I think that’s a fair perspective - though I am certainly concerned about Trump starting wars without going through congress, as well as the precedent this sets for invading other countries without cause. (Granted, historically, the US has done both, but that doesn’t make it right). Additionally, this could just mean Venezuela swaps out this dictator for a US-friendly dictator.

I think this is a more nuanced take on the situation. I would agree that folks who are directly impacted by an issue are more likely to be impacted by it. Original comment seemed too absolutist too me.

I think there are 22yo who can be impacted by the issue of taxes while being poor (Though they may end up on the other side of the argument). For example, issues of food stamps and medicare-for-all affect all ages. A 22yo might have a strong opinion in favor of taxation for these purposes. A conservative making an ad hominem argument on the basis of age in this case (e.g., that they are simply being manipulated by the radical left) would be clearly incorrect.

I also think, as more of a moral argument, you shouldn’t need to be directly impacted by something in order to support/oppose it. I am not on food stamps but I absolutely think we should have them (or perhaps “upgrade” it to UBI to avoid nonsense on what poor people are allowed to buy).

In any case, dismissing someone as simply being manipulated is not a good approach in general. It could be a good approach when we are specifically talking about the person overselling on confirmation bias from ChatGPT, but it is a poor way to change minds as a general tactic.

Is there any particular language I should adjust to avoid being “aggro”? I did say that I hated their argument. And I did call them hostile after their last sarcastic response to me trying to extend an olive branch.

Is that going too far? “Touch grass” is about the same level, I would think, but I’ve been wrong before and I’ll be wrong again.

If you enter into debates with weak ad hominem arguments about someone’s age, you aren’t going to change minds and you will be steamrolled by anyone with an understanding of the topic.

Skimming your recent posts, I don’t think our political views are particularly different, so it’s in both of our interests if you are using the best arguments possible on these topics. This was not an attack on you as a person, so your hostile response is unnecessary.

I suppose I did simplify your argument.

I’ll restate, then: it’s erroneous to say that any young person/22yo with a strong opinion on taxes is being manipulated. Although life experience may prevent naivete in some cases, I think it’s incorrect to make a bold assertion like that because older folks are capable of being manipulated and younger folks are capable of being discerning and having the critical thinking skills to avoid manipulation.

I would also take issue with your follow up on whether owning property impacts whether or not someone’s opinions on economic issues are well defined. I don’t think people need to be personally invested in an issue to have a nuanced opinion on it, though it can certainly help (and you definitely want to consider interested parties when it comes to property tax- i.e., before a city raises property taxes, they should take into consideration property owners with fixed incomes, who do tend to be 60+)

I get that you were just making a short comment and didn’t intend to go deep into the weeds on it, but I find these kinds of assumptions dangerous.

I kinda hate the premise that young age automatically makes you stupid or your opinions a result of manipulation. Someone in their 60s can be just as stupid as a 22yo, and a 22yo is also capable of having nuanced thoughts about politics and taxation. “Young=naive” is a bad trap to fall into when evaluating political opinions and feeds into the old adage about people becoming conservative as they get older.

I think this person is just stupid on their own, regardless of their age.

According to Chenoweth, the number refers to peak, not cumulative participation. She also says 3.5% is not absolute – even non-violent campaigns can succeed with less participation, according to her 2020 update to the rule.

That’s the opposite of what her update said (well, it’s rather misleading). Her update noted cases where nonviolence failed even when they beat 3.5% - including one case that achieved 6% participation. She did note that most successful attempts didn’t need to reach 3.5%, but also that reaching that is no longer a guarantee.

Her original research only went to 2006, there’s been a few recent cases which broke the rule. Like she said in her update, history isn’t necessarily a predictor of future results. I think there are also some very recent cases like Nepal where 95% of the movement is nonviolent, but violence at the very end of the movement tips the scale. (IIRC something similar happened with the Iranian revolution, though the results of that were decidedly undemocratic in the long run). There’s some nuance with Nepal as well- the organizers did not choose to go for violence, it was largely an unplanned mob reaction.

Based on the totality of her research (which is publicly accessible and based on publicly accessible data), I still think nonviolence is more likely to achieve success than violence, but it really annoys me when articles like this one overstate the effects. It makes it really easy to tear apart the argument.

That’s true of many rules/razors… I wonder if there’s a rule/razor about not putting too much faith in things like murphys law and occams razor.

You’re not wrong (in my city, the “mayor” is basically another city council member with no extra powers, just the same voting power as the other council members), but I don’t quite get what you’re disagreeing with me on.

I’d quibble that the average medieval peasant faced a lot less surveillance than the average citizen of any country today (Though perhaps that’s just a change in methods).

But you are right - and, in fact, I think it’s the case that countries/people in worse circumstances tend to have more kids (probably some weird evolutionary thing but I don’t want to speculate). As tough as times may seem in “developed” countries, most people don’t need to worry about where their next meal is coming from.

(This isn’t to say that circumstances are “fine” or that we shouldn’t improve things - simply pointing out some biological factors). It’s also worth noting that folks in worse economic circumstances tend to having a higher number of people in their “support network” (friends and family - ie, 3 generations living under one roof). Though perhaps this is not the case in the US since it’s culturally looked down upon to rely on family like that.

It’s an interesting phenomenon that can’t be boiled down to 1 or 2 simple factors like government type. Maybe this was too much text and I should’ve just said “I agree with you DeathByBigSad”

Do you think that all a mayor does is send press releases and give the key to the city to the Powerpuff girls? In NYC especially, local government controls a lot

At this point, the difference is mostly in stability. It’s highly unlikely that Harris would have slapped a bunch of tarrifs around willy nilly, and she probably wouldn’t be blowing up a bunch of ships near Venezuela (I wouldn’t rule it out, but I would assume that the false flag operation would be more subtle).

US voting is 100% picking the lesser evil, at least for now. The current hope would be that democratic socialists gain enough standing to take over the democratic party, so that voters have meaningful choice. In an ideal world, we’d repeal things like citizens united as well

This post in particular probably won’t cause a wide swing in support, but it will cause a few people to reconsider past beliefs. This might get those people thinking if it was really OK to make fun of the attack on Pelosis husband, and then that might get them to reconsider how they look at Jan 6.

Rising grocery bills will flip more people than this, of course

I’m not saying that the people who change their minds now are good people (I don’t think anyone thinks this) but we need everyone we can get (WITHOUT compromising our core values) when it comes to opposing trump. Every time he fucks up, we need to put the pressure on. Cult deprogramming is difficult, and can’t be done for everyone, but it is possible.

There is only one person you are helping when you preach defeatism and give up early.

Look, unless you lay down what you consider to be the goalposts of “socialism”, I doubt you’re going to have any sort of productive/constructure discussion on this point.

I mean, you can’t define socialism by saying that this socialism

Ken Klippenstein strikes again. Man is hard carrying journalism

Admiral should’ve remembered the oldest rule in the military… “shit always rolls downhill.” Don’t think for a second that your superior will cover for you when something like this happens, even if they gave the order and should also be held accountable.

Out of curiosity, how did you know? They’re showing up as banned now, but the comment seemed normal to me

OpenDesk seems more aimed at municipalities and larger orgs, whereas cryptpad is better for smaller orgs - the 1000 user “large” edition may be too small for ICC. I’m assuming they aren’t selfhosting the community edition of open desk and wanted the support.

Or maybe open desk just gave them a better deal. Who knows

As this continues, I would highly recommend folks support their local food pantries as they are able. Cash is better, but there’s nothing wrong with a food drive to collect cans from your neighbors. Some pantries also accept fresh produce, if you have some left from your garden this year.

I wouldn’t rule out things being better in, say, 100 years, but it would take a lot of luck and effort to get to that point.