The_Sasswagon

joined 2 years ago
[–] The_Sasswagon 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

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

[–] The_Sasswagon 5 points 4 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.

[–] The_Sasswagon 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

[–] The_Sasswagon 4 points 3 weeks ago

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."

[–] The_Sasswagon 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] The_Sasswagon 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] The_Sasswagon 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] The_Sasswagon 4 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] The_Sasswagon 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

[–] The_Sasswagon 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why blame the people who didn't vote? They didn't vote for a reason surely, just as you and I voted for a reason. Just because their reason isn't the same as yours doesn't mean it isn't just as valid. Maybe it's ignorance or perhaps it's misinformation, but at this moment there's no way to know that, so discounting 10 million peoples conscious choice only serves to widen divides and alienate more people.

Blame Harris and the DNC for running bad campaigns and candidates. It's on them to win the voters and an election, and it should have been clear that 'the same campaign as last time and the time before' wasn't working.

No matter who we point at, we're going to have to start reengaging with our communities and supporting each other, and having those 10 million (likely somewhere left of moderate right) people on side going forward is vital.

[–] The_Sasswagon 11 points 2 months ago

That's an awful lot easier but likely less accurate and what happens whenever establishment Dems lose. "Hillary lost because of Bernie Bros" is the first and loudest instance that springs to mind. But even if that statement were true, In hindsight we know that she and her campaign sorta rigged the primary, which looked more obvious than they probably intended. That disenfranchised some voters and they didn't vote.

That's not the voters fault, the candidate did something that made those voters not vote for them. Just like Kamala/the DNC did with running an ancient dude, not having a primary, running the ancient dudes VP, supporting the genocide of Palestinians, loving fracking, and onwards. I was really optimistic early on with her VP pick but that seemed to be the moderate leftmost edge of her campaign.

I'm of the opinion that until the DNC stops appealing to disenfranchised Republicans this steady slide right will keep happening. Running as R-lite hasn't really been paying off as well for them as it did in the 90s.

[–] The_Sasswagon 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Don't blame the left for the failings of the moderate right. Just like Biden before her, Harris spent the campaign appealing to theoretical disenfranchised Republicans and confidently ignoring the calls for action from the left. She even abandoned some of Bidens more left leaning campaign promises along the way (her climate policy was a clear back step). On top of that we had no primary, which however flawed, shapes the campaign in the image of the some voters and solidifies support for the candidate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the two candidates were equivalent, but it is easy to see why people might be feeling disenfranchised and might just not vote, and elect instead to hide from it all.

Anecdotally, I stopped engaging with election news around the dem primary, when everyone was very excited, so I could vote for Harris without thinking about the baggage that would come later. It was all just overwhelming, and I'd call myself a pretty engaged and resilient voter normally.

All that to say, remember the humans who voted or didnt are the ones with ethics and empathy. I'm not sure you can say the same about the ones who voted for the fascist.

view more: next ›