Yeah, it's been really crazy. People have been trueanoning on this one just like people did with the trump shooting, even though that one was obviously also a pretty clear cut case. I think partially, it's because people are wanting to be half-funny, and are basically just iterating on the joke of "oh, I saw him at bible study at the time! that couldn't have been him!" and then sharing photo edits, right.

I think part of it is that everyone has been trained by true crime and fiction to think of all of these events as though they're living in a tom clancy book, or something. They're enraptured by the spectacularization of this event, and of all of the past of history, enraptured by the transformation of this event into a spectacle, so they get the feeling that, oh, oooh, something's off, but I just can't tell what. It always has to be some sort of increasingly more dramatic escalation, until there's some sort of release of tension, because that's how things work in fiction. In fiction, a guy isn't allowed to just pull off a hit on a random unprotected CEO, ride his bike to central park, leave a backpack full of monopoly cash because he's kind of cracked, get on a bus, and then go to a shithole in pennsylvania and then get busted over a mcdonald's hash brown. That shit doesn't happen in fiction, so it's not allowed to happen in real life.

I think part of it is also some sort of idiot idea about, somehow, if they just question the narrative on this enough, it will cause the guy to be innocent, somehow just them being conspiratorial on social media will cause that if they cook on it hard enough.

Most of all, though, I think it's sort of this desire to have the guy who shot that CEO get away, or be a different guy because, in the mind of your average person, that guy is some agent 47 super CEO hitman, that's going to liberate us brokies from our shitty healthcare problems, when obviously that's kind of a delusional escapist fantasy.

Basically, none of this is allowed to be actually real. This isn't a real event, in the mind of your average person. This is a media event, it's being treated like one. Much like that, you can cook up fanfictions, but it doesn't change the base media product, and you have to know that you can't do anything to affect the thing itself, it's set in stone and it's unchangeable and it's totally ethereal and out of your grasp.

That's sort of partially why I think this isn't going to change anything, and, though I think maybe a repeat might happen, I'm not holding my breath. Because while everyone can recognize the problem, everyone, in classic american style, wants some superman to come and save them, and is willing to do nothing, or put anything on the line, in order to really save themselves or others.

Yeah this is kinda what I've never understood. We have these sorts of, complaints about the demographic movements of these platforms, sure, but their actual core structure is inherently optimized to prey on people's worst instincts, make discussion basically impossible. To prioritize pithy remarks and one-liners over productive conversations, they prioritize public facing ideologues blowing up much smaller individuals. Lemmy's slightly better in that regard, but I feel like we're always somehow descending in quality from what even a basic forum would be capable of.

if it ends up being like the steam deck layout, they'll probably just fuse the touch screens into one larger one in the center of the controller, towards the bottom. At that point, it would probably just be pretty similar to the playstation controller, but with slightly more questionable ergonomics, or maybe a more usable touchscreen.

I don't think you can save something you didn't have to begin with tbh

There was an absolute mountain of evidence that Trump would be a disaster.

nobody gives a fuck about that. most people aren't clocked into online politics. they just live under one admin where trump benefits from obama's policy, things are squeaky clean for the most part, and then they're chilling, and then they move to living under joe biden where a once in a lifetime (hopefully, haha) pandemic decides to fuck shit up during the transition from one admin to the other, on top of inheriting a much worse economy, and then they attribute that to biden. it's not a super complicated figure, there, and that's all on top of biden just not being a very popular candidate to begin with.

if you actually look at the numbers, then the third party candidates had less of an effect for kamala than the third party candidates for trump did. which makes sense, because RFK, at the least, was campaigning on some sort of dystopian vision of the future that his deluded q-anon supporters actually liked, and he had money. jill stein is just grifting like always, basically, no change there, and no change with the lesser known candidates either, really. the bigger story is that a shit ton of the voters stayed home.

everyone wants to shift blame from the democratic party, which has obviously either mishandled this campaign or intentionally lost as a party of controlled opposition, and shift the blame onto the voters. ah, well, it was latino men's fault for being too socially conservative! ah, it was the third party voters and the leftists! it was the arab americans, who should've voted after we funded the bombs that killed their whole entire family! it was trans people, for just being too weird! those are all legitimate explanations I've heard people bring up, and I'd classify them all as basically the same, because they all equally have no evidence behind them. the real story is that she had low voter turnout. probably because she was associated with the least popular administration in decades, and refused to distinguish herself from that, and on top of that, campaigned with like, liz cheney. the most she did was offer like, tax exemptions for people starting small businesses, and tax exemptions for people who haven't missed their rent a single time in the last kajillion years. it's not rocket science, that's just not really an inspiring campaign. if they had low voter turnout, that's probably why, it's probably not because america is just too racist to vote for a black woman or whatever shit everyone's bloviating about so they can justify the democratic party turning to the right even more.

no, but everyone wants to pretend that everyone became ultra-super racist idiot trump voters over the course of 4 years because they listened to a lot of joe rogan, rather than listening to a bunch of CNN like good little vote piggies. see one infographic of a bunch of red arrows everywhere and then everyone loses their fucking minds and decides that the only way to win the next election is to become more racist. if only they tack to the right harder, then they'll win, they just need to be more racist, see, and then it'll work!

and the problem is that this is exactly the lesson they want to learn. it's the lesson they have an interest in learning because they are also a right wing party. maybe it's because there's just gonna be more posters running around two days after the election because this is the top drama and it's eating up time they otherwise would've spent talking about celebrity drama or whatever, but we can talk for years about how the democrats, anywhere else, would be a center-right party of neoliberal warmongers that are fundamentally unwilling to give positive material concessions to basically any of their voters. as soon as the election gets called, that all vanishes, suddenly they've run the most perfect campaign of all time, and really, it was the voters that were at fault, and if anything, they should be more racist. it's not that the economy sucked, that they didn't present an enthusiastic, optimistic, or hell, coherent, vision of the future. no, it's because they just weren't racist enough.

it's 2016 all over again. the punishments will continue until morale improves, time is a flat circle, and I keep falling down the stairs.

do'h

I dunno if that would be being allergic to strawberries so much, since most of these services have options for only seeing women if you're also a women. The gay dating market in general seems much healthier, ime. It's more as though you were drowning in strawberries, and then maybe one out of a twenty or twenty-five wasn't rotten at the face, or, maybe one in twenty wasn't a clone of the same five or six kinds of strawberries that you keep seeing. It's ultimately the same problem for both sexes, though. An overabundance, and a lack of real ability to distinguish between everything because of both a glut and a drought of overly flattened data leads to a kind of processed apathy out of sheer volume. Then, neglect leads to desperation, and then for some, to resentment, and so on and so forth. What I really don't understand is that for mostly purely cultural reasons there's such a massive and self-reinforcing disparity, it's kind of insane. There has to be a further underlying cause there than just like, 20 or 25% of men are desperate freaks and that sort of plunges everything into a downward spiral where everyone is sort of putting on this elaborate game of lying to each other because of a couple bad actors. Makes it kind of impossible to deal with any of this if you're autistic, to be honest.

If the economy were operating under rationality it would probably stop feeding elderly people as they can’t do any work and don’t provide much in the way of productivity, for example.

See, so that's like, I dunno if that's so much a problem. First off, rationality is sort of just a method that you're using to affect some type of process, in this case, economic efficiency Under which it probably also wouldn't make sense to, say, just throw old people off of big towers or whatever type of thing. People would probably overthrow your system, you'd deal with a high level of instability, and being unable to track people's ages effectively, which seems pretty inefficient, people might also try to move, or leave your system as they get older. So I'd expect some level of brain drain there, which leads to another point: You're also decreasing any worker productivity you would gain from old joe who ran the lumber yard still being around, so you can ask him questions about the quirks of the lumber yard. Maybe old joe even just boosts worker productivity by the fact that he makes his family and friends happier, and more able to tolerate bad working conditions, longer work hours, or more desirable than that, maybe he gives them the will to learn more, and bring you better higher level jobs where they will be ultimately much more efficient for whatever time they do end up spending on production. But back to rationality, that's just a method you're using to evaluate things. In this case, maybe "efficiency", which is sort of a proxy value for other, more real values. Efficiency to do what? Usually by, economic efficiency, we mean like, we're minimizing the necessary inputs, to affect some productive capacity, while maximizing the outputs, in like, a material way. But then, maybe the sort of our core value that we're chasing after should be to maximize the happiness that old joe is capable of giving to his friends and family, or something harder to define and measure, and more along those lines. That, that would maybe be a flaw of socialist systems, that we don't have some universal definition of a "good" to work towards, but I would say that, again, that's not a distinct flaw of those systems in particular, and in capitalism, that just gets subsumed by a bunch of other bullshit values. You don't have a universal definition of good, because you're always just making short term moves to maximize the profit of your company. Moral miasma, zombification.

Getting even more off topic, I think in general though my main counterargument is just that like. Any risk we take by defining a "good", right, a good to work towards, I think that's a good risk to take. To take the risk that, by defining the good, you eliminate other definitions of "good" that could'veexisted, and the freedom to have those other definitions of good. It's better to take that risk, and define that good, and then work towards it (and mostly, even to point out that such a core value exists, in practice, even acknowledge that it exists, more than anything else.). I think it's better to do that, than substitute your "good" for "freedom", which, like efficiency (and even like "good", but shhh), is just a proxy value for other things. In the market, in capitalism, we define freedom as the ability to own capital, own property, spend money on what you want to spend it on, and work to death in a soul-sucking 9-5 flipping calorically and nutritionally deficient burgers for a bunch of other people who have worked to death in a soul-sucking 9-5 doing equally insane things. We define no "good" in capitalism, we just leave that shit up to the market, and the market already reaches a decision, which is that every little corporation should just replicate authoritarianism in their little shithole section of the economy. Every little corporation gets their "good", and then they fight it out in the marketplace. Ends up that actually, we've just blown this up to be even every single individual, because, again, we've adopted freedom as our current value. Swim in the water, stop knowing that it's there. Big shocker when the individuals at the highest level of the market, having passed through many tests to get there, big shocker when their personal definition of "good" is fucked up, short sighted, and when they can't implement said definition if they even have one, because when they decide to do so, they get curbstomped for engaging in too much long term thinking compared to just sucking up as much of the industry as is possible at the time. I'm also not even saying that a monopoly is bad necessarily, right, as an alternative to this, I'm just saying that it's hypocritical to the supposed value of capitalism, which should be to use market economics to do these calculations at basically every level (which I'm also not convinced would be more efficient then just doing them somewhere else). It also tends to be bad because it still exists within this context in which all this short term incentive is naturally floating around and in which the highest powers in the land are naturally selected to be bad authoritarians.

But take the ICE, for example. I fucking hate the ICE. Mostly because it has enabled mass market automobiles to become a thing, which has impacted our transportation infrastructure in a very adverse set of ways, with an adverse set of incentives. Suburbanization blows up out of white flight as america, conceived as a sort of colonial experiment in a time of slavery, obviously has a lot of hangups around 18th century conceptions of racial superiority. Then you have the corporate lobbying that affects the political system, on top of the general political system just being tailored for the wealthy from the jump (and being tuned to the wealthy over time), and badda bing badda boom pretty soon you're ripping out LA's streetcars to instead flood the streets with massive chunky automobiles that kill a ton of people per year, fill the air with leaded and mostly unregulated particulate emissions, and we're like a century into that as a system now, so we're basically locked in, and none of the fundamental problems with cars as a format have been solved, even with EVs, you're still getting particulate emissions from brakes, lithium mining issues, you're still getting road wear and expenses from that, you're still spreading out cities much more than they need to be which massively increases the necessary power consumption by decreasing the r-values of homes by increasing the surface area of homes and increasing the surface area of a home in which a singular person is going to live and increasing the volume of air inside the home per person which is necessary to be heated, and then we have relay stations so we need to spend more money to pump more electricity and water a longer distance and so on and so forth. We can talk about socialism as a distinct set of values as mostly divorced from questions of authoritarianism, because it's assumed that we're doing this, in good faith, to decentralize ownership of everything, ownership of the workplace, restoring the ownership of the means of production to the proletariat and all that good shit. We can assume all that to be the case, right, oh, and then since we don't want market economies to really re-emerge, replicating class dynamics inside of the apparatus of the corporation, we go from having a co-operative to just having the corporation be owned by the public, and then maybe that's "authoritarian" even if we have a more democratic voting system than a capitalist country is allowed to have. Whatever, those are all good debates to have, those sorts of debates, they're what socialists are gonna talk about in a sort of abstract sense, and then they're all gonna draft up lines like, oh, I'm a marxist because of XYZ, whatever. My concern, personally, is sort of like, I look at the market economy, at capitalism, and the supposed "freedom" it provides people, in the market, to make totally dunderheaded, propagandized decisions, that if you look at them in the abstract, make totally no sense whatsoever. My concern is that we currently find ourselves in a system where all of that shit about the ICE exists, and the ICE isn't just used to power like, a bunch of farm vehicles somewhere, and then everyone else takes the train because if I talk through every other point about car use then obviously none of it makes any sense to any set of values that isn't "I want to kill people with my car" or "I want to waste a lot of gas" or "I want to intentionally spend a lot of money" or "I want to look cool and feel cool and manly", type shit. That, is multiplied for like every other facet of the economy, that times a million. I hate that shit, mostly more than anything. That we can come to the correct takeaways and decisions, and then do nothing about it because the system doesn't care. I don't care so much how we get there, or even necessarily how authoritarian a given system is, because I think about the most that can be expected from people who have been in a capitalist society is to vote for the replication of said capitalist society with maybe some socialized benefits, democratic socialismo style, and I fully expect that shit to get rolled back in 50 years and also to exploit the third world since obviously people outside the jurisdiction of the state aren't allowed to vote in the state's elections. Really all I want is for everyone to just have healthcare, everyone to have good regional transit, for our energy infrastructure to make sense, our food infrastructure to make sense, I want people to stop dying in wars, whatever. The current global system fucking sucks for all that stuff. That's mostly the only reason why I get pushed towards socialism. Mostly the specifics only exist for me insofar as they affect or not my ability to enforce that idea of "good", which I think is pretty sensible once it actually gets spelled out into the material.

Sturdy trees are good in the city, since they are low upkeep and very good for air quality and shade.

Sturdy trees WOULD be good for the city, yeah. Unfortunately we've decided to, in basically every major city (at least here in NA and I suspect other places), plant non-native trees that have low survival rates and are basically all male. Being male, they tend to also shit pollen basically everywhere. I'd imagine you could deal with the fruit falling to the ground in a number of ways, as well. Could put some canopy underneath the fruiting trees, as to collect the fruit more easily, you could just pay people to come and collect enough of the fruit for use in things like applesauce that the rest of the fruit really presents no issue as far as just sort of rotting and draining into the ground. You could set up a bunch of easy disposal compost boxes every couple feet, so you can just sweep all the fruit up and throw it into that.

I suspect a larger problem would probably be that inside of the city the fruit would be exposed to more than an acceptable amount of brake dust, including that which drains into the planter box, and would maybe not get enough light, but I think those are generally problems we should be solving anyways since they don't disappear just because we decide not to plant fruit trees. Brake dust on the fruit or carcinogens inside the fruit means that those things are also going to be going into your lungs.

I mean, a core component in fascism is massive overlap between control of the government and the control of private interest, in return for politically backing fascists. Lobbying accompanied by mass privatization, basically. I think Mussolini is most infamous for this, but it also happened with Hitler. So, I dunno if that's really a limiting factor.

I mean, talk that puts something of hers at stake, theoretically (hardline "we must support israel" voters, which I don't think really exist in the democratic party, israeli funding, military industrial complex funding, etc.), is talk that is, in and of itself, an action. It could still be a lie, sure, but then it's a lie that she's gonna get called out on later and then that's politically damaging, at least theoretically, especially because it ostracizes her from both the hardline group that wants to support israel and it ostracizes her from the people that actually wanted to do that. Most politicians won't lie so handily unless they're real pieces of shit, or unless they think people will just forget. Most politicians will instead try to waffle and weasel and say that oh well I tried to do that guys but it was just too hard! I tried but I couldn't do it! They try to save face. Taking a hard stance, making a strong commitment, that ensure that you're sacrificing your ability to save face later on to your voter base, which indicates that you might actually do something.

I believe they are what is known as a "low effort troll"