers of people taking to the street - the Women's March, anti-Trump marches - to show displeasure for Trump even being elected. In 2020 we saw some of the largest protests ever for BLM, potentially because folks had time to tune in and turn up because of the pandemic. But right now we're seeing an absolute assault on our institutions and it's up against absolute silence. I'm not trying to throw stones, I'm not out demonstrating either. Mostly because there isn't one to join. Does anyone have a theory or understand why we aren't seeing any public mobilization?

With the way a certain billionaire has taken control of the US Treasury and begun to halt payments, I'm concerned that my T bills will not get paid out when they mature in April.

I'm not really sure there's anything to be done about it, but it's stressing me out. See if I ever invest in them again.

I recently heard something that I didn’t like. It was about the growth of fascism in the US, and it said something that I was uncomfortable hearing; ignoring it is the same as acceptance.

I am not subscribed to ~society. I was automatically added when it was created but I quickly noped out. I had already lowered my news consumption to a minimum before Trump won the election, but after I have actively avoided even those few programs that I thought were good. I didn’t have the will to hear about the terrible things on the horizon.

So now I am thinking about what I should do, and right now the thing that seems like the most concrete action is to buy a gun.

Honestly, though, I hate guns. I’ve done a shooting range a few times when I was a kid and I guess they were kind of fun but the idea of using it against people sickens me. On the other hand, we are living in an age where police forces are paramilitarized, the president can and will use CBP as a military force within the US border, and our civil rights are being pried apart.

But what would I actually do with a gun? What difference will it actually make? Bring part of deadly violence is the last thing that I want.

For the last 10-years or so, I've been much more interested in US history, it started because I wanted to be a more informed citizen, but continued because of how much recorded history differed from how I was taught. Then I started seeing how the lofty offerings of America, as an idea, had really never existed.

Like, when the rest of the world was watching the Soviet Union from the outside as it proudly proclaimed how amazing they were and everyone was kind of glancing at each other and whispering "They know we can see how it's going, right?" I wonder if the same is happening now, as countries watch US politics unfold. How close are we from a failure here or there to cascading failure?

I'm at a point of accumulated facts, doing my best to remove my personal bias, that I can't help but think we were arrogant to think we could keep a continent this large in one piece. The weight of national systems that can support a population this spread out is immense. The upkeep of infrastructure at this scale is a logistics nightmare. Passing any national laws has become the chore that just never gets done, we'll always get to it tomorrow. The people, Americans, can be amazing, but that's a truth of humanity, not nationality.

I'm sad to think I could be witnessing the end of something really impressive and inspiring, even if a lot of it was some makeup and nice lighting. Thoughts?

Shortly after the election I saw a cartoon on Facebook titled "Let's Get A Baseline". It listed various prices for common goods and other assorted statistics. I looked up a few, and those were incorrect.

A sort of "presidential report card" did seem like a neat idea to me. Something to be reviewed every January 20th. Perhaps in a chart that would make facts speak for themselves in social media.

Are there any magazines or news sources that already do this? Something like The Economist?

These are metrics I would like to see in such a chart, perhaps a bar graph.

Please suggest others that you think ordinary voters would care about

1. National debt
2. Inflation
3. Unemployment
4. The GDP
5. The literacy rate
6. National match scores ( compared globally )
7. The poverty rate
8. Administration members indicted
9. Average price of gas
10. Average yearly salary
11. Average retirement savings

First of all: this system brought undeniable historical advances in the West (formal equality, freedom of speech, universal suffrage). There's no way to deny this when compared to monarchies and the civil-military authoritarian regimes in Latin America. However, even so, current democracy inherently carries the objective of preserving the economic order. The political structure is designed so that economic elites (whether bourgeois or corporate) maintain control through campaign financing, legislative influence, and media dominance.

With this in mind, I decided to bring up for debate why democracy is considered the ultimate and best system we currently have, leaving no room for criticism of the system itself (representative democracy). This system derives from a stratified one (Greek) that has been refined over centuries to take power away from monarchs and transfer it to the bourgeoisie. Today, we live in a bourgeois-liberal democratic state that restricts any minority group’s access to the center of power. Everyone notices this, but since proposing or thinking of something distinct from representative democracy is dangerous, most people aim to patch a system that was designed to be this way: exclusionary and elitist. In the end, this term (democracy) has been elevated to an absolute moral ideal, leaving no room to question its central premise (the maintenance of centralized power in financial capitalism, which now finances the most radical right-wing movements).

By the way, it’s worth considering how the right gained power in the world (money). And how it maintains its hegemony over cultural thought worldwide (money). Who funds this? Who benefits from this? Why couldn’t a decentralized yet ~autocratic~ proposal (I understand the difference between autocracy and the lack of checks and balances, but I fail to see why the current system is inherently better) be superior to a centralized government defending the interests of a dominant class? (Hint: the right maintains its hegemony because it controls financial resources and the means of cultural production; it’s not just about governments but a machine operating at multiple levels where the dominant ideology reflects the ideology of the ruling class.)

Continuing, there are no decentralized and autocratic proposals (in the sense of concentrating power efficiently for certain decisions while decentralizing access to power overall) because these challenge the traditional logic of checks and balances, which ironically has been more effective at blocking structural changes than preventing abuses of power. For instance, the concept of distributive autocracy (a model in which power is temporarily centralized to carry out rapid structural reforms, followed by mechanisms of redistribution and decentralization of power) is rarely discussed because the tripartite and bicameral system locks this debate in place to maintain control through financial power (amendments) of the country.

We remain hostages to a system that has become humanity’s manifest destiny, where no questioning can be raised without the individual being labeled as morally inferior. It’s not that representative democracy is inherently superior, but that it was historically designed to be acceptable within the context of bourgeois power. The question, therefore, is not simply "autocracy vs. democracy," but how we can create inclusive, participatory, and redistributive systems where power structures are transparent, accessible, and fair for everyone.

basically, there seem to be 2 competing narratives of "people of color/poor people of all color tend to have it worse so let's create social programs specifically targeting them to left them up"

and I am see pros and cons to both sides and am wondering what people well-researched and versed on either have to say to each other.

1. I really prefer to see a long-form discussion but I am not opposed to a debate as long as its a debate with no audience. I've really grown to hate watching debate participants try to argue for claps or score cheap points with the audience.
2. Very minimal shouting or yelling over each other and each side lets the other finish.
3. I prefer if its not "dark web" folks like Sam Harris or Coleman Hughes who are involved in discussion but am not totally opposed.

An example of a debate I kinda liked (would have liked it more if Fridman hadn't invited a streamer and treated it like he had the same level of expertise as historians or analyst): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X_KdkoGxSs

Rather than rehash all the conversations about the identity or motive of the person who killed the United Healthcare CEO, I'd love to have a discussion about the policy window it seems to have opened. This is the first time we've seen widespread, bi-partisan support for an issue - seemingly medicare for all - but I can't find anyone actually talking about policy. None of the big legacy media organizations like BBC or CNN, or your typical cast of medicare for all characters like Bernie Sanders. I'm not sure if silence on the topic to insulate folks from being labelled "cold or heartless", but it seems like systematic issues with the insurance industry is at the core of what has everyone so riled up. Am I missing some large scale discussion happening that is actually focusing on regulatory change or is it just not happening?

Maybe to the heart of the question for those better informed than myself: What can we do from a grassroots perspective to push for regulatory reform while this is still fresh in the public eye? There seems to be momentum, can it be funneled into something meaningful?

I realize the threads I've seen on the topic have been locked, so if you participate in the discussion please keep this policy related. We all have strong feeling about what happened, but as much as we can let's stay on topic.

I was watching this clip of The Daily Show where Desi Lydic highlights the change in how Dr. Oz has been portrayed over the years, and it got me thinking about the perception of public figures over time.

I remember watching CBS Sunday Morning segment in 1998 where Elon Musk was painted in a fairly good light as a sort of rebel taking on Microsoft. This was around the time that Microsoft was seen in a pretty bad light for the Internet Explorer anti-trust case.

Musk as he appears in the media I consume today is almost unrecognizable from the 1998 segment.

I also recall a time when Rudy Giuliani was seen in a good light (disclosure: I'm mostly going off of my memory of how he was perceived by the nation as Mayor of New York. I never lived in or near New York, so I can't really speak to how he was perceived locally).

I'm sure I could come up with other examples if I thought about it some more.

All of this has me pondering the nature of my own perception. I don't know any of these people personally, so I rely on what I see online and in the news to guide my image of who these people are. But when I see this stark contrast it makes me wonder what is real.

Did these figures change over time, perhaps corrupted by power and/or fame?

Have they always been this way, and I'm just seeing the media paint them differently over time?

Are they just in a Harvey Dent / Batman "live long enough to become the villain" situation?

Maybe all of the above?

I also think about this in context of aging. My views on the world have definitely changed over time. I think I've mostly grown in a positive way as a person. But I've also seen my own parents change their views and become disturbingly conservative. It worries me that I may also have a regression as I age. They are still mostly the same loving parents I grew up with. The only real obvious cause of their shift in views is the media they consume.

So I'm curious to hear other points of view on this phenomenon.

I think I won't post the link here to one of the posts about this because I think it's an unproven conspiracy theory and it isn't true.
But there is a particular story going around online that one or more security experts is claiming that the latest presidential election was stolen. The "proof" is of this type:

• I'm a security expert
• There is some stuff in the election results that is statistically impossible, especially in swing states
• There is a specific type of ballot where the voter has only voted for one candidate or issue
• Here are the numbers compared to the normal numbers
• Voting machines were compromised, and here's how

For each of those bullet points (and a few others I didn't mention), I have to go and research that data in order to determine if it is accurate.

• I could google the expert and check their reputation
• I could research how common it is to have certain types of ballot completions
• I may be able to get detailed information about specific counties and their historic voting patterns
• I could do a lot of research on voting machine integrity

The research on each of those bullets could be compromised by other misinformation, astroturfing, bad AI summaries, etc.

Or I could just send the link to everyone I know and hope that someone else does this. Or just send it because I don't like the election result and I wish this story was true.

It's easy to see why CNN reported that 70% of Republicans thought the 2020 election was stolen, especially since conspiracy theories were repeated to them on all their main news sources and confirmed their biases.

Most of my family members (notably everyone in the older generation) are variously xenophobic (very), transphobic (plenty) and racist (enough). They're openly right wing populist party voters. In family gatherings, or even in online messaging, I normally ignore them or try to divert the conversation away from their stupid political takes - even the ones who know I am pansexual are likely to say some nasty shit, showing (I believe) that they don't have a drop of respect for me or my gay brother. There is nothing I can ever convince them of, political or not, because (I believe) they will always treat my arguments with disdain, regardless of any reason or evidence. I don't think much better of their politics myself, since I find most of their constant complaining about entire classes of people they've never even interacted with incredibly tiresome, not to mention wholly inconsistent with their supposed christian values (I know, this situation sounds very american, even though I am not.)

I personally believe there is some value in some, but not all, arguments that are for restricting or reorganizing immigration at this time, mainly due to problems stemming from years of lazy policymaking, and in some right wing fiscal policy (we have some extremely expensive and inefficient government programmes right now - NOT health or education - and misguided protectionism of certain huge and mismanaged private companies), so we can usually meet on that common ground.

Today at a gathering an aunt decided out of the blue to loudly proclaim how happy she was that Donald Trump was elected in the US. Other relatives quickly agreed, after which they started a conversation about how a Trump presidency will be good for the economy. At this point I will just politely say I didn't understand what they were talking about (my thoughts weren't as kind at the time); we are not americans, and I have the notion that Trump is an isolationist who admires dictators and despises the EU and doesn't value us as allies; I am led to believe he wants to do things with regard to defense, tariffs, etc. that are unambiguously bad for us and will directly translate into a harder life and more danger for Europeans over the next few years.

A younger relative then said he was happy that we finally had "an insane dictator" on "our side". According to him, none of the crazy authoritarians in the world respected a man like Biden, but they were wary of Trump, since Trump is unpredictable. I remember hearing this argument eight years ago, but I'm not so sure of this. Historically, as I said, Trump seems to me to fawn over strongmen and demagogues leading other nations, while he hasn't exactly conveyed that he is "on our side". As far as I know, he's been suspiciously an enabler of Vladimir Putin, for instance.

So at this point I explained to my family that we weren't there to discuss politics and the politics conversation was to end immediately or I was going to start insulting people.

I'd like you all to tell me if I'm in the wrong here. Am I out of touch? Can you explain my family's perspective to me in a way that makes them sound less insane? This isn't some kind of bait. Just because I don't like Donald Trump (and neither do the majority of people in this community, AFAIK), I pride myself in being a fairly rational person. I can be convinced of things, as long as there's rationally constructed argument underpinning them. Maybe there's some value to their position?

Like I did last time Trump was in office, I've been reading up on authoritarianism and fascism.

Ur-Fascism by Umberto Eco
On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder
They Thought They were Free by Milton Mayer

And if you want a hot take from someone who argues that Trump himself is not a fascist but rather something worse, here is a great video from Morbid Zoo. Note: the main argument in this video begins at about 11:30. The lead up is responding to criticisms of her first video on the topic and laying some groundwork for her argument. You'll be fine to start at 11:30.

I wonder still if there is enough fight left in this country to resist him. I wonder if Trumpism will fizzle out upon his death or when he leaves office in four years. I wonder if America's institutions are strong enough, its people just smart enough, to not go that route. I suppose I'm feeling anxiety because I would like to, here and now before I become accustomed to another "new normal," set my boundaries on when there is no going back. I don't want to look back and say that I missed the obvious moment and I should have known. I want to be ready and keep my wife and son safe.

My question is this:

Where is your uncrossable line? What would Trump and crew have to do before you decided to leave by any means with no concern for your debts, possessions, etc.? Or, if the frog is boiled more gradually, when would you start seriously making preparations?

So Trump won. Next few years are gonna be rough, I know. What happened, and where can the Dems go from here?

James Carville said it best: It’s the economy, stupid (even if he predicted the wrong candidate). Inflation was a big concern among voters, mostly driven by gas, groceries, and housing. Rightly or wrongly, many voters tied this to Biden, and through him to Harris. They viewed Trump as being likelier to fix things, with a big bold plan (tariffs, deportations, tax cuts). I suspect some (many?) voters wanted to punish Dems for inflation. Others probably thought Harris would worsen it. While she had a long proposal, she didn’t seem to talk about it much, nor boil it down to soundbites. Many of the demos that swung were hit hard by the price increases.

We saw swings among Latinos, young voters, and rural voters toward Trump. Some of this was due to depressed D turnout (Harris got 15 million fewer votes than Biden), but in other cases it was due to genuine swings. Starr County, TX went Republican for the first time in decades. New Jersey only went for Harris by single digit percentages. Black voters had a small 2% decline of the share of the electorate.

I think non-immigration identity politics played a smaller role. I do think Harris/Walz could’ve talked more about men’s issues specifically (suicide, the academic gap, poor job prospects), although they are hard to soundbiteify and not sound forced. They likely could've approached it from a universalist angle. Trans issues might’ve driven some voters to Trump, but I believe it was more localized (e.g., reduced margins in Loudoun County). Latinos likely weren’t particularly turned off of Trump because they aren’t a cohesive bloc, and in many cases not even the same race (you’ve got whites, indigenous, blacks, mixed, even Asian Latinos). Between the countries the cultures can be very different, to the point of each country hating the other. They can be more socially conservative as well, especially those in their 40s and older.

Immigration was definitely a bigger issue, dovetailing with economic issues (housing costs, “why are migrants getting help but not me”, homelessness). The migrant bussing by Gov. Abbott will be viewed as one of the greatest political maneuvers of the 21st century. It brought the issue to voters outside of border states. The number of people coming to the border was frustrating/scary for some voters.

Abortion didn’t play as big of a role, I suspect because many women don’t think they’ll need one, or because they don’t view care that legally may qualify as one.

The state of democracy didn’t motivate enough people for the Dems, in fact, some people who thought it was important voted for Trump.

Foreign policy didn’t play much of a role, although Israel/Palestine probably was significant in Michigan. But that needle would’ve been hard to thread for any candidate, and probably would’ve been less of a problem if other points were addressed.

I think the fact that Harris is a biracial woman did reduce votes, but I don’t think it was necessarily decisive in her losing. The right woman can definitely win (Thatcher won the U.K. in 1979, so it should be possible in the U.S. in 2024). I would probably hold off in 2028, but I don’t see an issue with running women long-term.

So, what are the takeaways for Dems?

1. Suburban white-collar voters are not the end-all be-all. They are a good bloc to have (reliable voters in many swing states, including in off-years), but they are not enough to outweigh the others.

2. You cannot take minority demographics for granted. They will not stay with you forever. They are not monolithic.

3. Social policy can only go so far. Its salience can be quite limited compared to the economy. Negatives can be very negative, white positives may be “meh”.

4. Running against someone, rather than for yourself only works so many times.

5. You can only have so many issues stacked against you and be able to win. If it was just the economy, it might’ve been closer, but you had the economy, and immigration, and social policy, and Israel/Palestine.

6. The average voter does not account for lag in terms of policy. Trump got credit for a good economy even though Obama did a lot of the work.

7. Places that are or have been “safe” are not guaranteed to stay like that forever, especially when paired with point 2, without work.

8. NatCon populism is here to stay. The combination of left-ish economics and social conservativism, propelled by apathetics and the hard right is a winning one, and needs to be countered accordingly.

9. Many folks view Democrats as being the “mom” or “Karen from HR” party. That is not the kind of reputation that wins elections.

10. It’s the economy, stupid.

Based on that, what would my strategy be for Dems in 2026/2028?

1. Clean house. The folks in charge lost 2024 and only barely won 2020. Care needs to be taken to ensure replacements have sufficient political/management experience.

2. Don’t be the party of why/if. Be the party of do. The former implies insecurity, the latter confidence.

3. Bring back the 50-state strategy. Open offices in rural areas. States viewed as safely blue came awfully close to flipping for Trump this year. But the reverse can also be true, especially with a good candidate (cf. Indiana in 2008 ). And even if the presidential candidate loses, downballot candidates can still win, especially in off-years. I think the Dems had a good ground game, and while it cannot make up for everything else, it’s usually better to have it than not. Local elections matter a lot because they have stronger day-to-day impact, and they are the breeding ground for future politicians. North Carolina had several good Dem victories.

4. Focus on economics. Moderate suburbanites aren’t enough to win on, and many people like Trumponomics. Go for smart tariffs, universal policies (e.g., Child Tax Credit, universal Medicare, etc), targeted tax cuts and increases along with tax code simplification, and one other oddball policy (withdrawal from the WTO? Annual gas tax holiday?) likely to be popular with voters.

5. Social moderation/tolerance. The party is a big tent one, and there’s going to be friction over social issues. This doesn’t mean abandoning core constituencies, but being smarter about rhetoric and candidates (you won’t win the Georgia governorship with an Everytown candidate). Candidates should be allowed to have differing views on social policy (especially if it is personal and doesn’t extend to the political realm), and there should be a mechanism to allow dissent on an issue an individual is out of touch on. Related: get the loudest social progressives away from the party. They frequently clash with it but manage to tie the party to an unpopular viewpoint with something they said on Xitter/Tik Tok. I did like the initial message of freedom the Harris campaign was putting out, but it didn’t seem to be used much.

6. Turnout still matters. You need to be able to turn out more people for you than the other guy.

7. (My weird, hot take-ish view) Go on an offensive cyber campaign. You’ve got Russian operatives shilling for Trump and the GOP. Hack them. Make it so they can’t just continuously pump out disinfo. Even a few million should be enough to establish a unit dedicated to fucking up Russian troll farms.

8. (Courtesy of @EgoEimi) Go for the reality TV angle. Lots of rallies, some political stunts, and bring loads of energy.

One final thought: Trump is a sui generis candidate. He energizes people who aren’t into politics normally. Thus far, the GOP hasn’t been able to translate that into off-year elections or non-Trump POTUS candidates. Nobody wants diet Trump, they want the real deal. When he passes away, it remains to be seen whether someone (Vance?) can take over with the same level of success.

Recently I was watching the World War 2 series "Masters of the Air". In one of the last scenes, there is an American prisoner of war who climbs up the flag pole and replaces the German flag with the American flag as American troops liberate the camp. I thought it was a powerful aesthetic image: A battered flag of freedom replacing a flag of oppression.

The American flag looks very nice to me, especially used in dramatic art. But I think that's mostly the connotations of my upbringing. If you look at the aesthetics of it without any history of it, it looks like a striped tablecloth sewn to a starry apron or something. And to a lot of other people in the world it looks like greed or violence or oppression or something else again.

I'm sure these aren't original thoughts, but the use of this flag as a symbol has been bothering me for the last 8 or 10 years. It's been co-opted to mean something different than before, inside the very places where it previously would have much more positive connotations. If I see that flag on a big pickup truck, I have a strongly negative connotation with it. Or if I see it defaced with a blue line on it. Or if I see it on the pin of a politician. Or on a pole in a used car lot. Or in any advertisement.

This is more about my own naivete about whatever the United States was actually about, separate from what we are taught as children and the stories we tell ourselves. But I'm guessing a lot more people have these thoughts than did a few years ago.

I remember some people a few years ago were telling progressives to "Take back the flag from the right wing". I guess I don't know if that's going to work, there seems to be a poisoned well now and anyway everyone always brings their own experiences to such symbols and your display of positivity may have the opposite effect on others.

Imagine that on the campaign posters, it will say your name and then this policy. For example:

Vote for <your username> ...

• Rain boots for everyone. (No American / Englishman / Indian / etc. should have soggy socks.)
• A Speedy DMV. (It should take 10 minutes to renew your license at the DMV.)
• Rice in every restaurant. (Rice is good with everything. At least some Asian KFCs will serve fried chicken with rice!)

It should resonate deeply with people, without the expectation that it should solve any of the deeper problems in life.

I hope it is kosher to post this under ~talk. I know people are sick of this topic, so I put plenty of tags in to help those not interested avoid seeing this thread. FWIW, you can go into your Settings and enter keywords to filter threads on ( via tags ).

To my question.

Netanyahu has been killing people with no means of defense.

What is President Biden's motivation to keep sending military aide to Israel while Netanyahu continues to do this?

I have a few guesses, but none of them on their own or together seems to justify the political or humanitarian costs:

1. Somehow it is in the geopolitical interest of the U.S. to do so
2. Israel would be destroyed without military aide ( but defensive weapons can still be sent )
3. The U.S. benefits from Israeli intelligence
4. Congressional republicans aligned with Christian Nationlists want to see Israel live out a Biblical prophesy and it would cost President Biden politically if he were to push a decrease in military aide - assuming he could.
5. President Biden might have lost Jewish American votes, BUT Jews are a minority in America and many American Jews are against what Netanyahu is doing.

Those are the possibilities I could come up with. Am I missing anything? All of these possibilities together do not seem to be worth the political cost President Biden incurred. Is there something I missed?

I'm pitching this question out to Tildes because I'm drawing a blank. It feels like we have seen an absolute stripping of our rights and unbridled support for large, private capital in the past week; and I'm unsure of how to respond. Considering the scale of impact these rulings will have on every US citizen's day to day life, things are surprisingly quiet. I'm wondering how other folks are thinking about mobilizing - be it through protest, outreach to representatives, or civil disobedience. It doesn't feel like there is a wave of ire. At least in my circles, there are no protests like the Women's March or BLM. There has been no response from my local representatives in congress or state senators. It's just eerie radio silence.

Is anyone else feeling this way? Has anyone joined or developed some sort of response to what is happening?

I write this topic knowing that it might get removed for being too controversial or incendiary or bring the anti-Semites out of the woodwork, in which case, I understand why this topic might get removed.

I am just hoping that tildes has a better capacity of engaging in such a charged topic, at least more than reddit.

onto my question:

Like anyone else who watches the news, I have been pretty aware of what is going on in the latest escalation of the Israel-Palestine war. I would not claim to be the most educated person ever, but I'd like to think I at least understand the broad-strokes.

And I consider myself generally a progressive person (not a liberal) so I personally am not a big fan of the Israeli govt. And yes I do condemn Hamas, I don't care what your struggle is, Oct 7th was a terror attack and only makes the situation worse for the people you claim to be freedom fighters for.

Having said all that, and seeing how much control Israel seems to have on the western powers, or specifically U.S., I will admit, my thoughts sometimes veer towards "they really do control things" and shit like that, but then 10 seconds later, I realize how ye-like that sounds and it's the exact same kind of thinking that led to the Holocaust. But then I also wonder if that is not entirely my fault and more because of the Jewish leaders who insist on making fervent support of Israel a strong part of their identity, thereby linking any criticism of the Israeli govt with criticism of Jewish people (or at least the Jewish leaders in the media who are supportive of Israel) rather than distancing themselves from a right-wing government.

So yea, I guess my question is: I don't think its entirely unreasonable to think that Israel has a surprising amount of control over western powers (specifically U.S.) but that sentiment in and of itself also veers dangerously close to antisemitism for my liking so I wondered how folks on here approach it?

the Israel-Palestine war has not been good to my mental health and the coverage and the treatment of the campus protests oddly is what did me in.

Now one approach could be to just not watch the coverage but I have come around to the point of view that not watching meaning not knowing what's happening and you need to know what is happening if only for the hope to be more informed about the politics of the government you live in.

So I guess I am trying to understand what is a responsible way to digest news about something that enrages you? Or is there no such thing? Cause I don't do social media (aside from occasional reddit and just the frontpage when I do that once in a while) and I refuse to watch any 24/7 news networks. I only do an hour of CBC and like 1-3 daily news podcasts which each do like 10-20 min daily updates.

Cause the Israel-Palestine war doubled with the terrible way the campus protests are being treated has really shaken my faith and trust in institutions and I won't go into how cause I don't want to invite infighting on tildes and potential Islamophobia and antisemitism after what happened in that macklemore thread.

I'm preoccupied with a couple of things.

The first being that the federal budget was just released and I'm feeling like a national school lunch program and an injection of money into housing with the expectation that cities build higher density dwellings is... Something they should have done mid mandate?

Is there even time to implement this stuff? Are we getting close to the point where we've spent too much?

Second is a quote from a compilation of personal accounts from travellers into this country's north in the 1800s. Farley Mowat assembled the stories and wrote the forward for "Tundra" in the 1960s and says the following

"Until 50 or 60 years ago, the Arctic was a living reality to North Americans of every walk of life. It had become real because men of their own kind were daring it's remote fastness in search of pure adventure", unprotected by the vast mechanical shields that we now demand whenever we step out of our air conditioned sanctuaries".

He goes on to talk about how -- most of all -- easily heated dwellings and running water had a softening effect on people, and that (basically) we fear and avoid Canada's climate far more than our forebearers did.

Wondering what people's thoughts on this are.

From what you learned from grandparents or earlier generations about spending time outside, would you agree that the comforts of home are just too damned seductive?

If it's never even a remote consideration that the NDP may break from the Liberals and side with the CPC in the House of Commons, aren't they essentially a vassal for the LPC, soaking up votes from disaffected Liberal voters and funneling them back into Liberal control? I mean from a simple game theoretic perspective, Liberals in the long run can demand everything and give nothing. I think Canadian politics has probably been damaged by overapplying the American left-right political spectrum, when it may be better thought as a three way spectrum between liberalism, conservatism, and democratic socialism (something like Red Toryism for example would be pretty inconceivable in American politics).

What the recent Reddit protest cemented in my mind is how ineffective protest tends to be the larger and more entrenched an established order is. There's no real incentive to change because ultimately everyone knows that the protestors have little recourse.

If you want to enact change, just trying to get people enraged and trying to get them to express that rage is not a great tactic. What you need as an alternative for people to go to instead, because that's the only real threat that matters to the establishment, the threat of being replaced.

So to that end, I'd like to start a conversation about what it is that people need, and how we can arrange structures to get those things without needing to rely on external actors who don't have your interests at heart.

For example, community mesh networks are a way of expanding internet into more of a public amenity so everyone can have access to it.

Virtual power plants can allow communities to produce their own power reliably and reduce their reliance on major power providers.

These are the kinds of things I am interested in. I feel that the most effective way to push back against profiteering corporations is to simply reduce our need for them in the first place.

What are some good community oriented solutions to societal needs that you feel deserve more attention and interest?