it's literally Facebook. i think we've heard and seen more than enough to from Mark Zuckerberg and the platform which actively continues to be one of the worst vectors of online harm, misinformation, and advocacy for social and political violence (among many, many other ills). particularly with respect to our instance: their project can get fucked as far as i'm concerned.
we have very specific goals on this instance that Meta is totally antithetical to
we're quite open about not being open-fed with everyone and this is not out of character nor a contradiction of previous blocks we've made
our priorities are not "fediverse first" or "ActivityPub first", they're Beehaw first. the fediverse and ActivityPub are mostly tools for us to an end, and we don't accept some obligation to prioritize the greater health of those over our own thing.
even if you don't care about the rest of that simple logistics prevail here--we absolutely don't want to be responsible for potentially tens or hundreds of millions of additional users. that is not a thing we can ever commit to, and we will almost certainly sooner shut down the instance or completely defederate than eat that influx (particularly with Lemmy's limitations right now).
overall, i would say this falls into the camp of "not a thing we're realistically going to reconsider".
just to add to the plethora of responses: it rather defies belief that he’s purely “joking” when, among other things, he’s taken photos with anti-trans legislators like Lauren Boebert and let them frame those photos in this manner:
collectively, yes--and there are consequences which flow from that, yes, at least for some offices.[^1] but in Texas alone there are five million people, before non-voters and third party voters, who voted for Biden. i'm pretty sure those people don't deserve to suffer just because slightly more people in their state voted for a ghoul.
[^1]: Texas is of course quite gerrymandered, so "vote them out" is not exactly a universal option for people.
meaning many people will still have plenty of debt even if biden’s thing passes.
this is literally a case of you preferring perfect over good actually being done, to the detriment of everyone. while i would also prefer total cancellation, for a majority of debt-holders, up to $20k in forgiveness would wipe out their student loan debt.
They are explicitly and intentionally trying to put people in greater danger,
how? again: in what ways would these people who aren’t Moreno differ in voting on legislation–which is the basis upon which people are in danger?
like, do you think Frank LaRose—who has a history of infringing on the right to vote, who has made it harder for people to vote, who defended the right of Republicans to gerrymander their way into power in perpetuity, and who wants abortion rights to be restricted in the same ways Trump does (and went out of his way to try and make this possible against the will of voters)—is a moderate? do you think he’d break with the party if asked? because i don’t. i think LaRose would be exactly like Moreno, just harder to beat because even people like you who are conscious of the creeping extremism incorrectly perceive him as more moderate even though he won’t be in any way that will matter if he’s elected.
or do you think that Matt Dolan—who, despite criticizing Trump for January 6th also said explicitly the last time he ran that he would not convict Trump if he ever had to vote on impeachment against him—is a moderate? do you think he’d break with the party if asked? because i don’t. i think Dolan would also be exactly like Moreno, just harder to beat for the same reasons i just described.
the primary reason Hamas has political power and the political support to attack Israel in this manner is because Israel:
treats all Palestinians as second-class citizens and subjects them to a system of political, social, and economic apartheid
holds millions of Palestinians in squalid and inhuman conditions, and seizes the territory of millions more in the name of a violent settler project
subjects the vast majority of Palestinians to state-sponsored discrimination, terror, indiscriminate bombing, and political violence
leaves Palestinians no feasible democratic path to the rights they should have in their current state or the state of Israel, making armed struggle inevitable
you can and should condemn Hamas, but it is inarguable that Israel routinely does worse—overwhelmingly to people just as innocent as the ones Hamas is murdering—which is what makes attacks like this inevitable. you cannot do what Israel does and not expect the outcome to be violence, and it is incumbent on Israel, who holds all the actual power in this dynamic, to break the cycle and stop using every terrorist attack perpetuated against it as an excuse to roll innocent heads.
when they bought out Mediatonic they acquired the publishing rights, which is allegedly when he stopped getting royalty payments here. it also changed what platforms you can get the game on–previously it was available on a few other platforms–but these days you can only get the game on Epic or Steam
essentially the school board is no longer democratically elected and is instead run by a hand-picked board of managers:
HISD superintendent Millard House II, who had been on the job for two years, was replaced by Mike Miles, a former Dallas ISD superintendent and the founder of Third Future Schools, a network of public charter schools. The elected trustees were replaced by a board of managers picked by the TEA. While racially diverse, the board members mostly live in affluent areas of Houston west of downtown, far from the schools in northeast Houston targeted by Miles’s reforms.
and the new board of managers and superintendent have a whole sweeping package of stuff they want to do:
A total of 29 elementary, middle, and high schools—all serving low-income, predominantly minority student populations—will be reorganized according to Miles’s “New Education System,” a package of reforms he implemented at Dallas ISD and his Third Future schools. In coming years, Miles plans to expand this system to more campuses. [the New Education System implements] [...] higher teacher pay ($85,000 starting salaries, compared to around $61,500 for the coming school year), bonuses for the best teachers, a curriculum focused on reading and math, and a strict disciplinary regime enforced by cameras in every classroom. Unruly students will be removed from class and placed in a separate room, where they can follow along by video. Miles has said that librarians will likely be eliminated—because, in his view, their job consists only of “checking out books,” as he told the Houston Chronicle editorial board. Magnet programs may be scaled back, although schools will retain extracurricular activities, including sports. Miles did not respond to an interview request for this story. To implement these reforms, the superintendent is requiring every employee in the 29 schools, from the janitor to the principal, to reapply for their job. (Employees who aren’t rehired can move elsewhere in HISD.)
Part of me thinks this site is just as cucked and left wing as reddit.
you're already banned for being a dipshit but: i cannot think of a better endorsement for this site than free speech losers like you describing it this way. if we had a wall for endorsement quotes i'd make this our first one
Yes, I actually do believe that many of the “moderate” Republicans are less ready and willing and downright excited to actually turn the government over to Trump, even if only because they know it doesn’t actually benefit them in any way to do so.
then respectfully: i think you are catastrophically naive. i do not believe this, i do not think “moderate Republicans” believe this, and i think the case for this is unimaginably weak given the history of the Republican Party and how they have governed across the board. in any just country i think we would ban the party outright and disqualify all current Republican officeholders as we briefly did with secessionists after the Civil War
What it says is “Our candidate is so lackluster and uninspiring that they can only beat the most out there fringe lunatic”.
ignoring that i don’t think this applies to Sherrod Brown: Ohio is firmly a red state at this point which has trended rightwards in the past three presidential elections (and which voted for Trump by 10 points twice–presumably it will do so again in 2024) so… yeah. the path to victory here at this point just runs through winning over some Republicans and most Independents. pretending otherwise would be malpractice–the “base” is not sufficient anymore to win Ohio. so the easiest way to win now is to run against a fringe lunatic. and it’s not like there’s a meaningful difference in voting record in the Senate between so-called “moderate Republicans” and the “fringes” anyways–Murkowski and Collins still vote with their party on any actually good legislation and refuse to gut the filibuster that would allow for things to be passed by simple majority
What has me considering the deontological position on this specifically is that, for utilitarian purposes, I have voted to allow our entire federal government to continue to drift right. When choosing the lesser of the two evils every time I did, I think I failed to consider that my permissiveness would embolden the lesser of the two evils to become increasingly evil as they were aware I wasn’t voting for them but against their opponent.
i guess my problem is, if you acknowledge this possibility: does it not logically follow that, likewise, allowing someone running as an open fascist to win might have the same or worse impact as you’re trying to avoid? because i would personally consider the argument “if Trump wins, fascism will be given a greenlight” more likely than the argument “if Biden wins, genocide will be given a greenlight” for a variety of reasons, and i would consider it more harmful if it occurred too. that’s for a few reasons: the overall shift in the party has been to the left and i think that’s far more likely to continue than a shift to the right; there’s a flourishing left-critical tendency within the Democratic Party; the overall American left the strongest it’s been in a long time, etc.
but i think most immediately it’s because i would contest the logical validity of the second argument at all. the contemporary US is a post settler-colonial society and most of its land area was acquired through genocidal processes given sanctity by the legal system. to me Biden is neither establishing a new norm nor deviating from an old one—he’s just a part of a long-normalized string of presidents like this.[^1] in my mind trying to break the cycle by punishing him might be cathartic but will be politically fruitless and unlikely to produce the introspection you’re seeking. by contrast: i would argue we have not really had a fascist president—authoritarian, racist, white supremacist, truly evil? probably yes, but not fascist[^2]—and so Trump winning would be a catastrophic normalization of that political tendency which we’ve to this point avoided. it would have extreme ramifications both domestically and globally, especially for the left.
and i will reiterate that i believe it entirely likely that you’re going to get a larger, more sweeping genocide from Trump and his followers than is happening in Palestine if he is given the power to do that. (it’s also obvious he’s going to continue that one based on his positioning since October 7.) we’re already seeing efforts in places like Arizona to make it de facto legal to murder undesirables like undocumented immigrants–the dehumanization needed for widespread killing to begin is clearly high in some parts of the Republican Party. in all of this space, i just don’t see very many compelling arguments for why the utilitarian perspective of harm reduction should be discarded here.
[^1]: indeed i think you could charge nearly every president since the US’s inception as being complicit in or directly responsible for at least one genocide. [^2]: i also have a hard time fitting most contemporary presidents into these categories in terms of governance even though i think these descriptors are accurate for most of them. i think Reagan is probably the most explicit offender in this regard, but even so i think it’s obvious there is a lot of distance in outcome between how he governed and how Trump has/wants to.
in my mind voting in our current system is just pretty straightforward utilitarian calculus (and can’t be anything else): you should vote for the option which will do the least harm and has the highest probability of winning. even if you, say, accept that Biden and Trump are equal on I/P, that just means you should look to other issues on which they are distinct–and they are distinct on basically every other issue in a way that clearly suggests Biden to be the best choice you can make here.
take just the Autocracy Tracker, which makes it unambiguous that Trump, if he wins, is planning a sweeping authoritarian wave of deportations, purges, restrictions of civil rights, and repression of minority groups and ideological groups he disagrees with. much of this is, in a sense, already happening here and already a form of genocide against some groups (trans people most prominently–it is now de facto illegal to be trans and legal to bring harm to trans people in large portions of the US). a Trump win will probably ensure there is no safe place for such groups in this country anymore.
on a moral level: i am just not sympathetic to the idea that voting for Biden constitutes blood on your hands in a meaningful way. i think if you accept this line of argumentation, you would ultimately have to bite the bullet that this could also be said of paying taxes[^1]–and i certainly don’t begrudge people for paying their taxes even as this lines the pocket of the war machine, so then why should judge them for voting? in general: by virtue of existing within a state, you will always be complicit to some degree in the crimes of that state, regardless of what you do to extricate yourself from supporting them. so i just don’t think that abstention from voting or voting for a more morally defensible alternative actually cleans your hands of the blood being perceived here.
separately, and more pragmatically: there is no compelling third party with anywhere near a possibility of winning or even scoring a “symbolic victory.” a vote for a leftist third party right now is, in a real sense, a vote wasted–because these parties are incompetent, fractured, and full of people who are not serious candidates. even with the Green Party (by far the most electorally advanced of them) nobody has ever trembled at their influence and in practice they mostly seem to exist to waste a lot of the money given to them on quixotic presidential candidates. imo: any actual movement challenging the power–your DSAs, for example–is going to be built from the ground up and not imposed through the presidency, and is only going to use electoralism as one of its several political arms.
[^1]: arguably, it’s even more true of paying taxes than of voting: votes may make no difference in whether something happens or not, but taxes actively make them possible
“in New Hampshire” is the important caveat here, and this is an outlier-low for Trump poll too. nationally she continues to poll anywhere from 30 to 50 points behind him, and in any case it’s not a given that “winning New Hampshire” is capable of catapulting her to victory with a Republican electorate that clearly likes Trump a lot