Even if it's true that people are stupid (which is also a narrative pushed which ensures apathy) that is completely irrelevant. Why is it that these apparently stupid people believe the "wrong thing"? Well, it's the same as always. The capitalists are better organized than us, and those supporting them know of no other alternatives. So for a successful revolution the oppressed class needs to get better organized (which IS happening, albeit slowly).

If YOU feel apathetic, please find a socialist/communist/radical left party/group and join it. It can help immensely

Lol I have so many conversations like this. Someone was saying a bunch of people got laid off at their job during covid and they almost lost their house. I said something like "it's a shame that they didn't just temporarily decrease everyone's hours so you all still had work. I mean, the work was going to come back eventually".

And they of course agreed

I think many will obey the decision, just not the USA, Canada, terf island, the E.U., you know the usual culprits for not following international law.

Within at least physics, there is still a lot of importance placed on "prestigious" journals like Phys Rev. So it's not so simple. Why would authors trust something published in the "Journal for Comradely Science"? It makes it very difficult to start something just due to the scientific cultural inertia.

Realistically it is 100% possible. But it's the same issue the rest of the working class runs into: insufficient organization. The push for open source in its current form is just a way to make science open without affecting the profits of these huge journals. It costs the author to publish in a journal (which usually means the government allocates x-dollars within grants to pay for publishing). So it's a farce tbh.

If there are education and experience requirements imposed on judicial candidates, and then they are elected, this is not an issue. Because those who are elected are accountable to those who elected them

(provided they can be removed from.power by the same people, which is one of those "checks and balances" Western "democracies " have imposed so we can't remove them).

That way you have professionals/experts who are accountable to the people. Obviously elections can always be tampered with and influenced by powerful and moneyed interests, but by assuming this is true and then making it the default is a bit daft tbh.

That's like... 4 or 5 times the speed of sound at sea level so... There would be a bit of a boom.

Really we just need to remove the internal regulations from companies. It's all those corporate rules, policy, etc. getting in the way of our dreams of light sabers and star ships

The real question is if you slapped hard enough to raise the temperature to 74C (undergrad clearly doesn't cook), what would the temperature of your hand be? And for the engineers: how far up your arm would you have to measure before the temperature returned to normal body temperature? And for the bio/kin/nursing/premed students: how much would need to be amputated?

If you are elected into a position where you can enact change, those who elected you have expectations of you based on the policy you supported during the election.

If, then, you turn around and do something completely different your actions no longer reflect the will of those who elected you, and you are not behaving in a representative manner and thus in an undemocratic way.

So ignoring anything specific to the American system, class interests, etc., it is a losing battle to try and be anything different from the status quo and getting elected by aligning yourself with the status quo.

A communist who gets elected by siding with a fascist is no longer a communist. A liberal cannot be a liberal if they denounce capitalism and side with socialists. They are fundamentally different ideas of who the political economy is designed for, completely contradictory ideas about hierarchy, property rights, human rights, and even what constitutes truth (liberal ideas are often utopian, like the "rational economic man", and socialist/communist ideas are often based in the reality of the current and past material conditions, like believing people need homes and food, and a wealthy society should be able to provide these for itself, so people get homes and food. In contrast a liberal society would let the "market" provide these things in whatever way is profitable.

I mean, private ownership by those who don't do the work or consume the product, yet get to make the decisions is to blame, yes. And that is capitalism by definition so... Capitalism is to blame....

It seems like the entire charade, this time around, is just pointing to some sort of Dems/Repub alliance to get rid of the false 2 party state.

"Look, I don't like it anymore than you do, but really we aren't that different? We are fighting for the same things! And there is no way we can defeat the terrorists or the forces of cultural Marxism alone. It's time we joined forces, and make America the BEST it's ever been! Make America Great Again (Maga)! Make America For Whites Again(MAFWA)!"

It will be the Maga MAFWA coalition government. Or since coalition is a "big" word, the partnership government.

The only identity politics I want to see is us against the ruling elite. Everything else is sparkling fascism.

Yeah and it is much easier (I.e. less pushback) to direct that towards the vulnerable and under privileged than those with power, guns, and money. One of those could get you killed.

It's a peninsula at best

They are cheaper and easier to carry than machine guns obviously

Absolutely, but it's different. For-profit media needs to maximize, well profits. So their platforms will be designed around this. If they profit from advertisements that means they need you to be using the app as much as possible and it will be designed to manipulate you into using the app, engaging with content, making content, etc.

Without those incentives, people can browse differently. Though we are products of our environment, so if we have been trained to use social media in a certain way, we are still likely to use say Lemmy that same way.

I'm not siding with you, but I'd like to take your idea and make it..... Useful.

Anytime someone engages in civil disobedience (like a protest) it is crucial that the correct people are targeted.

For example: if you want to stop your school from investing in Israel you target the administration (President, VP, investment managers etc.) and specifically those who make the decisions. This could be protesting at fundraisers so that it deeply affects the image of the school and those in charge, and serves as a threat of reduced funding.

You wouldn't, for example, go into the classroom during a lecture and yell about Israel, making the lives of the students and professors worse. Why? Because the source of power and social change is the students, staff, and faculty, at the school. And annoying them creates more enemies rather than allies.

Always do a "power analysis" to know who to talk to and bring on your side, and who you need to disrupt in order to make the change. Otherwise we ignore class solidarity (yes, soak up the pun) and are doomed to fail

I've had a lot of people in my life ask what I thought about Harris. I think people want to feel optimistic, and the idea that a person "from" a marginalized group could be in power provides that hope. Yes I know idpol. But most don't.

All we can do is the same we can always do: be informed, and patient with people. Ask probing questions to get people thinking. Most of our opinions are from feeling/imposed ideology, so engaging with ideas (What do you think Kamala will do that will be so good? What makes you think that? Etc.) can force people out of that state and get them to actually consider why. Saying she's a dirty capitalist cop that should face the wall probably won't help lol.

Yeah maybe, they do have the fastest gaming processors, and most efficient workstation processors if you use the x3d for workstations.

I hope not. I'll likely be buying a bit of an upgrade in the next 6 months....

I'm attempting to be self-employed in the very near future. And one question I keep asking myself is "where do I find clients?". So, obviously I'll have a website, some sort of social media,etc. But, some of my target clients will be businesses/organizations...

And every time, without fail, I'll think "hmm, LinkedIn is a good place to find businesses to reach out too". But the first thing I see is always some variation of this insane bullshit. Is it a requirement to embellish that badly?

Like, what am I supposed to do with that information? There must be a better way? Or do I need to start saying:

" Business is much like the chicken on my sandwich: covered in sauce which has too much fat. People, like little Abby at the orphanage, see my sandwich and say, "there's too much mayo", to that I say, "you don't know sandwiches the way I do". Without fail, the orphans are always enthralled. They see that all they need to do is make a better sandwich, learn about the fats in sauces, and work hard. They volunteer their time making sandwiches for me, so they can get the experience. And then, they go and start their own business, rising out of poverty."

"I have done this no less than 5 times already. And each time, the orphanage renames itself after my sandwich business "sloppy seconds". It's amazing what a little hard work can do."

"DM me if you would like to learn more."

I think that's unhinged enough. Let me know what you think!