Yes doing every major release is a good idea.

The Github releases page should have notes and releasr info: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/releases

Obama’s EOs were a slow walk bureaucratic attempt, basically how you try to avoid actually doing something by making it easy to stymy. Same as Biden’s broken promise on cancelling student debt. One stymied by the obvious avenues to do so, they can just sit back and let partisans repeat the excuses. They did not make real attempts to force the issue.

Here’s a liberal-friendly summary that largely just repeats the words of federal and party bureaucrats: https://web.archive.org/web/20240902004637/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/01/why-obama-has-failed-to-close-guantanamo

Obama could have used executive action to shut it down anyways, diverting resources and personnel to pack up and get out.

He just accepted the excuse so he could keep doing what he wanted to: funneling money from the working class to finance.

Yes, I know what I said. I don’t conflate a mention of individual liberty tp be the same as discussing individualism itself.

So do you have any point to make? Any response to the bulk of what I said?

COP is a greenwashing conference for the imperial core countries to make false promises and try to rationalize how their plans to do everything in exactly the same way but with more funding for NGOs will solve the problem.

Capitalism itself is incompatible with addressing climate change and therefore so is “reform” within it. It does not factor human well-being into its equations, let alone caring for the wider climate over decades, and climate change is caused by industry, transportation, and war, all of which it will relentlessly maximize in pursuit of profit. It also controls the state. Attempts at direct action and the use of “civil society” result in the criminalization of the former and the cooption of the latter. COP is an example of the latter, it’s where the NGOs line up for a crack at false catharsis for a few million in funding.

To fight climate change, we must band together, educate each other, and stay disciplined in our fight against the real engine of climate change, capitalism.

I didn’t speak about individualism at all, actually.

It’s not clear to me what your point is. Did you read my longer response to you? Do you have anything to say about it?

I actually have no given a definition of liberalism outside of the core I did originally. I have only listed a few self-claimed qualities and their inconsistency.

I also gave a rationale for why I went in this direction. Notice the complete lack of engagement with it.

I did not give an extensive definition because the self-description of liberalism, by liberals, is at odds with the historical actions of liberalism. It could be distracting and take a while to get the point across.

For example, liberalism self-defined with maximizing individual liberty while it also advocated for the “freedom” of corporations to work you as many hours as it could while shitting down your unionizing effort with violence. Liberalism also self-defined as favoring democracy and everyone having a say, but implemented this in a racist and sexist way that placed capital in charge while also colonizing others and depriving them of self-determination.

The common thread is really just that it is the dominant ideology of capitalism, its function is to extoll the virtues of capitalism and tying it to an illusion of liberation and self-determination while actually working against both of those things, as under capitalism, capital works against both struggles. The person that liberals have you read as foundational to liberalism, John Locke, worked to support an American settler colony and its slavery rules and explicitly supported child labor. Then, as today, there is a difference between how political figures present themselves and what their advocacy actually entails.

Define liberal please because I don’t like being called one.

Liberalism is the dominant ideology of capitalism, it is a wide set of social and political views that serve capitalism through the absorption of bourgeois attitides and its primsry vehicle of political legitimacy is bourgeois democracy, like parliamentarianism. Every person living under capitalism has absorbed some liberalism, including every anarchist and communist. But those who critically engage sufficiently can shed the label because they understand the system sufficiently and work against it.

You are repeatedly exoressing a litany of thoughts rooted in unexamined liberalism. One that is usually retained by baby leftists in Western countries is racism and xenophobia. They will see the value of organized labor and social justice but cannot tie it to imperislism and fall in line with who the Capitalists tell them is their enemy

What do you think of people who say it’s hypocritical for queer people to support Palestine? Because to a socialist you sound like that when spreading imperialist pinkwashing against China.

In the same way that some people will shill for billionaires or for some billionaire-owned company, aka a corporate shill. People who fail to see that (capitalist) companies are just a way to extract profit.

A shill is someone paid to profess to have views other than their own. People shilling for a product makes sense, it is an old salesman tactic.

Who do you think is paying me to be right about China all the time?

In the same vein, some people fail to see that nation states are just instruments of power.

On the contrary, every communist that has ever existed knows this. We write about it all the time. Projecting this liberalism onto communists is just telling on yourself.

Some are better than others in different ways of course, but I get real itchy when people jump to defend a nation at the first smidgeon of criticism. I hate nationalism.

Existing in the real world as we do, your “anti-nationalism” is really just nationalism in favor of Western powers, despite your professibg to be against them. You repeat their talking points! What do you think the outcome is of uncritically repeating sinophobic or russophobic falsehoods? Why do you think we are even talking about those two countries? It is because US empire has decided to focus on them as targets of derision and marginalization.

What, exact, nationalism are you pushing back against? What is making you itchy? Because all I see are people defending China against piss-poor talking points.

Yet again begging liberals to understand what the word “shill” means.