I don’t know how many ways I can say it. The right doesn’t care about truth and they haven’t for a very, very long time. They are so far beyond hypocrisy. Every breath is disingenuousness and deception.

Precedent, civility, fairness, morality, law… these are literal tools to them. At the drop of a hat they will start shrieking from the rooftops like it’s the goddamn fucking Apocalypse… and then turn around and do whatever thing they were shrieking about and proudly laugh about it like a Disney villain.

Alex Pretti could have been sporting a brilliant halo carrying tablets written by God himself declaring Pretti a literal saint… and the right would have said it was obviously a trick of the devil.

The ICE agent could have brutally murdered minorities in times square on five separate occasions and each time escaped punishment on the most trivial of technicalities, and been wearing a 10 foot banner mounted on his back proclaiming himself a proud racist for the entire time and the right would just mumble “fake news” and “AI” and call it a deep state false flag.

I mean… https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/old-man-yells-at-cloud

Wouldn’t be surprised if this bullshit goes all the way to the SCROTUS and gets the fascist rubber stamp.

It’s because politics are dominated by the priorities of the wealthy. It’s by design. Successful candidates of the people are a literal political rebellion against the way the system is supposed to work, at least according to those in power.

In retrospect, my point was slightly tangential. I was lamenting the fact that the system itself is designed in such a way that anyone who wants to run for office is incentivized to seek funds from those with wealth - they must kiss the ring. It’s meant to ensure that only capital-approved candidates ever make it onto the ballots. Only massive organizing efforts can push through that barrier. If you piss enough people off, they’ll overcome such barriers and that scares the ever-loving shit out of the rich who know what’s up.

They’ve made it so you have to kiss the ring in order to participate in democracy.

That’s honestly how it has been, since the writing of the constitution, for the entire country…

The ring belonging to the rich, of course.

one of his colleagues, the Democratic senator Cory Booker, offered his “thoughts and prayers” to the former Republican majority leader, but added: “This is just unfortunately an issue of politics in general: people don’t know when to gracefully step aside.”

Fucking lol. It’s been time for the vast majority of Congress to step aside and let actual representatives of the people take power. That goes double for most Democrats, who put up more of a fight against the “radical left extremists” then they do against literal fucking fascists and genocidal Nazis tearing this country apart. I’m frankly surprised Booker managed to get Netanyahu’s cock out of his mouth long enough to give such a lengthy statement.

Literally rules for thee but not for me.

“Things used to be worse” is, in no way, helpful to me. I’m not selling fear. I’m living in it. Am I starving, am I being raped by a feudal lord, or am I being tortured by a king? No, and I’m aware I’m not.

This changes very little about everything happening right now… and frankly, it’s ignorant of you to assume that runaway technofascism or a decade or two of runaway climate change, the effects of which we are only theorizing about, won’t leave us in a world just as hostile as humans have faced in the past.

In my mind the ideal product maintainer for an Lemmy approved product has to be part of the LBTQ+ community, has to be some people of color, atheist, vegan and must subscribe to the EXACT same flavour of leftism the individual Lemmy user has sold his soul to.

Maybe I’m in the minority here, but as long as the maintainer isn’t a hateful person championing movements I consider grossly immoral (fascism, racism, lgbtq+ hate, hypercapitalism, etc.) or committing acts I consider to be grossly immoral (abuse, rape, torture, human trafficking, etc) I’m happy to support a good product.

most stuff they use was created by people that they would absolutely hate in person.

This is largely true. If it’s a personality thing I don’t mind, but deeply held beliefs and actions are another thing entirely. I’m trying to change where my money, time, and effort gets spent to avoid enriching or benefiting fascists that want to immiserate, harm, or eliminate from existence me or those I care about. Unfortunately, I sometimes have to pick my battles… which is kind of fucked up when you think about it.

To be fair, I also hate to be left alone with my own thoughts for even 1 minute… I’m just considerate enough to use headphones.

Obviously their part of BLM… because… <gestures broadly> you know …and that’s basically ANTIFA!

I would be absolutely shocked if these cameras had any actual impact on these kinds of experiences. They’re more likely to use it to track “ANTIFA terrorists” (aka, progressives) with it than improve the quality of your business ride.

The OP said:

Pretty much every company I’ve been in or know of values a vertical trajectory instead of a horizontal one for its employees i.e becoming a manager nearly always means a faster salary progression than becoming an expert in one or multiple fields.

Why is expertise valued less?

I simply explained what someone might have meant regarding seizing the means of production being a potential solution to expertise being valued less than being manager.

You still need leadership in any system.

Eve your argument “seize the means of production” only happens with leadership.

I didn’t say we don’t need leaders. An owner or a manager may be in charge but that doesn’t make them a leader.

The structure and values of the underlying society revolve around individuals amassing power and wealth for their own benefit rather than any kind of collective good. Often the boss, the owner, the one in charge leans on their wealth and power. They were born with resources or hoarded them and feel that the most valuable contribution anyone could make is risking their own wealth (investing). As such, they themselves deserve most of the control of the organization (company) and deserve to be rewarded with most of the fruits of their worker’s labor. They control the means of production.

If you have good social skills and exude confidence - this comforts the boss. Now the boss likes you and you get promoted and more money. If you are capable of doing great work but don’t know how to kiss the boss’s ass or don’t make the boss believe you know what you are doing - you aren’t as obviously valuable to the boss because the boss doesn’t understand all that technical stuff. Toss in some Dunning-Kruger for good measure too.

Get rid of the boss and decide how to do things democratically among your peers? Now you’ve seized the means of production.

No I’m not proposing a starting point. I’m proposing that at any time someone should be able to decide they don’t like the country they’re in and either move to another country that will accept them or take some land and secede to form a new country or join to an existing one that will accept them. So every competent person once they reach adulthood (however that is defined by the country of residence) will have the opportunity to leave their country, or do so later in life.

You ignored a massive point that i repeated in both my examples.

Am I guaranteed the resources to find that new society?

Relocating is not a trivial task and, to a degree and depending on where we are moving to, we have the freedom to do that already. The vast, vast majority of societies don’t forbid their citizens from leaving if they aren’t wanted for a crime… it’s the destination societies that place limitations on who they want to admit and how. Is that a right you want to deny to societies in this utopia? If you are free to associate with who you want, why can’t you limit who can associate with you?

It’s also not trivial to find land to start a new society. Most land is claimed at this point. If one society or another has already laid claim to every piece of land, what then? Do you propose that unutilized land is unable to be claimed? Can a society that values the natural environment not claim and limit how much of it can be utilized or claimed by its citizens?

This is what I’m saying - this society assumes unlimited resources for relocation and the formation of new societies. It grants rights that, ultimately, infringe on those same rights when they might be required by others.

Where does land for new societies come from? Where do the resources to freely relocate come from? How is this so drastically different from the forces that make it difficult to relocate in most existing societies?

When resources and land are unavailable for your utopia, the core premise is removed and we’re where we are right now.

I feel like I’m failing to communicate the issues I’m seeing here.

My problem is that different people have different ideas on how things should be and so far they have been forced to come to some impossible compromise (which usually ends up forcing good people to violate their consciences) because they are not allowed to do what is natural and associate with those they prefer and form harmonious societies. The availability of this option is necessary for any government to have the consent of its people, which is in turn necessary for a government to be legitimate.

You are proposing that anyone should be able to simply associate with who they want and then, with those people, form harmonious societies/countries/states. Am I misunderstanding this?

It’s not something that somebody who has broken the law can use to avoid consequences because once the law was broken on the land to which it applies then nothing can undo that.

Lets say my parents were in such a society. In this society, they are theocratic and Christian. They punish anyone caught committing a “homosexual act”. Now imagine I am caught kissing someone of my own gender in, I don’t know, middle school, and I’m punished harshly. How is this society any more just for me just because my parents were able to consent to it? I am born into this society - I did not choose it or consent to its governance. Can I, as a middle school kid, just… go to another society before I’m able to explore who I am? Where do the resources come from? Who cares for me while I travel and after I get there?

Now imagine I’m someone else. I join that same theocratic society and later realize I’m bisexual and want to leave for a different society that is more accepting and tolerant of my sexuality. Am I guaranteed the resources to find that new society?

I’m not proposing a solution to all conflict. There would still be tensions between countries just like there are today, and some of them will try to do bad things like they already do. Children would also be under the authority of their parents/guardians just like they already are, which leads to problems if the parents/guardians are bad. I can’t control how countries or parents will behave, I can only offer suggestions on how those situations might be handled.

But you are proposing a more “just” starting point (inside each society) which, within a generation, may be almost indistinguishable from our current situation. How does the previous generation having consented make it a more legitimate government for the following generation?

You are also more or less hand waving the problem of international conflict by assuming it will be in most countries best interests to police each other… but only to the extent that it doesn’t disrupt each society’s ability to be what they want to be? Of course, there will be some clear line that most countries will recognize as the point at which it becomes justifiable to suppress that freedom should the citizens of another country cross it…yeah, again, this sounds more less like just hitting some magic reset button and watching everything go bad to what it is now but with all the assholes concentrated together and everyone else divided by nuanced opinions that they may or may not share with the younger generations…?

Look, I get it. Things suck and it would be great if people who be who they want to be, do what they want to do, and everyone would more or less get along. Unfortunately, we are stuck trying to collectively figure it out something that we hope works for as many people as possible and might suck for some other people. Part of that is taxes.

While everything is kind of fucked right now, I still don’t think it’s good to set the precedent of “If I don’t like what the government is doing I don’t have to pay my taxes.”

My problem is that different people have different ideas on how things should be

That’s where I see the problem as well.

This also goes a long way to solving the problem of unjust laws, as every law that applies to a person would do so because they consented to be under those laws by entering that country.

It’s not something that somebody who has broken the law can use to avoid consequences because once the law was broken on the land to which it applies then nothing can undo that.

But… what if they are born in that land?

Here is my problem. Your proposition is prescriptive. It is what you believe would lead to the best outcome. You make subjective, moral judgements and state that those actions justify overthrowing a country or “punishing those who behave unconscionably”. How have you determined those judgements to justify such actions? The entire system is your ideal, not necessarily the ideal of everyone. It would have to be enforced to be feasible but what if not everyone consented to be in that system?

You also seem to think that people can live in their own isolated societies that they consent to be ruled under, completely ignoring the unavoidable reality that everyone can impact everyone, regardless of whether they are neighbors or live in another country. Am I free to hoard rare resources other desperately need because my country sits on them? Am I free to utilize cuthroat practices to gain power for my country over yours? Who decides how these things are resolved and what is ok and what is not? If countries are working together to compromise, now both countrys’ citizens are forced to compromise on their utopia or forced to endure whatever neighboring countries might do to them.

My department has a service that is abbreviated to PM. Since our organization uses Google for mail, I often have to battle with automagic corrections to every use of PM as a noun to “the PM”.

The point is that minorities don’t cease to have a right to autonomy just because they’re in the minority. The 99% could also have a strong vested interest to abuse the 1%.

I agree that minorities shouldn’t inherently have their rights forfeit to the majority. I agree that, in most cases, the majority should protect the rights of minorities and that doing so is often in their own best interests. You fail to miss an enormous caveat - this is not an absolute.

Should those child abusers, as a minority group within the population, have their right to abuse children protected from the rule of the majority? Is it the tyranny of the majority to constrain/limit the actions of that minority just because they are in the minority? Should they have a place where they can go to be free of majority rule and live only by the constraints that they themselves feel are appropriate?

This is why governance is not a simple thing. There are variations, spectrums, and extremes within the population. Ultimately, the majority must, to some degree, have rule over minorities. We should do our best to determine which “freedoms/rights” should be protected and which can, and in some cases, must be infringed upon.

Obviously, I’m not advocating that any particular minority, particularly when it comes to ethnicity or nation of origin, is inferior or deserves to be ruled over. However, due to the nature of the system, it unfortunately can and does happen. It’s a constant struggle.

I do note you use the word “autonomy”. Due to the varied interpretation of that word, it means nothing to me in this argument. If you want to be more specific, feel free, but it is just a word. What it means and what should be covered by any rules that use the word will, ultimately, be determined by… the majority.