The_Sasswagon

I think there's an argument to be made that with the way it was going we may have ended up in this ballpark either way. For Biden's time in office Democrats were flying rightward on immigration, just accepting the rightwing narrative and saying "yeah but we are hard on immigration too".

Ideally Democrats would learn from this election that it was the incorrect move, then shift more progressive accordingly, and I imagine some folks voted/didn't vote based on this hope. In truth I don't think they learned that and instead will continue to adopt ever more conservative positions, chasing the Republicans to the bottom.

I also don't think it's people who care about immigrants fault that trump won, nor is it productive to dunk on various demographics for holding to their morals or for being duped by poor education and siloed media. When/if we have another election and when/if we have to fight for one, we are going to need everyone who cares to be on board.

You should totally give it a try sometime if you're feeling up to it and have a multi speed bike. It's really hard the first time, but so much of the challenge is mental hurdles like feeling tired, balance when you're going slow, and shifting. The physical challenge is a lot less than you might think.

I accidentally opted into a really tough commute a few years ago (~400ft ascent which is about 122m) and it was really challenging at first but it's amazing how fast you can improve.

I also bought an ebike. They are incredible for days you aren't feeling well or need to grab extra groceries. Good luck with your conversion project! I bet you'll love it

I don't think the US is as bad (in this respect) as media would have you believe. Having grown up in a relatively large dwindling industrial city in the Midwest, visited Chicago very regularly for a time, lived in the southeast, and now in one of the cities often cited as 'crime ridden', I know one person who was mugged and they knew their assailants and it was in my hometown which no one would recognize.

I have friends from St. Louis and Detroit, some of the percieved 'most dangerous' cities here. While they recommend caution or street sense when I visit, I haven't experienced anything but kindness or indifference from strangers. On the other hand, one of my friends was hit and killed by a car in Detroit, and when I left town in the southeast once, saw a bunch of white power banners on someone's house, which is kinda a promise of crime.

None of this is to say I think the US is better than Brazil or Estonia or anywhere else, I've got endless criticism for this country. I mean that the crime reported on is usually exaggerated, and the likelyhood of experiencing the crime that does happen increases as the money you have decreases.

And not to make this even longer, but the people with the means to move to another state much less another country are the wealthy. The poor, who are the ones who might benefit most from moving, are unable to, trapped in the cycle here.

You're probably right, I said that with no data to back it up, only personal experience. I grew up in a relatively large metro area in the rust belt, and our city council made up of pizza shop owners, lawyers, car salesmen, and the like gave up so much to try to attract Walmart to town. It fell through but in the process the council bulldozed a very large neighborhood for the project. The professional staff, in this case the City Manager, was strongly opposed to the project, due to future loss of local business, but the council proceeded anyway.

I would argue, though, that being short sighted about the economic health of communities does imply some level of incompetence on behalf of the local government. They could encourage new local small businesses by starting an incubator program, or offering subsidies for business with less than a certain number of employees. They can find the money to subsidize Walmart and that money isn't ever coming back, whereas the money spent locally does.

To counter myself on that, maybe that's only short sighted because we're looking back and it's obvious in retrospect. Conventional wisdom at the time Walmart was expanding so rapidly may have been, "more big business means more tax revenue means more nice things for the city."

Edit: Sorry, I didn't realize this was two weeks old, it feels like just a couple days ago

I agree, the president should be the best we can get, but infortunately we don't elect people to be good at the job. The nature of elections selects the person who is best at elections at that moment. Sometimes that person happens to be really competent but that seems to be the exception and not the rule.

I'd like to think this is a problem with American voting specifically, or maybe first past the post election systems, but I worry that this is the trend of democracy as a whole. It seems like all democracy is sliding that direction, and I can't think of many safeguards in place to resist it.

I sat with it for a moment, and I think parliamentary systems do seem more resilient since they require experts to be appointed or hired to do the real work, while the elected officials are steering the general direction. That falls apart of course when the appointed experts are selected for reasons that have nothing to do with expertise.

I don't know what a solution to this is, and I think that is by design too, though it may just be the way the human brain works, I don't know. It's very hard to imagine new ways of doing things that are very different, and it's even harder to see a clear path to that different future. I'm hopeful because good people are working on it, but I'm worried because the problems are so titanic.

Very well said!

When it comes to business being driven out, it's not even just the direct replacements to existing local business, they also draw traffic away from existing commercial centers which as the local grocery store goes out, the local restaurants, cafes, etc. close down too.

Additionally, often times the big box stores are offered huge uncentives to move in, so not only are they taking away jobs but they are also not paying local taxes and have land purchased and prepared for them to purchase at a discount.

It's bizarre but many cities are run by folks with no real knowledge of how cities are run, so it makes sense why it happens.

Generally yes but specifically no. It takes more than that to offset the racism built into the system. Since the article was written from a US perspective I'll talk from that point of view, but the same is true in other countries (In the UK, Black women are 3x more likely to die in childbirth than white women, a symptom of this concept there).

In the US, the system we live in is quite literally built on racism. From the founding document when compromises regarding slavery were baked into the way we vote, to our criminal system which rose from the ashes of reconstruction after our civil war, our foundation is racism. Our government is alternatingly unwilling or incapable of correcting these wrongs, so the onus is on individuals to do so.

Being a good person is the first step, but beyond that is lending a hand to dismantle the structures where we can, and many of the 100 things listed in the article. This isn't "oh sweetie bless your heart" this is "I'll show up and fight for you."

I don't have a lot on the content other than I read the article and while I don't think I learned anything new I think it's probably good to have reminders. This article is pretty clearly intended to be read by people who are already receptive to anti-racism and intersectionality, and this seems like a good spot to post it.

I think people get defensive when they read that headline (and don't read any further), if they haven't grappled with the fact the responsibility is on all of us to actively make the world less racist. Just being there isn't enough when the system is built wrong to begin with.

I also wonder if the time for these kinds of articles has passed. Back in 2018 it was, I think, far more common to find people on the left who hadn't grappled with race before, content to say they were color blind but open to changing their view. Today I imagine that group is much smaller, and those remaining are doing so out of ignorance, defensiveness, or explicit racism.

I don't think you're going to find peer reviewed studies on something that happened a month ago, but I would be very sure to say someone is working on it.

But if you've used Twitter you can recognize when something changes. I haven't used it for years, but secondhand I've heard it was pretty egregious. Obviously this could be due to external parties heightening a disinformation campaign, but I'm not sure that really matters.

American social media platforms creating an environment where propaganda and misinformation flourish and refusing to take action against it has the same net effect as TikTok altering internal algorithm. Arguing that somehow TikTok is worse because it's a foreign government is nonsense when every social media platform is manipulated by foreign governments to the same effect.

Doesn't help the US government just keeps saying "trust us bro, we have reports that say China is spying on us" while they threaten to ban one platform. Nobody trusts that, it looks like a witch hunt, and sounds racist when they single them out this way.

Okay all done TL;DW:

Q: Are Americans stupid?
A: No, just not engaged or educated in matters of politics.

Q: What about the decision makers at the DNC and Harris campaign?
A: Yeah, they sure do appear to be, or more charitably, in the pocket of big business interests while attempting to be R-lite.

Q: Okay, Liberals, specifically pundits and media?
A: More defensive than stupid, they got the campaign they wanted but lost and don't want to take any responsibility.

Q: Republican leadership and media ecosystem?
A: Some are, others motivated by racism, others money, and onward, you know the stuff, it's the normal list.

Q: Is the show stupid along with their viewers?
A: Not stupid, misjudged the threat of Musk and Ben Shapiro types, clearly left leaning media and viewers should be shifting gears and approach to better reach disaffected Americans.

Q: What do next?
A: Prepare for the worst, push for the best. Connect with people in real life. When the bad things happen that we know could happen, don't brag, but draw attention to the fact that there are people out there who knew this bad thing would happen.

TL;DR: Nah people aren't dumb and that's both good and really depressing. Be good to each other and reach out when you need help.

Yeah I think "evangelical vegans" or "bad vegans" are a sort of caricature made for comedians and then everyone else to punch down on. Sure annoying vegans exist, and so do annoying meat eating people, but diet isn't necessarily why these people are annoying.

I imagine there's also an element of defensiveness from meat eaters as well. Even reasonably stating "I don't eat meat because of the cruelty in the industry and the negative environmental impacts" is implicitly challenging a meat eater to consider those things, which they likely never have. And being faced with the certainty that the vegan is making that statement (the cruelty of the industry and environmental impacts are objective), the meat eater is possibly going to feel like they are being judged or attacked.

It's been a while, but doesn't approval carry a very heavy risk of 'unfavorable' outcomes where a less popular candidate wins if everyone votes normally? I remember it seemed to reinforce two candidate contests and encourage simply voting exactly like we do now (with the similar outcomes).

-Reading into it more, that happens because if you vote for your second favorite, they may beat out your favorite, but if you do not vote for any but your preferred, you won't risk spoiling your own vote. This of course can lead to neither winning and a third candidate nobody wanted winning, similar to first past the post.

I think that RCV, being fairly widely used now, seems like a pretty good alternative to first past the post, and while it's not perfect, doesn't have those obvious strategic voting issues that Approval has. I'd still take approval over first past the post. Might even take a dice roll over first past the post honestly.

Edit - for disclosure, I'm also iffy on approval voting because it's constantly referred to in a way that makes it sound like it's a kind of panacea, paired with a list of why x other voting method doesn't work. It's also being pushed by conservative groups all over the US, which raises my defenses for better or worse.