Let's see... a few capitalists and their horde of miseducated lackeys vs 1400000000 socialists + lots of other people around the world. What's the losing cause here?

The world is fucked and nobody is going to win, all causes are losing causes. I might as well pick one that align with my principles so I die with some dignity

I'm a loser

I do what I want. Has someone really gone and fabricated a narrative where that is somehow losing? I cry for the "winners"

I'm stubborn as shit and kind of a masochist.

Also in video games I like the adrenaline rush that comes with being on the losing side. Usually you just lose but sometimes you manage to do some badass shit and come out on top and that gives you one of the highest highs there is.

I'm a hipster.

If you manage to convert just one or two others to the cause, it’s a win already. If not, at least you are not part of the problem.

And for many of the things you listed I see a lot of progress compared to even 10 years in the past. Slow but steady.

All the things you list are things people choose for other reasons than just "winning".

People choose to be socialists because it's morally right, not because it's popular.

People choose Linux and open source software because it benefits them, not because it's popular.

People choose veganism because it's morally right and it benefits them, not because it's popular.

When you say capitalist options offer "a better value" - that's where you're making a mistake. These alternatives do benefit people, individually, no matter how few other people join in. And that's why people join them.

So if you want to motivate people to join a movement, show how it'll benefit them to join - physically, emotionally, financially, or spiritually.

Sir or Madam, I'm a fan of the Cleveland Guardians and the Columbus Blue Jackets. Both of those are losing causes and will probably be forever.

I wouldn't really consider any of those 'losing causes.'

None of us have a crystal ball and know what the future will bring.

Hope that the work we do will over time become the shade of a tree our grandkids will be able to enjoy.

Because I'd rather be right than win. Nice to be both, but the former is a higher priority for me.

Because it's saving me craploads of money to bike instead of drive. Our city put in protected bike lanes. It's faster and cheaper than driving in traffic in a state with $5.60 gas.

I still object to your definition of losing. Ethics diets are on the rise, and if Linux became less popular at any point that's new information to me. I'd say we're underdogs but things are going well.

As for actually answering, I think I just have a weird attachment to abstract conceptual correctness. Or rather, other people don't seem to, and that's why they can ignore things like animal welfare and creepy digital mega-corporations even if they know, on some level, that it's inconsistent with their stated priorities and values.

I assume this I just bait but regardless, describing any of these values as "losing" suggests that for anything to be worth pursuing in life, you must be winning at it. I don't even know what that means. Don't you make choices and spend time doing things because they make you happy or they benefit you or the people around you?

I disagree with the notion that these are "losing causes."

1. Socialism is necessary. Not only is the largest economy in the world by PPP a socialist country, and is using it to dramatic effect, capitalism and by extension imperialism are dying systems that have no future. Despite governing more of the world, capitalism is in decay, and is thus the "losing side."

2. Veganism is ethically correct. Not only is animal liberation a valuable pursuit, but it has far lower of an environmental impact. It isn't a "side," it's the correct conclusion.

3. FOSS isn't losing, it doesn't need mass adoption because it doesn't need profit. FOSS is growing though.

4. Anti-car urbanism is improving, socialist countries like the PRC are building huge amounts of effective urban transit. Between the car centric society of today and the urbanist future we desire, there is a transitional period marked by electrification and building up urban transit.

5. Lemmy/fediverse is healthy and stable, and already does what it needs to: provide an alternative for those who want one.

At the end of the day, framing movements as "winning" or "losing" purely on adoption rates is an error. What is important is trajectory and the material basis for transitioning from the present state of things to the next, ie how do the problems of today make the solutions of tomorrow physically compelled? For socialism, it is the decay of capitalism due to its inevitable contradictions, as well as capitalism's centralization making public ownership and planning in a post-capitalist society remarkably effective. How does that apply to others?

I feel like you're missing the point a bit. Living by values you hold dear is not losing, winning or even necessarily a cause. If your values happen to align with a cause, then supporting it in a way you can is at least somewhat fulfilling.

Now, there are definitely people who join a cause for tangential reasons. For example because they are a vehicle to what they want, such as someone who wants to build and use explosives can just as easily become a fundamentalist, anarchist or fascist. (And history has examples of these sordid folks.) They barely care about any of the causes and will drift wherever they can live by their own values, even if it's about blowing shit up.

I've always been on the fringes, as a child even, hard science fiction with nobody to discuss with. Making your own decisions based on the best data, changing my mind on data, but not consensus, this were the early memories in my life. The great hard core scifi authors echo this message over and over, really hammer it in.

While these may not be losing causes, they are not mainstream... and in relaxed wisdom of years I realize not being mainstream doesn't mean wrong, but nobody is incentivized to push them. All we know of human history is what survived in writings scattered around, lucky enough to survive the ravages of time... being the crazy guy who writes everything down, makes copies of all their books, has two libraries in different locations... wasn't a popular choice I'm sure, but it was the choice that survived.

Open Source - This is intensely popular, not by sales, but by what survives and gets used for decades. The perfect algorithm locked in a dusty cabinet doesn't advance humanity long term, imperfect open source that echos forward because its open and free does... This is why i think the permissive licenses are for software that will have the biggest impact.

Ketogenic - Very unpopular, fringe and rejected by traditional consensus, but the benefits are actually there.

Lemmy - It's not a losing cause, its just got low marketing... its the only way for open communication to last into the future. If it ain't federated it might as well be written in the sand.

I don't agree with causes to win. I agree with causes because they're correct. If everyone stopped believing in gravity I wouldn't follow suit.

There are not lost causes, just struggles you don't face.

Many of the things you mentioned are not "loosing". They are chugging along. Slow and steady.

I think you're treating all these mostly unrelated initiatives as an "ideology" in itself and not just things people are interested in.

On the flip side the capitalist consumerist alternatives to all of these benefit from there popularity and thus offer a better value to most people. The question is about what made you defer that better immediate material value in favor of something else.

What makes you think a given person prefers the capitalist options? There are plenty of reasons to like all of these things which is why some people do.

Socialism on a small scale cannot solve the inherent issues of a capitalism that surrounds it.

No, but socialist countries are routinely sheltered from the capitalist driven cataclysms due to their control of the economy. Look at how much China was affected by the 2008 crisis vs Western countries.

Also, socialism in places like Canada necessarily means decolonization of both the Indigenous peoples here and ending our corporate exploitation of both people abroad and Canadians. If that's not a reason to support it I don't know what is.

Veganism benefits from more people becoming vegan and restaurants and grocery stores providing vegan options.

The WHOLE DAMN POINT of veganism is to get rid of a luxury (animal products) because you think it's unethical. Vegans are not bothered by restaurants not catering to them because they simply won't go.

Also, grocery stores providing grocery options? Ah yes the flop of the vegan tomato left the vegan community reeling. What are you buying at the grocery store of all places that you don't think it's always been possible to be vegan? You know you can just buy plants and make your own food right?

FOSS, or more specifically desktop Linux, benefits from more people being on it and software developers designing for and maintaining applications for it.

Linux is measurably more efficient. Like seriously compare the background resource usage of Linux to Windows, Linux can be up to twice as light giving you more resources for your actual applications. Linux is also a lot more private which a lot of people care about over the convenience of a mainstream big tech OS.

Also, the simplicity and dare I say "non-technical user unfriendliness" of Linux is also a draw for technical users who don't want their computer coddling them. It's a niche for a reason.

the fediverse benefits from more people veing on it and more diverse communities so those with niche interests besides the above causes can find community here.

Can you elaborate on this one? I don't know what it means.

Pay attention to an individual's definition of "win" condition.

I define a "win" for FOSS on a very small, individual scale. I do not define it as widescale adoption by others. If I successfully replace a proprietary service with a FOSS service for my personal usage, that's a win. The only "lost cause" re FOSS to me is a FOSS service shutting or being so complicated to implement and maintain that I have to revert to the google service or whatever.

Similar on veganism, a win is me personally making a step improvement on diet, not contingent on shuttering commercial meat production.

My dear friend, my entire life is a losing cause. :)

I've been vegan foss-using anti war anarchist since high school, once I figure out what's right social pressure doesn't particularly sway me. In addition to all of the above I'm trans and still mask too.

I can't really point to anything in particular that "switched" other than legitimately not caring about fitting in.

Morality and ethical behavior are not defined by popularity

I want to live in a better world. You can't change the world (win) by giving up. You can't change the status quo easily and I can't live with myself if I do nothing.

I don't think of them as "losing causes". While it's important to be realistic about the current state of your cause, framing it this way assumes they have already and permanently lost, so nothing can ever change. Assuming a mindset of defeatism is demoralizing even if it is only in the language you use.

I know you phrased it as "losing" here, but it still made me think of that moment in Firefly when somebody refers to Mal having fought on the wrong side in a battle, and he says "May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

When a person has convictions and is put at a certain sort of fork in the road, they would rather do anything else before ever seeing themselves transform into the sort of person who would take one of those paths. Some would sell their souls to survive, and some know that their cause is worth several times more than their souls are worth, and the bill comes due at some point.

A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.

because the alternatives are unconscionable. Consumerist capitalist mono-culture is going to eat its own tail and kill everyone in the process.

I do think theory is a very good way to recruit people. When the facts are presented fairly, rational people will not choose capitalism.