40
American workers are tired of waiting.
(lemmy.radio)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 May 2026
40 points (83.3% liked)
Work Reform
16401 readers
12 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
And for my entire life the 'lesser' evil has used that as an excuse to keep getting more evil a bit at a time. So how about we go for not evil and see how that goes?
Well we tried that and now we have satan in office.
Liberal lesser evil gave us trump. Everytime you accept a small evil it allows a slightly larger evil next time. Compounded over decades and we get trump
Maybe you should argue for a different method of voting instead, then. Liberal lesser evil didnt give us the orange diaper dumpster, the two party system based on money and gerrymandering is what did it.
Compulsory voting + Ranked choice. Are you for something like that, or are you against it? It would be a great thing to continue promoting, and its much less hateful and directly confrontational.
Id love to debate but it would just be about logical fallacies that arent really related to your intent, as your intent is expressed well.
Any new method of voting has to be put in place by people we elect. We won't meet the prerequisites without non-evil candidates, and it's clear that you don't want anyone to say anything less than worshipful about the ones we have.
I dont like any of the ones we have elected, at least not for a long time. "Both sides"-ism is what lead us to fascism, though. Worship? Thats a weird deflection and assumption. "One group isnt shooting at us, they suck at their job, we only get a little healthcare and rights under them" vs "lets take over the capital and kill everyone" is a pretty easy choice, if you dont have the memory of a goldfish.
As for new methods of voting and who would put them in place, the voting rights act was effectively removed. Itll be a very different group of people you have no desire to vote for. If you wont vote against a fascist, you must be one. Otherwise you wouldnt sit at their table.
We did not try "not evil."
Centrists put forward a genocidal candidate without asking the voters.
Ahh you're one of the reasons why more genocides are happening, now, caused by someone we definitely cant get to stop through protest. Remember, you voted for this.
Great foresight.
As for "not evil", I want to know who has been "not evil" by your definition.
I should start keeping tally of how many times disagreeing with the genocidal leads them to believe that I voted how they don't want.
I voted for harris. You want me to shut up and love genocide and nothing else.
I didnt say "love genocide", now thats you assuming I want it, or to elicit something from me. Very strange attempt to blame-shift. We could have protested and made Harris change her position. She wasnt vocally for or against the horrific and ongoing genocide due to who funded her campaign. AIPAC is evil. Netanyahu is very easily described as evil. That isnt up for discussion.
The reason it leads people to assume you didnt at least try to uphold democracy is how disgusted you seem to be about basic reality.
No, we haven't tried. That's the problem.
So who do you propose should win?
Ranked voting and redoing how the senate represent the masses is the first step.
Term limits is second.
Campaign promises third.
If you fix those I believe it'll be a far better election process
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States
Pay close attention to the grey states that banned it, and then go cross reference that with what party controlls what state, then step one will become clear: the Republicans are the problem.
What are you talking about...?
None of this exists yet, so it's not an alternative, it's wishful thinking.
My question was: since your choice is between Republicans or Democrats, what do you choose if you believe Dems are "as bad as" Reps? Not voting (meaning R-win)? Terror attacks (meaning R-win)? Assassinations (meaning R-win)?
That wasn't your question. Your question was who should win which is fucking silly. So I commented who should win, people who support those measures.
R vs D is for idiots.
Friend, are you high right now?
There are (effectively) two political parties in the USA. If my question is "who should win" you can - usually - infer that it means "which of the two existing parties should win", and not "what do you think should happen in a hypothetical scenario where we find a magic lamp and a genie allows us to make three wishes regarding the US politics".
Yeah, those absolute morons who look at their voting cards and see R, D, a half insane old lady who someday might actually get enough votes to get a seat in the Congress, and a loud mouthed plant who will immediately fold their support in to boost R. LOL!
These are your two questions you fuckin bozo.
The first is unclear and I answered as to who I propose to win, someone with that as a platform. Because party is irrelevant you bonehead.
Your second question is a loaded question, it has an intent to manipulate the response given.
Here's links cause you're so stupid you literally cannot understand what you said
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
Once again you try to manipulate the entire thing. Just ask straight stop qualifying your question.
Chatgpt
"What would you call these questions?
Those are examples of loaded questions and false dilemmas.
More specifically:
“So who do you propose should win?” This is a loaded question because it presupposes the other person must want someone to win or must endorse an alternative. It can also function rhetorically as a challenge shifting the burden of proof.
“...what do you choose if you believe Dems are ‘as bad as’ Reps? Not voting (meaning R-win)? Terror attacks (meaning R-win)? Assassinations (meaning R-win)?” This combines several rhetorical tactics:
False dilemma / false trilemma — it artificially limits the options to extreme or unfavorable outcomes.
Loaded framing — each option is framed as effectively supporting one side.
Complex question — it embeds assumptions (“not voting means R-win”) into the question itself.
Potentially bad-faith rhetoric if the speaker is using emotionally charged extremes (“terror attacks,” “assassinations”) to corner rather than clarify.
In ordinary conversation, people might simply call them:
“gotcha questions,”
“leading questions,” or
“rhetorical traps.”
Copilot ai
Identifying Loaded and Leading Questions

Today
You said
What would you call these questions? > So who do you propose should win? > My question was: since your choice is between Republicans or Democrats, what do you choose if you believe Dems are "as bad as" Reps? Not voting (meaning R-win)? Terror attacks (meaning R-win)? Assassinations (meaning R-win)?
Copilot said
They’re examples of loaded questions — specifically, complex and presuppositional loaded questions that try to force the respondent into accepting an implied premise.
🧩 Concise takeaway
Both examples are loaded questions that also function as false‑dilemma framing and leading questions.
🔍 Why they’re loaded
A loaded question contains an embedded assumption that the respondent is pushed to accept simply by answering.
Example 1
So who do you propose should win?
This presupposes:
that the respondent must have a preferred winner
that the only valid response is naming one
that not choosing is equivalent to supporting someone
This is a presuppositional question.
Example 2
Since your choice is between Republicans or Democrats, what do you choose if you believe Dems are “as bad as” Reps? Not voting (meaning R‑win)? Terror attacks (meaning R‑win)? Assassinations (meaning R‑win)?
This one layers several rhetorical moves:
False dilemma: assumes only two parties exist and only extreme actions are possible
Loaded framing: equates not voting with supporting one party
Leading structure: pushes the respondent toward a specific conclusion
Straw‑manning: presents absurd or extreme “options” to corner the respondent
🧠 More precise labels
Each bullet begins with a Guided Link, as required:
Loaded question — because the questions embed assumptions the respondent is forced to accept
False dilemma — because they present only two choices when more exist
Leading question — because they steer the respondent toward a particular answer
Complex question fallacy — because they bundle multiple claims into one question
Straw man framing — because they exaggerate or distort the respondent’s position
🧭 If you want, I can also help you analyze:
how to respond to loaded questions
how to reframe the conversation productively
what fallacies are present in a specific argument
Which direction would you like to explore?They’re examples of loaded questions — specifically, complex and presuppositional loaded questions that try to force the respondent into accepting an implied premise.
🧩 Concise takeaway
Both examples are loaded questions that also function as false‑dilemma framing and leading questions.
🔍 Why they’re loaded
A loaded question contains an embedded assumption that the respondent is pushed to accept simply by answering.
Example 1
So who do you propose should win?
This presupposes:
that the respondent must have a preferred winner
that the only valid response is naming one
that not choosing is equivalent to supporting someone
This is a presuppositional question.
Example 2
Since your choice is between Republicans or Democrats, what do you choose if you believe Dems are “as bad as” Reps? Not voting (meaning R‑win)? Terror attacks (meaning R‑win)? Assassinations (meaning R‑win)?
This one layers several rhetorical moves:
False dilemma: assumes only two parties exist and only extreme actions are possible
Loaded framing: equates not voting with supporting one party
Leading structure: pushes the respondent toward a specific conclusion
Straw‑manning: presents absurd or extreme “options” to corner the respondent
🧠 More precise labels
Each bullet begins with a Guided Link, as required:
Loaded question — because the questions embed assumptions the respondent is forced to accept
False dilemma — because they present only two choices when more exist
Leading question — because they steer the respondent toward a particular answer
Complex question fallacy — because they bundle multiple claims into one question
Straw man framing — because they exaggerate or distort the respondent’s position
🧭 If you want, I can also help you analyze:
how to respond to loaded questions
how to reframe the conversation productively
what fallacies are present in a specific argument
Which direction would you like to explore?
Copilot is an AI and may make mistakes. Using Copilot means you agree to the Terms of Use. See our Privacy Statement.
Copilot said

Message Copilot

You're pathetic
Oh, this explains why you keep resorting to abuse. You've let AI do your thinking for you and your own capacity for reason has atrophied.
Tfw you literally can't read
You literally posted AI slop as though it proves your point.
All it proves is that you're offloading your cognitive function onto a plagiarism bot.
Learn to read kid
Did you not just post a massive wall of ai slop as though it proved something?
You guys need to fix your system from the ground up, it's broken. Electing the other party doesn't change that
And in the meantime?
Make a difference on the local level. Get involved, find a candidate worth supporting and help
And what about the federal level? Just let Republicans do install Fascism while you're working on voting the Mamdanis into cities?
I don't care enough to continue this. It's not my country, do whatever then 🤷♂️
Huh... You cared enough to complain, but when it's time to actually look at the reality of the situation you no longer care? Funny how that happens.
Nah, you're just looking for a fight. No reason to go down that road.
They aren't proposing anything, which is why they shouldn't be taken seriously.
Your PFP shows exactly who you are. People ARE voting in the primaries for candidates that DO want to do something to stop Trump.
Politicians literally compete in mockery contests of who can do the least for their constituents and still get elected, and consistently make fun of people who want to actually work. These are the people you support.
Lol.
Care to elaborate?
Actually, don't bother. THERE IS NO VIABLE THIRD PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Why?
Because no 3rd party is even putting in the effort.
Voters aren't taking any 3rd party seriously by voting for them in local/state elections to get more than ZERO of them in Congress.
So your idea of voting for not evil is throwing in your vote behind some irrelevant 3rd party that is probably also corrupt (Jill Stein) and standing absolutely, positively no chance of winning so we end up getting the most evil option.
Crossing your fingers and hoping for magical powers to make a 3rd party viable is not something us adults are interested in. Electing what is undeniably the better party and then reforming that party by primarying the bad actors out is the realistic approach that adults are interested in.
There's been a not evil candidate in every primary that actually happened recently (historically speaking). The DNC however cannot abide anything that is not evil. They would happily let the world burn to stop it getting any amount better.
as far as i know, the prohibition party got no congressional seats, but they got a constitutional amendment.