[-] [email protected] 1 points 8 minutes ago

I've endorsed voting five times already in this thread and yet I still get the same response. It's like Americans think civil engagement begins and ends at voting. Ironically, the point of this post is to call that very line of thinking into question.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

The enduring ideology of the political establishment is the promotion and protection of the ruling class' interests--invariably at the expense of the working class. Both parties serve the same master, and because there are only two, the voters don't have much say in the matter. Progressives, like Bernie, who call out the billionaire donors are the exception to the rule. (More on him later.)

Seen from the leftist perspective, the overlap in the Venn Diagram is a consistent commitment from our politicians to put profits over people. It is why both George Bush and Barack Obama bailed out Wall Street (to give just one example of corporate welfare). It is why SCOTUS declared corporations "people" and campaign donations "free speech". It's why the U.S. has engaged in neo-imperialism over the land, labour, natural resources, and markets of developing nations. It's why the CIA assassinated democratically elected leaders in South America and Asia. It's why we've had decades of stock market growth while wages continue to stagnate. This is not accidental: the system is working as intended.

If Bernie had been elected in 2016 the outcome for the DNC would likely have been just as dramatic. If you want the Democratic party to be a leftist party, go make it one. We’ve literally seen a major party pushed to fascism. You know know change is possible.

I wrote this in another comment but I'll reiterate here. Bernie did not get a fair chance at the presidency. The DNC limited the number of debates (not allowing their favourite to be taken to task), they gave Hillary debate questions ahead of time, gave Trump/Clinton all the media coverage, etc. It is damn near impossible to succeed as a third-party candidate (sorry, Jill Stein) so a self-proclaimed socialist has to run as a Democrat and play by their rule book. And they don't even have to play by their own rules! (Court Concedes DNC Had the Right to Rig Primaries Against Sanders.) When AOC runs, they'll do the same thing and then she will spend her time in Congress backing establishment democrats. Please realize that the political elite would much rather shift to the right than to the left. The far left-wing actually threatens the profits of the wealthy.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 15 hours ago

You could make the same argument about any third party candidate, which would ignore their tremendous disadvantage in our current system. The DNC tilted support in Clinton's favour from the beginning:

Also, consider Obama. Obama did get more votes than Hillary. Obama had a majority in Congress. Obama literally ran on hope and change. And yet he continued in the same problematic behaviours. Government bailouts for the rich, drone strikes, holding prisoners in Guantanamo Bay for years without due process, persecuting whistleblowers, the list goes on.

Even when we find "better candidates" they either work for the system or fail to change it.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

I've already agreed that we should vote. But it's not enough.

Progressive ideas have effectively been taken off the table since the Cold War. Even if we can get more progressives in Congress, the establishment dems sideline them. It's easier for both parties to move to the right because this does not threaten the wealth and privileges of the oligarchy.

Any progressive running for president is, for that reason, fighting against the odds. And when they lose, they take the energy behind their campaign and redirect it to support "centrist" democrats. That's it, two political parties and we call ourselves a democracy.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Let me guess: Democrats are completely innocent in our present state of this affairs, right? If we just get more Democrats in all three branches of government, they will fix all our problems. Is that it?

I don't blame you: I used to think the same. But what does it take to see this is a bipartisan problem? We have President Biden and Bernie Sanders both warning about the oligarchy, and you people think they're just talking about Republicans. For fucks sake...

[-] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

At least you have more than two options. We literally cannot vote against anything that two political parties agree on. What's more, anti-establishment forces like Bernie Sanders and AOC are either sidelined or used to redirect voter dissatisfaction into votes for establishment candidates. So while I agree with the need to effect change locally, its doubtful that we can enact meaningful change at the federal level.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 21 hours ago

This also applies to Biden. So many leftists held their nose for Biden due to his progressive promises and in order to "usher in" a new generation of progressives afterwards.

117
submitted 21 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
590
submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
[-] [email protected] 321 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
571
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
402
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
380
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
389
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
636
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
25
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

The vast majority of people reading this right now subscribe to Presentism. Presentism is the view that only the present time exists and so only present objects exist. Every moment, as time passes, objects that come to be in the present come to exist and objects that fall out of the present cease to exist. The past and future, as well as past and future entities, exist no more than fictional characters or the objects in dreams.

One problem with presentism is it becomes difficult to make sense of assertions about other times. How can I make sense of the claim that, "Socrates was taller than Descartes" if neither person exists? How can I make sense of the claim that, "The sun will come out tomorrow" when there is no tomorrow? We might be tempted to say that claims about non-existent entities are meaningless in that they do not have a truth-value. But to say these claims are meaningless seems to go against our intuitions about our own speech acts.

Another objection comes from physics. According to special relativity, simultaneity between objects or events depends on the frame of reference that you use to view them. Events happening at the same time from one perspective will be happening at a different time from a different perspective. The popular example is that the people riding in the ambulance hear the sirens earlier than the people standing on the sidewalk. Special relativity tells us no frame of reference is privileged. Therefore, there is no fact of the matter as to whether two events are happening at the same time. This seems to imply that there is no fact of the matter about what counts as the present.

In response, we could adopt a different ontology of time. The Growing Block Theory argues that the past and present exist. More precisely, it argues that, as the present moves forward, the past and past objects continue to exist (and the future does not exist). So every past instance of you exists just as much as you do in the present. You are "spread out" in time, so to speak.

Another popular theory in the metaphysics of time is Eternalism. This theory says the past, present, and future all co-exist equally. Hence, past, present, and future objects, events, and relations all exist. On this view time never passes; we live in a frozen universe. Differences in time are only perspectival (like how people seem smaller when you look at them from far away). Eternalists do, however, admit that events are structured by temporal relations such as "before" and "after".

There are other theories (such as rejecting the existence of time entirely) but this is enough for our purposes. Given these considerations, what is your metaphysics of time?

689
submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
89
submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Basically the title. The fact that we can read an encyclopedia entry on the economic history of the Netherlands from our phone is crazy. Scrolling over to a random island in the middle of the Atlantic to experience a virtual street tour is insane. There are even websites that let you see live security camera footage (shoutout to EarthCamTV). We have so much information that we take for granted.

-25
Two-Party System (lemmy.zip)
submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
91
Civic Engagement (lemmy.zip)
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Maybe we should copy the French. They seem to have the right idea.

view more: next ›

balderdash9

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 2 years ago