I think there are cultural differences that we ought to tolerate and be mindful of our biases on (how you prepare food, the clothes you wear, difference in manners, accents, language, etc.) and there are things which are universal evils (murdering children for not marrying).

It is unfair to ascribe the latter to all people belonging to a particular culture (the “you people” comment), since “universal” evil goes both ways - all people should consider it evil, but it is not unique to a particular people. A strange duality. Reminds me of the dad who “accidentally” shot and killed his daughter in Texas after an argument about Trump and was never investigated.

I think it is good that there are organizations tracking this sort of thing based on multiple criteria. As individuals, we are prone to bias, and our outlook can be overly optimistic or pessimistic based on what news we happen to read and how our lives are going.

Additionally, knowing the rate of change is important. Sure, “everyone” knows that the planet is getting hotter each year due to climate change. I still want scientists out there checking thermometers each day so that we have data to support better decision making. The attitude of ignoring legitimate research and relying on “common sense” is part of how so many people were swayed by MAGA bullshit in the first place (i.e., they dont want someone with a fancy medical degree telling them they should vaccinate their children). Maybe we can get off our high horses for a bit and look at what experts are saying from time to time.

I suppose that’s why they’re asking you to take the results based on the research data rather than faith. It’s important not to confuse pessimism with objectivity.

Well, if you read the article, there’s some good news for you: they haven’t taken this long.

If you would read to at least the second paragraph (and I know I’m asking a lot), you would see that this organization has been tracking the descent since 2017. The “new” bit here is that it seems to have stabilized, i.e., it isn’t currently getting worse than it already is. The bad news (which you have to read more of the article to get) is that it isn’t going to get better any time soon, either.

Doesn’t bombing civilians just make it more likely that the survivors will take up extremist stances, though? From a long term standpoint, attacking civilians is always a bad move if your goal is peace/stability. I feel like the last hundred years has been a lesson in this

Maybe I’m missing context, though, since the comment you replied to was removed by mod.

I think it’s true that folks increasingly want progressive candidates, but I’m not sure a focus group of 13 people is really a definitive look at public opinion. Focus groups are good at getting at underlying reasons for why people might prefer A over B, but they aren’t good for determining the number of people who prefer A over B.

But the headline did get me to click and read more, so there’s that.

Community gardens are fantastic! I’ve only just started getting into gardening. My parents have done it for a long time and use cold frames so that they can get food 10 months of the year.

Lettuce is super easy - some of its even made its way into my lawn from when I let it go to seed one year, lol.

My favorite trick is using an empty cat litter pail (the big ones with a lid, not the pour able ones), drill some holes in the bottom, put in a layer of rocks for drainage, and the rest with soil. It’s a great pot for growing sale greens, and the handle makes it fantastic for if I need to move it around. We can’t recycle the cat litter packs in my county so this is what I do with them

Normal answer is absentee voting, but that’s part of the reason MAGA has been going after it so hard.

This is a valid concern that folks need to take into consideration. It’s all well and good to say that long term liberty is more important than short term security, and I agree with that sentiment, but it’s better not to force people to choose.

This is why there are strike funds. In this case, I would recommend mutual aid - even a small group of 5-10 people can work together to save money by buying essentials in bulk. Larger groups can help each other cover rent, form daycare coops, and so on.

Best time to start a group was a year ago, next best time is today.

Exactly. I can understand being glad the mafia boss is dead, but it’s a “change in management” not liberation

I think that’s a fair perspective - though I am certainly concerned about Trump starting wars without going through congress, as well as the precedent this sets for invading other countries without cause. (Granted, historically, the US has done both, but that doesn’t make it right). Additionally, this could just mean Venezuela swaps out this dictator for a US-friendly dictator.

I think this is a more nuanced take on the situation. I would agree that folks who are directly impacted by an issue are more likely to be impacted by it. Original comment seemed too absolutist too me.

I think there are 22yo who can be impacted by the issue of taxes while being poor (Though they may end up on the other side of the argument). For example, issues of food stamps and medicare-for-all affect all ages. A 22yo might have a strong opinion in favor of taxation for these purposes. A conservative making an ad hominem argument on the basis of age in this case (e.g., that they are simply being manipulated by the radical left) would be clearly incorrect.

I also think, as more of a moral argument, you shouldn’t need to be directly impacted by something in order to support/oppose it. I am not on food stamps but I absolutely think we should have them (or perhaps “upgrade” it to UBI to avoid nonsense on what poor people are allowed to buy).

In any case, dismissing someone as simply being manipulated is not a good approach in general. It could be a good approach when we are specifically talking about the person overselling on confirmation bias from ChatGPT, but it is a poor way to change minds as a general tactic.

Is there any particular language I should adjust to avoid being “aggro”? I did say that I hated their argument. And I did call them hostile after their last sarcastic response to me trying to extend an olive branch.

Is that going too far? “Touch grass” is about the same level, I would think, but I’ve been wrong before and I’ll be wrong again.

If you enter into debates with weak ad hominem arguments about someone’s age, you aren’t going to change minds and you will be steamrolled by anyone with an understanding of the topic.

Skimming your recent posts, I don’t think our political views are particularly different, so it’s in both of our interests if you are using the best arguments possible on these topics. This was not an attack on you as a person, so your hostile response is unnecessary.

I suppose I did simplify your argument.

I’ll restate, then: it’s erroneous to say that any young person/22yo with a strong opinion on taxes is being manipulated. Although life experience may prevent naivete in some cases, I think it’s incorrect to make a bold assertion like that because older folks are capable of being manipulated and younger folks are capable of being discerning and having the critical thinking skills to avoid manipulation.

I would also take issue with your follow up on whether owning property impacts whether or not someone’s opinions on economic issues are well defined. I don’t think people need to be personally invested in an issue to have a nuanced opinion on it, though it can certainly help (and you definitely want to consider interested parties when it comes to property tax- i.e., before a city raises property taxes, they should take into consideration property owners with fixed incomes, who do tend to be 60+)

I get that you were just making a short comment and didn’t intend to go deep into the weeds on it, but I find these kinds of assumptions dangerous.

I kinda hate the premise that young age automatically makes you stupid or your opinions a result of manipulation. Someone in their 60s can be just as stupid as a 22yo, and a 22yo is also capable of having nuanced thoughts about politics and taxation. “Young=naive” is a bad trap to fall into when evaluating political opinions and feeds into the old adage about people becoming conservative as they get older.

I think this person is just stupid on their own, regardless of their age.

According to Chenoweth, the number refers to peak, not cumulative participation. She also says 3.5% is not absolute – even non-violent campaigns can succeed with less participation, according to her 2020 update to the rule.

That’s the opposite of what her update said (well, it’s rather misleading). Her update noted cases where nonviolence failed even when they beat 3.5% - including one case that achieved 6% participation. She did note that most successful attempts didn’t need to reach 3.5%, but also that reaching that is no longer a guarantee.

Her original research only went to 2006, there’s been a few recent cases which broke the rule. Like she said in her update, history isn’t necessarily a predictor of future results. I think there are also some very recent cases like Nepal where 95% of the movement is nonviolent, but violence at the very end of the movement tips the scale. (IIRC something similar happened with the Iranian revolution, though the results of that were decidedly undemocratic in the long run). There’s some nuance with Nepal as well- the organizers did not choose to go for violence, it was largely an unplanned mob reaction.

Based on the totality of her research (which is publicly accessible and based on publicly accessible data), I still think nonviolence is more likely to achieve success than violence, but it really annoys me when articles like this one overstate the effects. It makes it really easy to tear apart the argument.

That’s true of many rules/razors… I wonder if there’s a rule/razor about not putting too much faith in things like murphys law and occams razor.

You’re not wrong (in my city, the “mayor” is basically another city council member with no extra powers, just the same voting power as the other council members), but I don’t quite get what you’re disagreeing with me on.

I’d quibble that the average medieval peasant faced a lot less surveillance than the average citizen of any country today (Though perhaps that’s just a change in methods).

But you are right - and, in fact, I think it’s the case that countries/people in worse circumstances tend to have more kids (probably some weird evolutionary thing but I don’t want to speculate). As tough as times may seem in “developed” countries, most people don’t need to worry about where their next meal is coming from.

(This isn’t to say that circumstances are “fine” or that we shouldn’t improve things - simply pointing out some biological factors). It’s also worth noting that folks in worse economic circumstances tend to having a higher number of people in their “support network” (friends and family - ie, 3 generations living under one roof). Though perhaps this is not the case in the US since it’s culturally looked down upon to rely on family like that.

It’s an interesting phenomenon that can’t be boiled down to 1 or 2 simple factors like government type. Maybe this was too much text and I should’ve just said “I agree with you DeathByBigSad”

Do you think that all a mayor does is send press releases and give the key to the city to the Powerpuff girls? In NYC especially, local government controls a lot