PaintedSnail

This still depends on people behaving rationally. We need only look at the current state of things in the U. S. To know that people do not behave rationally on large groups.

Here we have a man who has declared he is in charge of things he was never given charge over, and doing things he has no authority to do. Rather than say “no,” enough people have simply shrugged their shoulders and said “okay,” or worse, are actively supporting his control.

You cannot depend on the majority to do the right thing at large scales. Small scales like a village, sure, but on a population level, most people are too apathetic. That makes it inevitable that those who desire power can take it, either by charisma or by force, and there will always be a group of people who will want that to happen and support them because they think they can get a piece of that pie. No amount of social stigma will help when someone controls the means for people to merely survive.

Unless you support vigilante justice, but we only need to look at lynch mobs in history to see how well THAT turns out. There is a reason we have due process, but due process requires a governing body.

I get the idea: if no one exclusively owns anything, then no one needs to hoard anything, and everyone gets what they need.

Unfortunately, we do not yet live in a post-scarcity society. There needs to be a way to both ensure that limited resources are distributed appropriately (by whatever metric) AND to ensure that someone doesn’t take more even when they are not acting in their own best interest.

To continue the apples analogy, it’s all fine and well to say that no one owns the apples so anyone can eat one whenever they want. In theory, no one would eat more than they can, so there would be enough to go around. But how do you handle someone who decides they want to control people by controlling the apples? If they take all the apples, then people will have to go to him if they want an apple, and they will have to pay some price for it (and I don’t mean cash). What is the mechanism to ensure that doesn’t happen? Or, what is the mechanism to prevent someone from burning down all the apple trees because they don’t like apples or because they want someone else to not have apples?

The idea that no one owns anything does not stop someone with an irrational mindset or with a mindset to force their will on others.

That is a much more interesting response, thank you.

I know very well that a politician is not required to listen to their voters. That is the nature of a representative democracy, and it has its pluses and minuses; but that’s another topic. A politician will do what they want once in office. Sometimes they do it for their own selfish reasons, sometimes they do it because they know something the American public doesn’t, sometimes they do things because they are weighing opposing agendas differently. That is why it is important to push for candidates that have principles that are the most aligned with yours. Then even if they are driven by their own selfish reasons, at least their actions are more likely to align with your desires.

That’s not to say that voters have no power at all. We got Trump because his principles (such as they are) aligned with a large enough portion of the American public that the Republic party thought he was their best chance of winning. Make no mistake that the Democrats DO want to win. Voters need to show them that a candidate whose principles are more left leaning is their best chance of winning. That is what the primaries are for. You will note that only two political parties even have primaries.

I believe you have a misunderstanding that anyone thinks that having to choose the lesser of two evils is a good thing. It’s not. It’s only better than choosing the greater of two evils. The main point that I have been trying to make is that NOT choosing the lesser evil is functionally equivalent to choosing the greater evil, even if the choice made is to not make a choice.

This is because there isn’t a better choice; there is no “no evil” choice. Even not choosing is still a choice. Unless you know of one and would care to enlighten me on the specifics of that choice. So far, the only point I’ve seen you try to make is that not choosing is the best choice; something that I vehemently disagree with.

That doesn’t disprove what I’m saying. That’s just your feeling with no evidence to back it up.

I have history to backup my claims. Yes, we’ve shifted right due to incrementalism because people on the right are more likely to vote, so it demonstrably does work. There’s no reason we can’t shift back if people who want change actually vote for it, rather than withholding their votes for a “perfect” solution.

Then no one has fruit. There is a non-zero percent of the population who would pick the trees clean for that reason alone.

Anarchy, like capitalism, works best when all the actors are rational. People are not rational.

That is reductionist to the point of obsursity.

Republicans are demonstrably by more fascist.

Not voting against Republicans keeps more fascism in place.

Therefore, not voting only increases fascism. Voting for someone that can’t win against the Republicans increases fascism.

And before you say voting for Democrats also increases fascism, they are already less fascist than what is currently in place. Having anyone else, even a Democrat, in office will be less fascism.

Vote to decrease fascism. Move in that direction. Not voting only pushes us toward more fascism.

There is not choice available right now to remove fascism entirely. We must show politicians that they stand to gain by moving away from it. Not voting doesn’t do that.

If we want to push things back to the left, we absolutely have to show support for more left candidates in the primaries.

But if we don’t show them that we’re willing to vote, we’re just going to get candidates that chase the votes of the people who DO vote.

The primaries are the key. Support the people who will oppose these issues.

But as we saw with Bernie, the support has to be undeniable and actionable, or they’ll just put in who they want anyway. This means that there is a non-zero chance that we’ll end up with the usual kind of choices. Should we then support the candidate that isn’t at least actively disparaging the law, or should we not vote and increase the chance of the party that is actively destroying things winning?

That doesn’t answer my question. Who should we vote for that doesn’t result in the fascists staying in office?

Who should we vote for otherwise? Every other option leads to Republicans staying in power, and they are the ones actually doing it.

Don’t vote? That’s fewer votes the Republicans need to win, so they stay in power.

Vote third party? That splits the opposition vote, and Republicans stay in power.

And no, neither of those choices “teach the Democrats a lesson.” It just drives them to go to the people who do vote, who are more right wing, so it drives everything further right.

You want a more left wing party? Show them that the left votes and our votes have value.

In theory, vacation time is supposed to be something you negotiate as part of your employment contract. Conservatives believe that market forces will balance out the needs of the worker and the company, as companies with bad employment practices will have trouble finding employees.

In practice, that only works for high-demand positions with a small labor pool. Basically everyone else has no negotiating power because employers have a huge pool to pick from. Conservatives say employees can just go somewhere else to get a better job or go back to school (another topic), but that also doesn’t work in when all the available jobs do the same thing.

Basically, it’s an extension of rugged individualism. It’s up to the individual to take care of themselves. The fact that the landscape in which most people must operate doesn’t allow for it is ignored.

Just to let you know, that’s a false rumor spread by fear mongers.

Shame on you for wanting to have fun in a meme post! Shame, I say!

But can you measure something that doesn’t exist? Can the absence of something be something in and of itself? Is it the hole you are measuring, or the object around the hole?

No artist gets paid to create placeholder art during development. They get paid for the final art pieces that are used in the game itself. No actual AI art was used in the final game except for a few accidentally included bits that were not correctly replaced with the final art and that issue was corrected. No artists were harmed in the making of this game.

Not just native cultures. Very little of any animal goes to waste, from food to clothes to compost. If capitalism is good for anything, it’s finding value in every part.

The fun thing about having a built-in package manager provided by the OS is that the line gets blurry there. Is it the application developer’s responsibility to make sure they have a package for each distribution? Is it the OS’s responsibility to make sure they have a working package for each application a user may want? If there is a third party package maintainer, should the OS include that in an official repo if they don’t control it? Lines of responsibility for any given scenario are not clear, and there are a lot of different possible scenarios.

Because in the end, the end user doesn’t know who is actually responsible, and they shouldn’t have to know. Unlike the download-and-run-installer of Windows, the only user-facing interface IS the OS’s package manager, and it is their responsibility to make sure it works. That is why major distributions spend a ton of time testing and repackaging software in their official repos.

I think that’s the point of the rant. The setup process is out of reach for non-technical people. Bazzite doesn’t fix that problem of the packages don’t include the needed functionality. That the problem can be corrected isn’t the point; the correction process is still a technical hurdle that non-technical people shouldn’t have to overcome.

That alone is worth an extra half point for the effort.

If a person doesn’t have any issues, then is it actually a problem they need to read up on and disable? Why is there any fault to be had at all in that case? Assuming everyone’s use case is the same is also not an educated opinion.

If individuals start having problems, the tools to fix them are there and it’s on the individual to use them. If large swaths of the user base start having problems, that’s Mozilla’s issue to fix. Right now, any prediction of which way this goes is just a guess.