I’m not interested in echoing our points at each other indefinitely.

I’m sure she would have gained some number of “uncommitted” voters by verbally coming out against Israel’s actions. I’m saying there are other voters she would have lost.

I keep acknowledging that Biden deserves blame for his horrible Israel policy. You keep insisting that that represents “division” and “blaming,” because I’m not willing to also assign the exact same blame to Kamala Harris, exclusively, and hold the voters completely blameless on their side.

This will be my last message on the topic, since you seem to want to keep repeating your same arguments. I just wanted to clear up those two points.

Blame can be shared.

I can blame Biden for committing a crime against humanity by arming Israel, instead of doing the human thing and letting the electoral chips fall where they may. I’m not convinced it would have been the winning strategy in the election that you think it would have been, since there are a lot of voters in the US who are perfectly comfortable with killing Palestinians because they don’t really understand what the nature of the conflict is, and would see any arms embargo as betrayal of Israel in their time of need after suffering a horrific attack.

I can also apportion some blame to the voters who doomed Palestine, I think irrevocably, by letting Trump get elected. They can all be responsible for what’s about to unfold.

I’m definitely blaming the people who organized the “uncommitted” movement. That’s different from the voters. I keep saying the first one, and you keep bringing it back to the second one. This particular example of one person who’s personally responsible for pursuing and advocating a counterproductive strategy which will hurt the Palestinians, yes, I can definitely blame.

Alawieh was at least saying Trump would be worse, by the end of the campaign, but there were other co-founders who weren’t even saying that, who were recommending leaving the line blank or voting for Jill Stein. Well, they got their wish! Kamala didn’t win. Now, probably millions of people are going to die because of it. It’s not a game.

The uncommitted movement was at least 1.5 million people in the general election, enough to win the swing states but not enough to explain the 10-20 million Americans that were not convinced by Harris’ Campaign to go out of their way to vote. That shows that there were many other issues with her campaign. She did not address the material needs of the working class, she ran to the right on immigration and American Jingoism, and ran another neoliberal platform of ‘nothing will fundamentally change’ when people are angry at our failing institutions and desperate for change.

If I have cancer, and the doctor tells me about a treatment but isn’t persuasive enough about it, and I ignore them, and now I’m going to die, is that the doctor’s fault?

You’re holding Kamala responsible for three decades of Democrats ignoring the working class, and for Biden’s policies, and for a huge amount of misinformation attacking her about the economy or whatever to people who then bought it. Okay, sure. If she had been more persuasive or had better messaging, it might have helped. That doesn’t change the fact that if people had voted differently, that definitely would have helped.

To me, that’s the killer flaw of these things.

It would be great if they were designed from the ground up to be good machines for running models, say with a GPU that had a copious amount of memory that didn’t cost $1,500 for an add-on. Unfortunately, to do that they’d have to create something from nothing, so instead they’ve added something that is worse than most GPUs, added some dumb software which is designed to pair with the ultimate result of disappointing people, and called it a day.

Blaming voters is just sowing division when we need unity and solidarity to fight against Fascism.

Nothing anywhere in these comments was blaming voters. I was blaming the people who organized a whole campaign specifically to sow division and interfere with support for the only possible alternative, in this election, to full-on fascism.

I also think it’s partly the voters’ fault, in addition to being partly Biden’s fault. But I was pointing out voting numbers to argue for how effectively this particular campaign had sowed division, not to say it’s exclusively their fault.

Also, aren’t you a Stalin person anyway? Shouldn’t you be happy about the collapse of the US’s effectiveness to influence events in the world? Or is the nick meant to be ironic or edgelordy?

Jesus, I don’t like that.

If it was only him and the stakes weren’t so high it would be an okay joke.

Can I set your car on fire, and only let you out once you’ve shown me the fuse box?

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region

Pointing fingers isn’t helpful in getting us a solution. But it’s also not helpful to say “no sign” without qualifying it to say that the EU and US have been showing small signs, and their small steady reductions in emissions are being counterbalanced by big increases elsewhere.

I’m not saying I want to copy their model here. I’m just saying that materially, they’ve got it figured out and got their operation working, with most of their people living reasonably well and supportive of the state, and a big place on the world stage.

I’ll put it this way: Look at the war between Russia and Ukraine, with the mouse absolutely tearing up the cat for 2 years and counting now, and then imagine how a war between Russia and China would go.

Guys: You know that if you ruin the US with Trump, then even if you can undo the sanctions, you still won’t have access to all these Western markets that you’re so upset you can’t have access to. You won’t become any better at war, and all of a sudden start being able to win against a modern army. All you’ll do is replace lack of access to a working market with working access to a broken market.

There’s a maximum size that any nation-state’s operation can grow to, under a king. It’s just not sustainable to make it work on a big scale if people have no reason to care because it’s all under someone else’s thumb. It’s why all the European powers were always fractured from each other like a big game of Civilization. The Soviet state at least pretended to care and take care of its people, and had people loyal to the cause, so it was able to grow to half the world. Once it was all under King Putin, it collapsed to its present sorry state and then just stayed there.

The US is way above that size limit. If Trump’s movement succeeds as remaking it as a kingdom, which it has a pretty credible shot at doing, the west is fucked. But that still doesn’t mean you’ll all of a sudden have silicon valley and Hollywood. It just means no one will have it.

You’ve had 25 years to make your thing thrive. Plenty of people have done it. China did. It’s not just us being mean to you.

The chorus of people who just now learned something new and were so excited they left a comment is absolutely wonderful.

I like how everyone else is saying, “Oh sweet! Look at this thing I just learned today!”

And then this guy is over here with “Well aktually espresso is totally different from drip coffee and so this totally unrelated thing Wikipedia was saying is all wrong I’m so smart.”

I think Lemmy needs some kind of daily “smart person contest” to draw off the energy that otherwise gets spent on trying to find someone to prove wrong in the comments at the expense of everything else. Lord knows, I need one of those too.

All sounds reasonable. I think I just had an instant eye-roll reaction to the crack about “shitty admins” as the reason for your unusual configuration and making me do extra work to talk with you, and decided not to bother. But sure, if you want to talk with me I’ve got nothing against it.

This is absolutely true. The level of entitlement and lack of appreciation that the average toxic user has for the whole effort and kindness that goes into providing a volunteer Lemmy network for them to come and be a part of, and how little regard they have for it, is breathtaking.

I’m saying that the two sides of that coin, users who behave in not ideal ways and mods that behave in not ideal ways, are of a piece and feed into one another. By inviting the first and making an unspoken promise that nothing in particular is required of anybody to come in and use the network in any way that they feel like, whether it adds to the community or is destructive to it, we’re welcoming a type of behavior that is not reasonable to ask a volunteer moderator to deal with indefinitely, which is part of what over time leads to the second. I think fixing the first problem is absolutely necessary in order for the network, in the long run, to be a nice community.