alilbee

@alilbee@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

alilbee ,

I don't think this is a good idea at all, but I'll defer to the professional campaign strategists. Trump loves this field of battle where he can just flout the rules and strut around in comparison to his opponent.

alilbee ,

No, they genuinely can't. They can establish the fact that P&G paid them the money, but (good) journalists keep their content and titles limited to the bare facts only, and leave the implications to you to decide as a reader. Additionally, you always have to consider libel cases in journalism and the verbiage you write matters, because "bribe" infers intent that you may not be able to prove in court.

It is exceptionally obvious that this is a bribe to any reasonable person who reads it, and we should not outsource our responsibility to think critically and draw conclusions to journalists.

alilbee ,

Sorry, trying to understand here. Are you saying that reporting only the facts, without editorializing on the reasons behind it, is the reason why half of America is dumb as fuck? If so, I think you have that relationship entirely backwards. America being dumb as fuck is forcing/encouraging our news to spoonfeed more and more to the public, giving them power and as a consequence, whoever has control over those media institutions. You're asking for propaganda (without explicit intent to do so, which I recognize), and I'm not going to support that even if I agree with the underlying message of that propaganda.

alilbee ,

Yes, there are various editorial decisions made, directly or inferred, in any article, but that's not the argument here. We're talking about the explicit editorial decision of calling this handover a "bribe". "Bribe" infers intent, which cannot be definitively proven without evidence that they don't have. It's insanely obvious to any reasonable party that the intent is there, but that is the line between spoonfeeding and reporting. They report on what they can prove, and any extrapolations will be left to you as the reader by any news agency that respects their reader in the slightest and isn't just trying to make you believe something. Anything else is propaganda or a tabloid, and I don't want to read it.

I don't think I can rebut your argument in "that fear of getting sued... freedoms" because I just do not think it is grounded in what actually happens, but not sure we can do much but just agree to disagree on that one. Fwiw, I think most reputable news agencies avoid this exact thing very consistently and always have tried to.

alilbee ,

They just do not understand political capital. Very common problem with populists.

alilbee ,

I'm not sure that I agree. While I would support something like outlawing billionaires or at the very least, a tax bracket that claws back significant chunks of what they are draining from society, there are vast nuances to these issues beyond "the billionaires want it that way." When you say "everything from ... can all be rendered down", I think it's pretty important to recognize how much detail and nuance is lost in that rendering down.

Billionaires and the accumulation of wealth are just stand ins for the accumulation of power in a capitalistic society. When power is removed, it creates a vacuum. Who fills it? In the ideal, I know most of us would say "the people" but this is an insanely complex balancing beam to maintain without some group of assholes finding a new, non-capital way to extract and centralize that power.

None of this is to say that eliminating the notion of a billionaire is a bad idea. I'm with you all that the very idea of a billionaire is heinous and impossible without vast exploitation. I just do not think that issue being solved would be even close to some panacea for all of the world's problems. There would just be twists in the existing problems and fun new ones.

alilbee ,

Define "BLM", "protests", and "success" because any combination of different variables produces a different result. Additionally, even then, there is a lot of nuance to being successful when it comes to political movements.

The protests undoubtedly brought more attention to policing and racial issues in general. They obviously didn't solve either problem. Some states passed progressive policing laws, some regressed out of spite or in reacting to the other states.

Then you also have the category of "well, it might have made an impact on this but we'll never know". For instance, does Biden win in 2020 without the Black Lives Matter protests? No idea, and nobody truly does or even can. That would be an enormous impact on many things, some of which may not even have been goals of the protests.

alilbee ,

Just block him? I'm not a big fan of reading a medical issue blog either, so I just blocked him and everything is fine. No offense intended to Mr Squid either, medical issues are just stressful to read about all the time.

alilbee ,

Here's the thing though, you're never going to get an objective measure of morality or ethics. Some will think the context you shared absolve him, either fully or in part. Hurt people hurt people, and all that. Some will say it doesn't matter, culpability lies with the individual regardless of context. Oftentimes, people even have contradictory views on this issue when applied to different people.

You're probably gonna get a lot of shit here for suggesting Pence isn't responsible for his actions defending a theocratic state, but I get what you're angling at. I don't agree, but it's valid, as long as you extend that same philosophy to others. Is the serial killer not responsible because he has a mental illness or a poor upbringing? Is Trump not responsible just because his dad was a piece of shit? Is a member of a gang responsible for a drive by shooting when he had no other opportunities to escape his situation? Is a member of Hamas responsible for their actions even when growing up in an apartheid state? To what degree are all of those examples responsible for using or not using the full breadth of their abilities to not let those circumstances make you perpetuate harm? Up to your personal worldview and ethics. It's a complex question with no easy answer, but there will be huge chunks of people who insist that the simplest answer on either extreme is true and that should be avoided imo.

alilbee ,

Well, we should be careful with that extreme also. It neglects the role that context and environment plays in our lives. It rejects the notion that societal problems have impacts on adverse behavior because it can sweep it all under the rug in the name of "personal responsibility". Again, there is no easy answer. Humanity will wrestle with this question until its dying days because it is entirely subjective. Assuming you are not actually religious, there is no objective St. Peter to tell them they're wrong. They just die and it's up to those who remain to define the ethics of what they did and left.

alilbee ,

Oh, so we're even bringing back the full cringe, fedora variant of atheism from early reddit? Cool.

I have even more personal reasons than most to hate Christianity, but this is so reductive of Christianity, black people, and the reasons why people seek out religion.

alilbee ,

Hey, everyone on this thread saying "do something useful". The democrats are currently the house minority. The Republicans will torpedo anything useful they propose, and have already signaled that they will do so. The dems are blocking what they can when it is proposed. This is performative, yes. That's exactly what a minority party does outside of responding to what the majority party dictates, which dems are also doing. Johnson and conservative committees decide on what is brought to the floor, so no amount of hard work magically makes good legislation happen.

alilbee ,

Honestly, it kinda makes my eyes roll too. I would never argue this stuff is effective. It's just not diverting any resources or attention away from anything important.

I disagree entirely with your middle paragraph. They cannot "bring anything to the table". That's the entire point of what I said. The minority members cannot just bring things up for vote like that. Consider the turmoil that would cause when conservatives are in the minority. Like it or no, there is not a single productive thing Democratic House members can do but posture, block, and campaign right now. It's the way our government is constructed and a natural side effect of bipartisanship dying when the conservatives decided to go fully insane.

alilbee ,

I'm with you, it's very demoralizing. Let's not forget, there are a ton of useful things going on behind the scenes. Democrats are blocking harmful legislation where they can and you really can't overstate the importance of campaigning in an election year. We don't have the power to introduce or pass legislation, but that does not mean important things not happening. Defense is still essential, even if you don't get a bunch of shiny new things to show for it.

alilbee , (edited )

Sure, but it is almost an inevitable result of FPTP, the makeup of the Senate, etc, and not just because people don't want to deliberate. The two parties are living in completely different realities at this point and that does not set a stage for deliberation. I don't have an answer for you, and I'm not sure that anyone in America truly does right now. There is no simple answer, that is certain. We should all be very suspect of anyone who tries to sell us one.

alilbee ,

Why is it that everytime someone on the left does something stupid online, it's automatically propaganda? Why can't it just be the case that there are a lot of politically and generally uneducated people that are part of the movement, which is consistent with every populist movement for all time? This has to be reckoned with and mitigated if the left ever wants to actually hold power and do something with it.

alilbee ,

Lol I guess it wouldn't bother me much. I'm a SocDem, which makes me fail the purity tests pretty quickly. I just want a movement with a leftist heart and a pragmatic head, so we can actually win rights instead of performing while the Titanic sinks.

alilbee ,

While I absolutely think the latter exists, I just cannot justify assuming that every dumb opinion I see from someone I am on the same "side" with is some evil spy. Any movement with that sort of view will eat itself alive in no time. Starting to see traitors in your midst is falling into their trap just as much as the conservative who thinks that's what leftist thought is defined by.

alilbee ,

Recreational weed and abortion being on the ballot is a massive opportunity. I'm still not sure that it's truly in play, but this is about as good a chance as Dems will get for any positions or issues in that state.

alilbee ,

I have read some additional analysis on that study and there is definitely nuance. The study was not focusing on IF, but rather those who recalled only eating within a certain period of day for a long period of time. This wasn't just intentional IF, but also people who couldn't eat throughout the day because of scheduling or financial issues, both of which could be additional risk factors. They didn't check for other health conditions, financial conditions, anything.

Basically, be very, very careful with correlation and causation for any scientific studies that don't draw that line very explicitly. I'm excited to see more research done.

alilbee ,

It's not "considered" throwing your vote away. Under a FPTP voting system, it is throwing your vote away. Nobody who tells you that says it gleefully like we just love that we and you can't vote third party effectively. It's just the mathematical reality of our voting system and it has to be changed before voting third party becomes an option that is anything but symbolic and self-defeating.

The DNC is not the ephemereal vague boogeyman the left tries to make it out to be. It's an organization focused on winning elections and accomplishing policies for the Democratic constituency. You are making the mistake of hating the player instead of the game.

If third party votes are important to you, join a local political group focused on expanding another voting choice method like Ranked Choice or STAR voting. You're already on the easier half of the ideological spectrum to wage this fight from, since most sponsors of alternatives are from democratic groups.

alilbee ,

If you think the Biden admin has done nothing for you or the country, you're just admitting you're a low information voter. There are various bills, executive actions, judicial appointments. Pathetic, really, to take so little agency of your citizenship.

alilbee ,

Multiple Democratic state parties and advocacy groups endorse Ranked Choice Voting, so shut the hell up with the both sides nonsense.

alilbee ,

Well, SCOTUS is not expected to be an expert on everything it rules on. It's expected to rule on what it is an expert on (Constitutional law) and that could encompass anything. I think better phrasing would be "SCOTUS needs to gather the opinions of experts in the relevant fields, find the intersections of the Constitution where applicable, and issue a fair ruling." If the court had to be experts in every field for any issue that came in front of them, we would never get rulings on anything.

alilbee ,

Oh this can absolutely happen at the less luxurious positions. For instance, FAANG (the big 5 tech companies, if you don't work tech like 3/4 of the Fediverse) can afford to pay salaries well above any other employers. We're talking 200k-400k here, not obscene billionaire-class stuff. Once they grab you, they can treat you worse once you get adjusted to the salary that no one else can match. I've seen it happen to a lot of people who end up miserable until they leave and have to go through the readjustment period.

alilbee ,

But then they could just call another vote for speaker? Not sure this would be the play, but if it was, I don't see he can renege without just incurring the same fate?

alilbee ,

Yeah that's a good point and I'm not sure of the particulars. However, assuming the hard right still wants to remove him, democrats have the leverage to affect the vote.

alilbee ,

Lemmy has a much, much, much better crowd than reddit, but it definitely still got the "not all men", "I only ever comment on stories about extremely rare false rape accusations" crowd.

alilbee ,

Wow, those are some serious Licensed Insurance Agent skills

alilbee ,

I just want to say that this was a fantastic thread, and thank you for posting. There are some great suggestions in here.

alilbee ,

It's first past the post, not the party, that is causing this issue. This is very much a "don't hate the player, hate the game" situation. If democrats want to win elections and have their agenda accomplished, No Labels and similar groups present a real obstacle to achieving the goals of the democratic constituency due to FPTP, so you can't exactly expect to consider them allies.

alilbee ,

It's important to note that this was not an exoneration, but rather more procedural. The judge's argument is that the charges brought are not specific enough as to what elements of their oaths were broken. Now, the prosecutors will either have to drop those charges or refile them in front of a grand jury with more specific charges. The racketeering charges remain and are unaffected by this ruling.

We also still haven't heard anything on the removal of the prosecutor for an alleged inappropriate relationship. This case is a clusterfuck.

alilbee ,

It's one of those things where it's obviously intended to derail the case, but I'm still pretty upset with everyone involved for leaving themselves open to this. When you shoot for the king, you better not miss. If you're not interested in being a super clean goody-goody, don't take this job. It's part of the obligations for the important job you chose to do.

But yeah, agreed. I don't think the defense's argument is that it would be prejudicial to their case, but rather just arguing that there is other incentive for the prosecutor to be removed. Having the lead prosecutor removed just completely screws a case in the short term.

alilbee ,

I might catch flak for this here, but I have watched a lot of the televised proceedings in this case and I think Judge McAfee has been more than fair so far in this case. This sucks but it is a legitimate procedural issue and a judge has to rule on these things. Frankly, I'm disappointed in the prosecution at this point. Between this and the relationship allegations, they have let multiple outside factors interfere in what might have been the best case against Trump for his election interference.

alilbee , (edited )

I don't think he's been appealing to Haley voters on the policy front at all. His new budget proposal is anathema to the republican way of thought, even the less crazy sections. He is appealing to Haley voters on the decency front, which he absolutely should. Even if you are a conservative, Trump should drastically frighten you. Not because he's not a conservative, but because he is a destructive demagogue. Biden is appealing to voters with a distaste for that because he is not that, simple as.

Edit: Can someone help me understand how I said something controversial here? Does anyone have any examples of the Biden campaign making policy adjustments to gain Haley voters?

alilbee ,

I don't think we're in disagreement? Biden has nothing to lose by playing up his decency factor, because it is Trump's primary weakness. Why would you ever not appeal to potential voters (regardless of political spectrum) by playing up a factor you planned to stress anyway? I only brought up policy in response to commentors saying Biden is kowtowing to the GOP to court Haley voters, which I just do not see happening right now. You would have seen a much more moderate budget proposal (which to be clear, is also optics, because presidential budget proposals are basically just wish lists that don't come true) if that were the case. He's courting the left, if anything.

The only policy proposal I see being affected by Haley voters is Ukraine funding, because Trump's isolationism is a common complaint from her crowd. Democrats were going to support that anyway, so I'm just not seeing it.

alilbee ,

I'm with you. It does matter a bit, as it has impact on perception, but not much on its face without the appropriate publicizing later.

alilbee ,

Not to mention that the resistance is immensely fractured. I'm still not sure that we've seen an event heinous enough to galvanize the opposition past ideological boundaries. For many, stopping Trump is not yet enough to delay their potential political gains. Populism rides on the strongest human emotions, the easiest and vaguest enemies, and the simplest (wrong) answers. It's going to take a united effort, the sort that was brought about by the geopolitical situation in the FDR era, or I worry that we fail.

alilbee ,

I'm not exactly going to fault persecuted people for fleeing their homes. It's not always about "amenities" as much as it is safety and belonging. I'm not against the idea that this dilutes our political power in our system, but I'm also not sure that it's the front I'm going to choose to fight on.

alilbee ,

Guess this one just hit close to home since I am one of the aforementioned runners. I do think that if someone is in the position to be able to contribute their vote in an area where it will make more impact, they should do so. I guess I just also understand not wanting to dictate so much of your life for a minor bump in a political cause, imperative as it might be. It's a hard situation all around.

alilbee ,

Generic Democrat/Republican beat their respective candidates quite often, actually. It's easy to be appealing as a literal non-existent entity with no baggage that represents an average of one of the two most common voter groups. Not really interested in arguing with you on any of the rest of it, but that piece is not as supportive an argument as people are making it out to be.

alilbee ,

I would read this as "Of the types of violent extremists, the 'Anarchist' type are those who... ". As a really dumb metaphor, if I have a pokedex, I don't need to restate that they're all Pokémon in there each time.

alilbee ,

Not arguing that the FBI hasn't suppressed completely valid movements in the past, because that's well-documented for anyone to see. I just think that if I was a professional writing a handbook in this situation, I wouldn't go to the trouble of redefining the context each time either. Because of that, I'm not sure that this is demonstrative of their stance.

alilbee ,

This was a really interesting read! I can't believe there isn't a huge article on the Indian "Sand Mafia" mentioned in the article. That sounds fascinating to look into.

alilbee ,

I sure hope so, but the SotU has pretty minimal impacts on approval, historically. Clinton got a bump of ~10 points in 98, but otherwise it's been less than 5 points in the last 30 years. It was a fantastic speech though, and we are in a unique situation with the age dilemma. Here's to hoping!

Dirty clothes & dead kids ( sh.itjust.works )

alt-text: there’s laundry to do and a genocide to stop. I have to eat better and also avoid a plague. my rent went up $150. I’ll need to pick up more shifts. Twenty people died in Rafah this morning and every major news outlet is stretching the limits of passive voice to suggest whole families may have leaped up through the...

alilbee ,

international fascist

"Fascisms is when you kill people!". Joe Biden is a lot of things that leftists do not like, neoliberal first among them. Saying he's a fascist is absolutely asinine and has no basis in reality. You're watering down terms that have clear definitions.

alilbee ,

You'll need a constitutional amendment or a radical change up in the Supreme Court to abolish PACs. That's considered a free speech issue. I am not sure I have high hopes of a constitutional amendment being passed in our lifetimes.

alilbee ,

I don't see how this is the case? All conservatives have their heads lodged in their asses on some level, but Trump's failures are not ones of conservatism, but on a more base level. The attacks on democracy, the isolationism, and the corruption/decency factor are all considerations that the left has been asking for conservatives to give a shit about for years. While I still think this group is conservative, and thus has the whole head-in-ass problem, I don't think their choice of Biden over Trump makes a statement on anything but Biden's "decency" compared to Trump's.

I'm not arguing that Biden is some super leftist, he's obviously not. I just don't think this event reinforces that.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •