wtf

It is possible to have multiple discussions about topics, each focusing on different topics with different levels of depth. For example, I can say “climate change is bad because it make home insurance prices go up”. That’s a shallow take on a narrow aspect of climate change, but it still makes a sound point. It doesn’t mention larger more important problems, but it also doesn’t ‘hurt the cause’.

Calling Trump supporters racist harms the movement? What movement are you talking about? The MAGA movement?

I don’t think Trump’s plan had anything at all to do with helping America. The tariffs are about wielding power, making threats, creating fear and division, etc.

Trump can pull the tariffs away at a time of his choosing to curry good-favour when he needs it. And since he has that control, and knows the broad effect on stock-prices, he can also use it as a self-enrichment exercise too.

It really is pretty weird. … and interesting. I don’t necessarily think the existence of filibusters is a bad thing, but it definitely a very weird thing.

From my point of view, the OP’s comments were broadly expressing a vibe that Musk’s popularity lasted too long; but I did not see the post as chastising anyone. Your post, on the other hand, was a direct attack. I don’t think that was helpful in any way.

I can at least now understand why you didn’t like the OP’s comment, but I still think what you said was out of order.

What’s your problem? The OP said they wish people turned against Musk sooner. I do too. And since you’re talking about ‘Musk branded fascism’, I assume you agree as well. So why are you being a dick?

Australia has a pretty good preferential voting system too.

The only major problem with elections in Australia that comes to my mind is the way political advertising works. Truth in advertising laws do not apply to political ads, for fuck-knows what reason. And there’s a lot of money sloshing around for the purpose of supporting the politicians who support certain groups. The media landscape isn’t exactly an even playing field.

But the voting part itself is genuinely quite well done.

Yeah. The claims of antisemitism are a bizarre and somewhat insulting defence. Israel are committing warcrimes, but apparently its “antisemitic” to criticize the country’s actions in that regard. It’s as if Israel is should be completely immune to all forms of criticism - even after the most heinous actions.

I’ve wondered about this too.

The USA government has enormous debt, which grows every year due to an enormous deficit. But historically people have been relatively comfortable with just letting that continue to grow, because it is balanced by economic growth and stability (roughly speaking).

But now that the government is somewhat unstable… bad things might happen to the currency. The debt will continue to rise, but the productivity and stability that underpin it are eroding. It may collapse.

I’ve just skimmed over the conversation you’re having here, but I can’t see the personal attacks. Maybe I missed it. Which specific post are you talking about?

I’m not sure what ‘more grace’ you think Zelenskyy could have shown in a situation like that. Trump and Vance are telling him that he’s “gambling with World War III”, and telling him that he needs to say “thank you” - but without letting him finish a sentence. Trump was saying some really harsh stuff, but not allowing Zeleskyy to respond to it. This is the only time Zelenskyy tried to talk over the top of him; and you think it is “super annoying”.

In the earlier parts of the meeting, Trump was not engaged at all. Trump commented that “I wasn’t there then” while Zelenskyy gave context of how Russia has abused trust given to them in diplomacy; apparently Trump thinks nothing matters unless he is personally involved. This is the attitude Trump brought to the meeting, but you think Zelenskyy was “super annoying” and should have handled this senseless berating with more grace. I disagree with you.

The footage of this meeting is truly remarkable and worth watching.

I think it’s important to watch uncut unedited footage of meetings like this from time to time, to see the behaviour of leaders first hand. Otherwise it is too easy to just get swept up in the narrative of whatever social bubble you interact with.

In this meeting Trump demonstrates a total disinterest in any past events or context for current decisions; but he becomes quite animated and angry at the end of the video. Apparently he felt criticised and wanted to hit back. But he didn’t seem to be paying much attention at all to what was being said.

Zelenskyy is calm throughout, but has clear frustration as Vance and Trump speak over the top of him. Trump accuses Zelenskyy of total disrespect, and says he is ‘gambling with World War III’.

Really, it is worth watching. See how leaders of the USA behave.

It seems to me that Bernie is doing his best to create and energize a movement of working-class people in support of a better world. It isn’t trying to hijack an existing movement; because no cohesive movement currently exists. The lack of cohesion is exactly what Bernie is trying to address.

Pretty much the same for me. I’ve seen many posts and comments complaining about those kinds of things from .ml and .world; but close to zero of the actual behaviour that people complain about.

There are poisons that can be absorbed through skin by contact.

Being influenced / tricked / conned has surprisingly little to do with being ‘smart’ or ‘educated’. Smart people can still be tricked.

A way to manipulate people is to give them plausible (mis)information. What counts as ‘plausible’ depends on a person’s education and interests; but there is always an area of vulnerability at the edges of a person’s understanding. That’s why there are so many different layers to misinformation campaigns. They are targeting different groups of people. And it is highly dangerous to start believing you can see through them all - because in reality, you only see through the ones that don’t target you.

One of the propaganda powers of algorithmically controlled social media is that it is if a user gives up enough of their person info, it makes it possible to automatically target that person with misinformation that is specially suited to their interests, circles of trust, and level of understanding.

… anyway, my point is that although education is always good; it doesn’t defeat propaganda outright.

You’d reach more people on bigger platforms, but it is easier to steer the conversation with smaller groups. So I don’t think its totally clear-cut where the best psyops targets would be.

I’m sorry that reading long posts is hard for you. But don’t take it out on others. You can say that it was too long without the added abrasiveness.

And here, you’re telling me that my opinion is meaningless. Why do you do that? Almost everyone here has similar values and goals; and yet you’re lashing out at everyone, creating conflict and division. Isn’t that the opposite of what you want?

You’re saying that people me stuff and that I insisted on whoever… who exactly do you think I am? I haven’t insisted on anything like what you’re talking about.

In any case, I think you’ll find that in the previous election the fascist leader did in fact lose. That does count as a defeat for them, doesn’t it?