Grifters grifting grifters lol.

Not that specific example, but I have used that approach before. I think the first time was about 10 years ago. There were a couple queer people in my friend group who would throw around the f-slur, which was whatever, but one night when we were drinking one of my straight friends called me it, and that bothered me. So the next day I sent a group message talking about how it made me feel uncomfortable and I didn’t like it being normalized. It was a little awkward, but from then on everyone stopped using it and we all remained friends. In the long term, I think people actually respected me more for standing up for myself (since I was generally more of a pushover), and it stopped a behavior that had been making me uncomfortable and driving a bit of a wedge between us.

Most of the time, stuff like this don’t come from malice, but from people having different norms or expectations and not understanding each other. They might get defensive in the moment, but once they’re aware of it there’s a good chance they’ll stop. While people can be dicks, we are fundamentally social creatures and wired to avoid friction.

I will say it’s easier to confront people when you have a voluntary relationship with them, because if they’re dicks about it you can always just not hang out, but you can’t do that with coworkers. If they attack you for expressing how their behavior makes you feel, then you can probably bring it to HR and you’ll have a stronger case to say it’s malice.

Voting isn’t actually support

On the other hand, making a deliberate choice not to act does mean supporting whatever happens without your action

Interesting. So, by drag’s logic, a Trump voter isn’t responsible for supporting Trump, but a nonvoter is.

It’s amusing to see the kinds of ridiculous knots y’all tie yourselves into trying to twist around language in an attempt to resolve your cognitive dissonance and punch left.

What answer is that? All I’m doing here is interrogating your worldviews, and it seems I’ve found a pretty significant bit of cognitive dissonance, haven’t I?

Not an answer to my question.

Are you asking which of the two major parties in the US is the “second” party, making the US more democratic than if there were a single party?

Yes, that is what I’m asking. To say that having more than one party makes our system more democratic means that there must be at least two parties whose existence both make the system more democratic. So, does the Republican party, whose candidate tried to overturn an election, make the system more democratic? Does the Green party, which the person I responded to said should face legal retribution for their role as a “spoiler,” make the system more democratic? Maybe the Libertarian party? Which one?

First off you didn’t answer the question, second off you put words in my mouth saying that I’m “fixating” on that as “the only possible change.”

Roger that, you can’t answer because your worldview is incoherent.

Downvoters are welcome to answer the question too. Too bad none of them can either 💅

Quick question: is the US more or less democratic than if it were a one party state, and if the answer is more, then which other party is it that makes it more democratic?

This website completely changed the way I thought about this stuff and I found it super helpful.

The line to walk, generally speaking, is, “When you do [specific behavior], it makes me feel [specific emotion].” So for example, “When you ask me if everything’s ok, it makes me feel pressured/put on the spot.”

Keeping it about your own feelings makes it less confrontational while still bringing attention to the problem - you don’t wanna get drawn into a whole debate about whether there’s anything wrong with asking if someone’s ok, but you want him to understand how you feel and (hopefully) take that into account in the future. If he does get defensive, repeat the message once to make it clear you’re standing your ground, but then drop it and move on. A lot of times it’s just a matter of the other person not realizing how it affects you.

Having said that, speaking as someone who’s very much had the same mentality in the past, there are a lot of advantages to having friends in the workplace. Something to understand about this approach is that it’s actually good for building relationships because it allows you to confront the behaviors that bother you while openly communicating your feelings, and people may even respect you more for standing up for yourself. Just remember to walk a middle ground, you don’t want to veer into aggression or passivity.

They may have meant conservative in an older sense of wanting to change things, but slowly. American “conservatives” are more properly called reactionaries because they neither want to keep things the way they are, nor incremental progress (both of which fall under conservativism), but rather want to actively roll back and take away rights that have already been won. Liberals are conservatives because they want gradual, incremental change while preserving the social order. Conservativism is still right-wing though so that part of their statement is incorrect.

Did they not confirm that because they’d immediately show themselves to be wrong?

Do democrats not view a hierarchical social order as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable? Capitalism is a hierarchical social orders and liberals definitionally support capitalism.

Could do worse tbh.

This is how they support people like Hitler

Citation really fucking needed.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I have made no particular claims about how popular or unpopular immigration is.

Which polls show an “overwhelming majority” want stricter borders? Source please.

Tbh I expect that some people are more hawkish on the border now than before because the Democrats switched tacts, and not the other way around, but regardless I haven’t seen any evidence that shows what you’re claiming.

This has so completely disappeared from discourse over the past four years. I remember when it used to be that “building the wall” was stupid at best and bigoted at worst. But now, it’s all, “Of course we agree that we need a strong border, but we’re the ones who will actually do it, Trump’s all talk.”

It’s always the Republicans that get to set which values and goals the country persues, while the Democrats just run on pragmatism and efficiency. It’s like they’re allergic to making moral claims.

There’s a difference between the government’s interests and the interests of individual politicians. Politicians don’t have access to public funds, in the same way they have access to the money in their bank accounts, so public funds must be transferred into the private sector. The easiest way to do this is through military contractors like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. There’s a rampant and widespread conflict of interest where politicians give those companies lucrative contracts and the companies have various ways of giving them kickbacks. All the politicians have to do then is to sell the public on spending more on the military.

As long as the companies are paid, it doesn’t matter whether the money is coming from domestic taxpayers or from other countries. In the case of Israel, there are also various lobbying groups focused on that issue who can also reward politicians from doing what they want. So yes the US government may be giving the weapons away for free, but the individual politicians are getting paid, so what do they care?

Before the 90’s, it was easy to do that because they could just point to the Soviet Union as a threat (even though we massively outspent them even then). During the 90’s, there was a period of relative peace, which was a crisis for the shareholders, and there was some expectation that the bloated military budget could be cut, since the primary threat is was supposedly there to counter disappeared. But with 9/11, they found a new threat to justify it. Once those wars wound down, then it became China, Russia, and Hamas. If if weren’t them, it would be something else, and if they couldn’t find something else they’d simply create it. There must always be some existential threat to justify the spending, or else the war profiteers stand to lose a lot of money.

The US needs to vote third party in order to fix the voting system.

Then let me provide some context. Trump and Harris are both hawks who fully and unconditionally support arming Israel and slaughtering people in the Middle East. The same was true in 2020, when it Biden v Trump, in 2016, when it was Clinton v Trump, in 2012 when it was Obama v Romney, in 2008 when it was Obama v McCain, in 2004 when it was Kerry v Bush, and arguably even in 2000 when it was Gore v Bush

Those of us who are doves have been waiting for over 20 years for a candidate who isn’t an extremist hawk who wants to commit mass slaughter on the other side of the world, where it can safely be kept out of sight and out of mind. Neither party has ever delivered on that. The military-industrial complex is extremely large and extremely lucrative for politicians, and it has only gotten larger and more influential under Biden - as well as being much more deadly than ever, with what’s happening in Gaza.

We’ll never just be handed a choice to get in the way of that system, but it absolutely must end. The only ways of accomplishing that are 1) forcing politicians to oppose it by making our votes conditional on that issue, or 2) building our own party from the ground up that’s committed to opposing it. Otherwise we will keep seeking out new conflicts until we end up kicking off WWIII, and ofc in the meantime it will be impossible to fix the numerous crippling domestic issues we’re facing because so much of our money is tied up in bombs.

Americans are extremely dangerous because we are so coddled and isolated from the consequences of our actions. War is purely something that we see in video games and in movies. The news rarely covers the actual human cost or humanizes anyone outside of the imperial core. They dumped Malala real quick the moment she turned a critical eye to US policy.

These people were more than happy to support the unprovoked invasion and decades-long occupation of countries in the Middle East so long as it was “their guy” doing it “the right way.” Hundreds of thousands were killed and we were never allowed a choice in about it in any election, every democratic nominee, Kerry, Obama, Clinton, and Biden are all hawks. Liberals don’t see any problem with this and most are actually upset with Biden for pulling out of Afghanistan. Liberals pretend to care about these things but they don’t understand or respect the severity of them at all. It comes back to be so sheltered from the consequences of actions.

But I can’t believe that that shelter is going to last forever. Systems either adapt or die and the US is proving that it’s incapable of adapting to the shifting conditions of the present day. More and more non-aligned countries are getting fed up with us and that isn’t felt immediately but it is shifting the balance of power and reducing the effectiveness of American soft power. The day will come that Americans wake up and realize that we can’t keep throwing our weight around and ignoring everyone else’s concerns and perspectives, that we either have to play by the rules or fade into irrelevance. I just hope we don’t start WWIII to avoid facing that reality.

Until then, I’m sorry that our people keep pushing these election brainworms onto everyone in every English language space.