The point is to make it harder for “those people” to vote and participate in society. If you came up with a magical, iron-clad, mechanism for everyone to have ID, the conservatives wouldn’t support it because that’s not what they want. They want minorities to suffer.
That’s not the point. The point is people spend most of their day under an authoritarian regime. Taxes and services are irrelevant to this.
It’s funny because the US is usually like “rah rah democracy!!” but also loves private corporations, which are extremely authoritarian.
Many people are kind of stupid. Not ignorant. But like, incapable or unwilling to evaluate what’s a good source and what’s nonsense. Also incapable of drawing plausible conclusions even when given good sources. It’s all emotional. It’s how you can have stuff like “the outgroup have all the money and power, but they’re also poor and taking all our welfare” at the same time. Feels truthy. Anti-vaxxers get the high of bonding with their anti-vax friends and feeling like they’re part of the in-group.
There’s not really an answer. Invest in public education for 100 years, maybe. But we’re going always going to have authoritarians shitting life up for everyone.
This is bad. I’m so tired of people doing bad things. Stop undermining public education you donkeys.
Many people are bad at delayed gratification and long term thinking.
That’s just how people work. Belief is social. We all value input from people we see as members of our in-group more than outsiders.
But those bots don’t have any intersection with my network, so their trust score is low.
If they do connect via one of my idiot friends, that friend loses credit, too, and the system can trust his connections less.
The trust level is from my perspective, not global.
Sometimes people’s priorities, needs, and desires are bad.
The way I imagine it working is if I notice a bot in my web, I flag it, and then everyone involved in approving the bot loses some credibility. So a bad actor will get flushed out. And so will your idiot friend that keeps trusting bots, so their recommendations are then mostly ignored.
I send people links to posts on Lemmy, and tell people I can’t see Instagram/Twitter/etc.
Is it working? No, not really, but it feels like it should.
The people that work at twitter could just shut it down. Not like he knows how to run a complicated website.
His security team could also just, I don’t know, bring him to an undisclosed location and not bring him back.
They are consistent that all that matters to them is power, supremacy of the in-group and binding of the outgroups.
I appreciate the lengthy and well written response. But I don’t really agree.
When the current state of things is bad, pushing to conserve it is also bad.
Sometimes things can seem good from the perspective of the hypothetical conservative, but actually be pretty bad from a more zoomed out one. For example, someone might want to “conserve” their suburban lifestyle. They might not realize the racism that went into establishing it. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Color_of_Law is a pretty good book.) Worse, they might support the racism. “Our parents fought to keep people of life ancestry together. That’s just how the world is. Those people should live somewhere else.”. There are countless other examples. “My dad employed children in his factory and my golly I want to do the same.” Something being a tradition doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
Conservatives do not have a lock on keeping good laws. Progressives do not want to change things for the sake of change. No progressive is going to look at a law that says you have to be 18 to work dangerous machinery and be like, “This is a good law, but we can’t leave it as-is because then we’d be a conservative.” Progressives would also support a law against dumping mercury in the river, because the underlying values (“don’t poison people for profit”, i guess?) are progressive values.
I think the underlying value system of conservatism is hierarchy. The world must have hierarchy. You see this with like monarchy and nobility, you see this with the rich being treated differently than the poor, and you see this with racism. Other ideas like “Oh, we should preserve our traditions” are mostly paint jobs on top of “There must be outgroups to bind and ingroups to protect”.
At least there’s been some anti trust movement lately! The Democratic party is much better about that than the Republican
Not all laws are just.
I was on a grand jury once and most of the charges were for marijuana. I tried to convince the jury we should nullify, because sending teenagers to jail for pot is cruel. No one took me up on this. (A grand jury is simple majority, and the defense has no role in the proceedings. Side note: every time a cop isn’t indicated it’s because the prosecutor didn’t want to.)
There was a little old white lady who sat behind me on the jury. She said well that’s the law and if it’s bad we should change it. Fine, I said. But imagine it’s 1950 and you’re on a trial for a black man who sat at an all white’s counter. Would you indict? Would that be the right thing to do?
She went, “oh… mm I don’t know”. And I don’t think she meant because of peer pressure or imagining she only had the perspective of a white person from the 50s. I think she was just a very Lawful-Neutral person.
Anyway. The point I was trying to get at is a lot of people have garbage moral reasoning.
What does conservative mean that’s not "there must be in groups for the law to protect but not bind, and outgroups for the law to bind but not protect "?
Conservative ideas like "we should just let people pour mercury into the river " and "it’s cool to have kids work in factories " and “you entered into the contract willingly so you can’t sue Disney for killing your wife” and "how about women can’t vote " and “we don’t need a fire department we’ll just oh shit the whole town burned down? To shreds, you say?” are all bad ideas, and that’s about the tier of thought I expect from conservatives.
Best scenario probably results in the dissolution of the Republican party, and its key players in jail, dead, or otherwise removed from the political landscape.
But the roots of the problems there- the xenophobia, the tribalism, the (deeply ironic considering some of their slogans) supremacy of feelings over facts - that stuff isn’t likely to go away. So even if the Republican party collapsed, there’s still plenty of people ready to believe outsiders are bad, climate change isn’t real, etc etc.
I don’t really know how to fix that. Probably spend 100 years investing in education for all, removing lead and other toxins from the environment, and smashing apart anything that consolidates too much power (eg: Facebook, Sinclair media)
“You gotta remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new west. You know. Morons.”
I’m pretty sure that simply putting a picture of eyes in the scene reduces theft. People are emotional creatures , and if they feel like they’re being watched by someone who doesn’t approve of stealing, they’re more likely to refrain.