frostedtrailblazer

@frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon's lil bro goes through his first break up⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I think identity politics is a bit of a separate conversation. Even the term itself is a bit broad and difficult to ascribe to one thing or another. Do I think some people make one thing or another their entire personality? Oh 100%. And it’s something that’s beyond just politics as well.

  Like you said though there are plenty of people that are probably nuts, who only hold onto a label to be part of some ‘counter culture’ group or another. People who don’t really have strong moral convictions aside from wanting to have an audience and would leave their current position in a heartbeat if the spotlight was pulled from them.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Bill to raise minimum wage to $25 an hour will be introduced in Senate⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Or ditch the minimum wage and implement a Universal Basic Income (UBI) at the Federal level (or State level!!). If there’s UBI, the minimum wage doesn’t have to be there which technically could make labor more competitive in general, plus you don’t have to rely on your job to get your basic needs met.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon's lil bro goes through his first break up⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I don’t think anyone IV dripping a culture that feeds into a person’s anger is going to going to be happier or feeling a sense of purpose and fulfillment. There’s a difference between just being a gym bro and listening to influencers that make money off of playing into your insecurities.

  I question how attached they were to a feminist identity either though if a breakup shook the identity off of them.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon judges Karl⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Black and white thinking doesn’t make sense here. The initial premise you give that liberals really only want private ownership for everything all of the time doesn’t line up with reality, especially in regards to younger people that are more liberal and left leaning.

  I believe there are more people that can look around at their local community and see “yeah maybe that wasn’t such a good idea that we let private equity bankrupt X local chain to offload their debts”.

  Many people can see there is some nuance of “okay maybe this specific situation we should have had more barriers to prevent”. Less or no corporate landownership is a direct fix to corporate landlords, imo.

  Congrats, you are most likely NOT a liberal.

  I believe you, or perhaps your peers, would still call me a liberal for several reasons. Certainly people on the completely opposite side of the aisle would label me a liberal. The first is that I’m not against the premise of capitalism, the an incentive based economic structure, but moreso the implementation and near-complete disregard of any sort of balancing mechanism. I don’t believe in the nonsense that is spouted as “free market capitalism”, but instead a form of modified capitalism with UBI and unions to put power back into the hands of workers instead of the corporate owners.

  Oh yeah, such a disagreeable thing for non-liberals, huh? Very controversial, we socialists want to have EVERYTHING public, NO EXCEPTIONS! No, actually no.

  Many of your peers differ from your view. Many people I’ve spoken with wanted no forms of private control and no private businesses. I’ve heard many variations of “You lease from the government and then your lease is up”.

  Yup, that’s definitely not a thing a liberal would say.

  I’m a left-leaning liberal, it’s not mutually exclusive. Someone that’s strictly pro-corporate and no government intervention, (e.g., someone right leaning) might be opposed to those things.

  I think you’ll find that the biggest difference between me and someone else that wants the same things for people (UBI, childcare, housing, etc.) is the means in which those goals are achieved. I believe in a multifaceted approach of promoting unionization, working towards collective bargaining agreements, promoting left-leaning politicians at all levels of government, and voting for incremental change along the way as well.

  Some people, online specifically, would rather people check out from all or any of those steps of working towards bringing positive change.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon judges Karl⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  The terms are not mutually exclusive, you can want more things to be publicly owned or operated but still want some forms of private ownership such as in the case of owning a home.

  Do I think corporations should own the land for corporate enterprises or even for apartment buildings? Fuck no, that should be public since the land owners are incompetent and will try to generate a profit on things like hospitals, low income housing, or forcing out all of the good restaurants in the community.

  Individual ownership for private use I don’t see a problem with though, such as home ownership, at least for one house. Although I see that as an incentive that should be there to encourage and reward work. Transportation could be mostly solved by a better public transit system that was connected.

  Medical care, insurance, social security, childcare expenses, and many more could be covered by taxes, at least taxes on corporations. Yet alone having something like a Universal Basic Income to cover people’s daily expenses. There could be better union protections and such but I feel that’s branching the conversation off a bit much.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon judges Karl⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I’d also chime in that definition change and can mean very different things in different places. It’s a bit silly how frequently I see other left leaning people, purely online, demonize anyone using liberal as a label.

  To me it comes off as a bit manufactured, it’s far too abundant on spaces like Reddit and certain Lemmy instances, yet near complete absent from offline discourse.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon judges Karl⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  It really depends on how you define things; a black and white definition doesn’t account for scenarios where one could logically be both leftist and liberal. So it’s not exactly nonsense.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Just animal noises⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m personally in the boat of seeing kids as adding to one’s life rather than draining it and making dreams rather than taking them away. But having kids is something my partner and I want. My only other dream is to ever own the roof over my head, but that’s not totally likely.

  I feel that having kids would not seem as daunting for more people if we had real safety nets to support people that would even consider being parents. Such as free daycare, a basic income, universal healthcare, and stipends specifically to pay for costs associated with kids like for diapers, bottles, books, ever changing clothes sizes, etc.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New York lawmakers endorse Governor's plan to reduce car insurance premiums by making it harder for crash victims to seek compensation⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Hear me out, they could just offer a non-profit insurance option through the state; this would make private companies need to be offering better benefits to consumers to stay competitive. There is no need to remove baseline benefits for people at all.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Agreed, unless the system itself is changed, at the state level, within each state, to use a different voting system. Which is worth pursuing btw, and something Alaska and Maine have both pulled off.

  I’m so tired of seeing people getting mad about the two party system, but not even bringing up the fact we can totally change the system to use a form of Ranked Choice Voting, just by getting signatures to put it on the ballot! Well at least for over half the states this method works.

  People’s energy would be much better spent advocating for groups like the Equal Vote Coalition or Fair Vote. Both of those groups desperately need volunteers and could actually use the social media advocacy given they are getting single digit support on Fediverse sites currently.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Accelerationism won’t get you what you want, it just ensures authoritarians are in power no matter what. Historically, these people don’t care about redistributing squat.

  Focused changed at a local level can actually bear fruit and can be scaled up. Social programs can already create an economic floor, even under our current capitalist system. For instance, Universal Basic Income implemented at a state level or federal level would solve the economic woes people encounter.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  What a refreshing conclusion to the story, it’s nice to read about these positive outcomes where the couple grows from the experience.

  Open communication is one of the core things that makes relationships last imo.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What common American habits do people find quietly annoying?⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I feel it’s a bit tacky as a first question, but if I’m not asking it at some point I personally feel like I’m not making a real effort to know someone.

  For a lot of people I think it’s just their go-to ice breaker since most people have a job or some kind of education they are involved in.

  I personally really enjoy hearing about many people jobs since they really open my eyes to a different lifestyles and working environments out there, or I might get the scoop on workplace drama stories.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is there a "buy nothing" community on Lemmy? Or an anti-consumerism comm?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  You can trust a name like Mantis Toboggon.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Wish I was her⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I disagree that they don’t apply, since there is a subjective discussion, the issue is we’re talking about something very abstract like it’s always black and white when reality has a lot of grey.

  How are we defining knowing better here?

  If we’re saying the leader knows that that there is information they don’t know, but they act like they do know that information then that can lead to trust issues.

  If a leader doesn’t know that they don’t know something, then you would hope they have the capacity to learn and are willing to learn new pieces of information so that they can be more informed.

  In either case though, you expect them to act based on the information in front of them that they are familiar with. If you bring up new information, in a low stakes setting, they should be open to receiving that new information.

  If you bring up new information in a high stakes setting, that can catch some leaders off-guard since in theory they have had time to review all of the present information before a setting was high stakes. If for some reason the ‘facts table’ being used is wrong or outdated then I believe discreetly bringing this information up to the leader in these situations can be beneficial but I would leave the judgment call to them for what information to go off of.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Wish I was her⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  There’s lot of examples I can think of where it can be go both ways.

  In an sport for instance the optimal play can be worse if not everyone is on the same page, so sometimes the decent play where everyone is on the same same page is the one a leader would want to be pushing for.

  In an emergency, having a leader giving directions to keep people calm and organized can matter even if it’s not the optimal way of handling things. The opposite can be true too there though, for example if a leader is trying to have people put out a fire with a rag, water, or a broom when a fire extinguisher in present then the individual that thinks to grab and use the fire extinguisher could be demonstrating that there are times when it makes sense to override the leader.

  The leader above is still doing the right thing by tackling the problem the only way they know how in the moment, but as individuals we need to be able to know when we should go along with the plan the leader puts forward or when to break from that plan.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Wish I was her⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I think they’re half right.

  I feel it can be more important to be confident than right, in the moment, but once that moment is over you want to correct yourself and let others know that you were wrong about x, y, or z.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Goodnight Video⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Let your memes be dreams <3

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Goodnight Video⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  This is my type of shitpost to end the night on.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon is forever alone⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  MeetMe was one I used; Interpals was a website I used for penpals. Some other ones that seem alright are Hoop, Meetup, and Peeps.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why are people using the "þ" character?⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  [+3]! I must have come across a few of your before.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why are people using the "þ" character?⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  It took me awhile to even realize how it worked, but it tracks the total number of comments or posts that I’ve liked from another person. You’re number for me shows as [+1]!

  At first I thought it was an instance based like system, incidentally I believe that would have been a cool serparate thing to track for how popular posts are based on others from your shared instance:

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why are people using the "þ" character?⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  [+2] next to you!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why are people using the "þ" character?⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  [+3]! Thank you for the laugh

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why are people using the "þ" character?⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  It’d be kinda fun if the Fediverse made its own hybrid English dialect. At the very least it would create a unique niche that’s only on the Fediverse. That alone would draw in some users to participate.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why are people using the "þ" character?⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  You really notice how tight knit Lemmy is if you have user specific scores enabled or if you leave yourself tags for specific users. [+1] was already next to your comment for instance. Whenever I see double digits profiles I know those are usually regular posters.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨necessary read⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I wouldn’t say they’re necessarily tiny but they are a minority by far. 94/213 of the Democrats in the House are part progressive caucus for instance, which is 94/435 total seats in the House. Having 1/100 of the seats in the Senate by comparison.

  Imo they just do what they can get away with. Which will continue for the foreseeable next three years at minimum.

  For progressive change, it really needs to happen at the state level within Blue states. We need those programs passed at the state level and then we can sell how successful they are to the other states.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨necessary read⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I agree, that’s why I feel that having more countries willing to stand together on certain points matters as well. The more people coming together to say something and stand by that, the more that message gets through, even to those that have selfish goals.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨necessary read⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I wouldn’t say Americans are tricked, but a vote for positive change tends to be met with a vote for change nothing by someone on the other side of the aisle.

  People’s best bets is really to focus on making their own states more progressive and pass those progressive programs at the state level. Banking on having the federal government pass the progressive programs people want is not going to work

  People living in Purple and Red states are going to need to see Blue states thriving from progressive policies if they’re going to be convinced to change their voting habits. People living in Blue states should no longer be banking on doing the more caring option of passing progressive programs federally, instead Blue States should be willing to go into debt to fund these progressive programs.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨necessary read⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I believe that’s an overstatement, not all politicians are corrupt. There are many members of Congress that are working to make things better and pass progressive legislation. AOC and Bernie for instance haven’t been silenced and replaced by big corporations.

  I agree with you that the US’ federal Congress is more pro-billionaire, but there are still people that want to make things better. The issue is that those people do not have the votes to pass progressive legislation. Lots of people are seemingly happy with the status quo given that half of the states predominantly vote Republican each election cycle.