I think that undersells how uninformed most folks are, and how weak critical thinking skills are, on average. Too many people were credulous when trump said he didn’t know anything about project 2025, and many people currently getting deported believed they’d only deport “hardened criminals”. So I don’t think it’s even being fine with these terrible policies, I think a lot of people were simply ignorant.

The ignorance is by design of course, so I’m not trying to pin the blame solely on individuals: the disinformation landscape is a huge boost for right wing extremism, and of course the Democrats themselves just constantly shit the bed. The Dems aren’t Left enough to galvanize support from people who want real change in the system (so they say “fuck it” and either sit out, or become accelerationists), and even the policies they do tout that would help at the margins don’t get any attention - in part because they’re consistently bad at messaging, but also because nuanced, calm reasoning isn’t as attention grabbing as hate and fear.

Well sure, the Democrats could kill the filibuster with a simply majority (if they could get 51 senators on board) but they filibuster a lot as well, to prevent some Republican legislation. So I can see why they’re too pragmatic - or cowardly - to remove it. Not the best source/graph, but a source: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-are-so-many-democrats-considering-ending-the-filibuster/

As for the parliamentarian: they haven’t been removed in a while, and the one before that also served for a pretty long time…I think the Democrats (again, cowardly or pragmatically) are simply trying not to escalate and make the parliamentarian a puppet of the current simple majority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentarian_of_the_United_States_Senate

I’m all in favor of nuking the filibuster, mind you: which would make the whole budget reconciliation thing a moot point. but I can understand the desire for some in the party to retain it as a tool. Fat lot of good it’s doing us now, of course.

the Democrats technically controlled the chamber.

Correct - technically, but not practically - because they absolutely can’t get anything substantial done with the Republicans and right-wing Democrats, as they didn’t have a filibuster proof supermajority.

However, there was one brief moment when Biden’s party had a 60th vote, which occurred after Senator Al Franken resigned and was replaced with Senator Tina Smith in 2018

That…just isn’t true though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/115th_United_States_Congress They had at most 47 votes, right? Also…recall who was president in 2018. Certainly not enough congressional control to override the inevitable veto.

At best their ‘accomplishments’ you mention were limited, while vastly more dammage was done in other fields.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that many of the accomplishments were limited. I’m not saying they are going to save us, and while I want to wrest control from the right-wing leadership in the Democratic party, I’m not terribly optimistic that it’ll happen in my lifetime. IMHO we need more coordination and cooperation on the Left to organize enough to do what the Tea Party did on the Right with the GOP…the major difference is that the folks in power in the GOP weren’t ideologically opposed to the Tea Party, unlike the corporate Dems v. the “Actual Left”, so maybe that’s a fool’s errand, especially given the power structures in place, and the inherently anti-democratic system of government re: SCOTUS, Senate, Electoral College, etc.

Look: I don’t think we disagree all that much: I’m just trying to acknowledge nuance and correct misinformation. So…what do you suggest we do about the Democrats being at best speed bumps to real progress?

That movement goes beyond aggressive vandalism: there were literal murders (and attempted murders) going back to the eighties and mostly during the nineties. So it’s absolutely not true to say no one was hurt by those acts. Likewise, the bombings and arson that were inflicted were indeed meant to cause terror on a large scale, and was specifically targeting medical infrastructure, which is war crime level bad. So yeah: terrorism.

If it was only the vandalism, or walking around with dumb signs…then it’s more arguable, even though I’m vehemently against them. IMHO violence against people is what crosses the line. Likewise, when anti-abortion groups are bombing literal medical clinics - that definitely goes beyond vandalism and into territory that causes harm to folks, even in the cases they didn’t kill people directly with the bombs. Blocking people from entering clinics - trying to intimidate workers and patients…also more “grey”, but can arguably cause direct harm/violence.

So to the case from the OP, IMHO vandalizing teslas isn’t harming civilian infrastructure, or otherwise harming people directly, so…I don’t think it crosses the line. Until it does, I think at best it’s reaching to call it domestic terrorism, and at worst - it’s just being bandied about to justify locking up political enemies and chill protests. I fully acknowledge it’s a fairly morally grey area to be discussing, so thank you for a good exchange.

When they have a supermajority, like they had not long ago, they are in trouble.

The last true supermajority I’m aware of only lasted 72 days, back in 2009. It’s when the Fair Pay act was signed, Affordable Care Act, and a few different attempts to reform Wall Street. They were certainly not as life-changing as I’d like, but I’m admittedly pretty far to the Left of the average US voter.

The even stronger supermajority before that was in 1965, and that got the creation of Medicare & Medicaid, the Voting Rights Act, Freedom of Info Act, etc.

The Dems are a weak centrist party, and the leadership is center-right at best, but even so - those two times where they had a supermajority in the Senate gave us some good to at least quasi-good stuff. I’m totally on board for bashing the Democrats, but it’s hard to convey the amount of damage the truly undemocratic Senate has done over the decades, and I think we can’t avoid the reality that there was a lot that got done in that brief period when the Republicans couldn’t stop them. The ability to block legislation in the Senate is just incredible. Things just can’t get passed, unless it’s something the Republicans will agree to - so it’s far easier for shitty stuff to get passed. Unfortunately, there are enough right wing democrats that will go along with the shitty stuff the Republicans propose, in no small part because their constituents actually like it. We’re losing the propaganda war, because those with capital have far more power to wield.

So there’s a lot of problems to fix - deeply undemocratic institutions like the Senate and the Electoral College, the entirety of the GOP, weakass right-wing Democrats, and the voters themselves. Unfortunately, yeah…the interests of Capital have intervened and made sure to cripple Education and control the media landscape, so to get back to my main point, since I’m losing the thread here - I’m agreed that the Democrats are shit, but we can’t ignore reality that when they’ve had actual full control of the Federal government, things were at least going in a decent direction.

The thing is: nearly everything can cause harm, in some small, indirect way. And everything is political, even if only some small, indirect way.

So taken to the “logical” extreme, me eating oatmeal for breakfast is terrorism. It harmed the people in the fields working for low wages, and it’s a political choice to eat less meat for a meal.

This is why it seems silly to meant of us to call burning Tesla dealerships terrorism. Does sitting bud light cans count as terrorism? Do boycotts count as terrorism?

Yes, most Democrats aren’t Left enough. Some are trying to push the party to the Left, however.

I think the confusion here is your blanket “they” is conflating the mainstream Democratic party instead of those of us who are pushing this stuff at the grassroots level, e.g. actual progressives/Leftists etc.

Not Lemmy specific. There was US legislation related to the word being deemed offensive fifteen years ago (given the slow nature of Congress, it wasn’t a new sentiment then, either): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa’s_Law

Fair enough that plenty of insulting words could be cast as abelist: but my guess is that a word like “idiot” is old enough that most folks called that in a medical context aren’t around any more. Maybe I’m wrong though: plenty of folks do push against saying things like “crazy” in an insulting manner.

Exactly. 15 people in Gitmo is still a moral stain on the nation, but at least some semblance of progress was made. Not fast enough, still terrible, etc.

Trump is vowing to make that - just numerically - 2,000 times worse than the current numbers. And that’s just looking at raw numbers, not even getting into the ethics of the people themselves (do we really think they’ll be even half as rigorous as the shit level of rigor for former/current prisoners if they’re trying to capture thirty thousand people?).

Unfortunately they’ve backed down already: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/26/world/americas/colombia-us-deportation-flights.html?unlocked_article_code=1.sU4.SJeu.KLeSKsinK61Z

But… I’m not okay with giving up one group, nor excusing genocide. We must be having two different discussions, because I got the impression you were advocating for simply rolling over and giving up.

What I was getting at is that participating in an immoral system, only inasmuch as wasting a little time to vote for a lesser evil, can help us achieve our aims when taking action outside the ballot box. It’s easier to fight genocide against one group than genocide against many groups, right?

Are you suggesting we should just go for a speedrun through the list, then?

There’s no hard line, sure: I lived in the Amazon for years, so I know how to live off poverty wages. Poverty where I grew up in the USA seems almost plush by comparison, because a shitty trailer is far more comfortable than a thatch roofed house with electricity only 4 hours a day. My lifestyle now is middle class, and I feel like I’m living like a king. It’s a grey smear of a continuum of wealth and privilege and morality that I feel like I understand viscerally.

However: my lifestyle and wealth is far closer to my friends in the Amazon than that of billionaires.

So there’s a line, but it’s far closer to the top 0.1% than the rest of us. I can help a few friends get motors for fishing canoes, and still make ends meet if I’m careful. A billionaire could get electricity and running water for the whole town and not notice.

Maybe it’s just my own bias, but I assumed the advice comes from people who have been or are lonely, and are talking about what helped them.

The worst depths of loneliness I’ve had were when I lived in a country where I didn’t speak the language well, and was in a tiny, tiny town. The way I got out of it was threefold. One was being kinder to myself. I indulged myself in just being alone. Watching movies on my laptop and trying my hand at creative writing, which I had always wanted to do, but hadn’t done. The second was getting into better physical shape. Even half assing it made me feel better: I’m a biologist so I can attest to the fact that one’s mental health improves with a little healthier physical body, if it’s possible. Finally…I just had to be comfortable being awkward. I was the bizarre foreigner who didn’t understand customs or the language, and even when I had assholes being kind of a jerk… Whatever! I just did my thing, went to social events as regularly as I could stomach (once a week ish), and was surprised at how after a month or so, things really did turn around. I found asking questions to be a way to get to know people and places. Other people love to talk and answer questions, even when you didn’t ask a question: as we’ve all seen in this thread.

None of that is to say it will work for everyone, or even anyone else… But I understand the pain of loneliness. So if sharing my experience can help anyone, please grant me some leniency if I’m being a tone deaf jerk, because that’s not my intent!

Is there a succinct way of articulating why we can’t do both? (e.g. vote for the lesser evil while also doing all the mutual aid and whatnot that we can?) Does it boil down to the argument that voting makes people less likely to build said alternative power structures?

I’ll watch the video when I have time, but communicating an actionable strategy I think is essential to folks in crisis.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

• some guy who doesn’t know much about “Real Communism”

Communism doesn’t argue people are all equal in abilities: but instead it argues that people’s needs should be met, regardless.

This doesn’t mean we all should live in the same identical brick huts, either. We just shouldn’t be so barbaric that we let people starve to death in a gutter, even if it’s because of their own failures.

I grew up in the southeastern US, so I’m used to casual chitchat with strangers just being the polite thing to do. I’ve had to learn not to do so, at least in most cases, now that I live up north.

It’s especially odd because I’m an introvert by nature, but present as an extrovert because of my cultural upbringing.

Military industrial complex

Have you tried seeing if any sugary snack give you the same effect? Sounds like the effects of a dip in blood sugar.

The point folks are making is that Stardew was finished on release, it’s just that the developer has the passion and financial ability to continue to improve it.

If it was 1994, maybe the game would have been released on a cartridge and never changed for myriad reasons (publishing rights, being on physical media, etc).

Example: Super Metroid was one of the best games ever made, and was complete when it was released, but you better believe I’d take free updates that further improve on it. There’s always improvements to make, because nothing can really be perfect. Those hypothetical updates wouldn’t retroactively make it an incomplete game. Maybe it’s too a subtle philosophical point