1965-2165
See https://toot.cat/@woozle/109497174033876468 for extended profile
https://justmytoots.com/@woozle@toot.cat
Profiles that are *not* me:
- anything on mastodon.social
- https://socialdb.xyz/mastodon/woozle-toot-cat
@rnd While I have some friendly nits to pick, I think you have a point -- and it relates to my feeling lately that there is a substantial subcultural amalgam in the US which is not only "not ready" for democracy -- doesn't have the resources to pay the costs needed in order to get the benefits -- but is actively opposed to it, because they don't (and maybe can't) even understand the benefits.
...which in turn leads me to the thought that maybe we need to work out some kind of "bicapital" government, where they can have their asshole strongman autocrat and we can have our educated, democratic, egalitarian government -- with the two "heads" negotiating on whatever the lowest common denominator ends up being.
Ideally, the decisions/laws made by each government would apply more to those who chose it (although obviously there are some things which naturally/unavoidably apply to everyone, starting with handling of the common environment).
There are a lot of obvious problems to be overcome, but I keep coming back to it and thinking there's got to be some way to make it work -- a design which we could make a long-term goal for governmental reform efforts.
This is how you know it's working
Bonus speedpaint: https://www.peppercarrot.com/en/miniFantasyTheater/077.html#bonus
@lobingera @travisfw ...and it sounds like there's a specific reason why this is a mistake... maybe go into that a bit?
@saramg My understanding is that a lot of the corporate / centrist Dems lost their primaries to progressives -- so there's a possibility of a sea-change, here.
At the very least, there are a lot more progressives in the mix now.
Have you been questioned or stopped while using a gendered space like a bathroom or changing room? Let us know using our new and improved reporting tool!
Can we bring that back? Get all the techbros to start teasing each other about their silly girly computer-touching, and get them to go off and do something harmless like... I dunno... mud-wrestling. (With crocodiles. In a submersible.)
What I keep coming back to is the idea that they think about reality (truth) in a very different way than we do.
To them, "truth" is a binding force that makes your group powerful -- so it's important to always support the truths the group believes in, and the leaders who define those truths, even (or especially) in the face of contradictory evidence. TLDR: group cohesion is more important than reality or natural consequences
In the service of group cohesion, therefore, things they express in ways that sound to us like principles are actually just tools by which they justify group-beliefs -- a rallying cry, not a rule which must be followed.
To them, there is no hypocrisy in saying one thing and doing the opposite, as long as the end result is to strengthen group cohesion. (This is why "pro-life" advocates can also favor the death penalty and oppose free school lunches. It's never about protecting children; it's about control.)
...and yeah, demonstrations of "power" in a leader also support cohesion, because the leader will enforce cohesion and protect the group against outsiders.
It also "helps" that they tend to have a strong streak of sadism, and a belief that there's no such thing as coequal existence: you're either the boot doing the stomping, or the face being stomped on.
(Sorry, this turned into a bit of a ramble. I've always been very disturbed by that kind of thinking -- authoritarianism -- and it's increasingly looking like one of the Big Problems we need to face head-on if we're going to survive.)
@cocoadog I mean, sure, a tolerant society is a good thing, a moral value -- but individual tolerance of another individual is a tool towards that end, not a good in itself.
...because as the "paradox" points out: if we tolerate intolerance, we're not serving the goal of a tolerant society.
@cocoadog I always liked the way Yonatan Zunger put it in "tolerance is not a precept": tolerance is a contract, not a moral absolute. The contract stipulates that we should tolerate the odditied of those who tolerate ours.
If someone behaves intolerantly, they have violated the contract and we don't need to tolerate them.
@yourautisticlife Apparently I am -- any idea about how to respond appropriately?
My thought is to "claim" the account and then change my profile to make it clear I was listed there involuntarily -- but if there's something more forceful we could do...
@rnd Now I want to for a musical group called The Internet Jazz Orchestra, in which each player is their own director and produces their own mixes and musical selections from performances by a large number of players.
Or something.
(...and I'd be surprised if someone hasn't already used that name.)
Fellow U.S. folks, if you haven’t voted, please do so today. Fingers crossed.
@smp I see what you mean -- I've looked through all the settings-pages I could find and don't see anything which seems to affect the background color. I suspect the only option is to install one of those CSS-tweaking tools.
I can ask around for recommendations / suggestions if that would be helpful.
Our ballot is, like, a page and a quarter -- but about 2/3 of page one is Democrats running unopposed (mostly judges).