huey_m

This was my understanding, but I just don't believe it anymore. There have been way, way too many time my wife and I were talking about an incredibly niche thing that didn't come up through the internet in any way, and lo and behold the algorithm presented those key words. Nobody will ever convince me it isn't being done to some extent.

Everyone else tackled primaries, I think... yes, it's where the parties select who will run in the general. Some parties have open primaries were any registered voter can vote in them, others have closed primaries where only registered party members may vote. In the past Democrats have usually been open and Republicans closed, but I'm not sure how that is today.

Why does there seem to be such disparity in the views of candidates from the same party?

True of most systems that use winner take all voting as it leads to two big parties. Parliamentary systems ease this somewhat, but even in England, for example, it's historically been common to have Corbyn-types and Blairites under the same roof, which is a pretty big disparity.

In the end, it isn't as big of a difference as some people make it out to be. The difference is that where a parliamentary system with ranked voting usually sees coalitions form between parties to govern, the same thing happens in systems like the American one within each party. So the Democrats might need to appease the Progressive Caucus, or the Black Caucus, or whatever... Republicans same thing with the Tea Party types vs the old school conservatives vs the alt right, etc. It's just whether these coalitions form within each party or between different ones.

(to be clear, I do think the parliamentary + ranked choice system is better for representation, I'm just pointing out the difference isn't quite as stark as some suggest... the idea is the same).

Agreed, there are definitely exceptions I could think of, just speaking generally.

You were upset because you felt I was trying to position myself as wisened in order to be condescending. I'm pointing out that this wasn't my intention, I was doing so to explain why I don't do public debates regarding Marxism anymore, which you were arguing that I should probably be doing. You could not have understood that before I explained it, because you have no clue what my intentions are without me telling you, man..... I'd suggest the inability to admit you didn't know something as impossible to know as my personal reasons for not doing something is indicative of the bad faith this conversation has developed into, even if it didn't start that way, so I think this is the end, bud.

I'd further suggest you really consider your own obstinate behavior in arguing for hours with someone about why they won't argue with you before casting that particular stone.

Have a good one, but we just aren't looking for the same kind of conversations, man. I'm not interested in the debate that you are.

I really wonder if there is any place outside of a concert venue that these folks find music on speakers acceptable? I kind of get it if they're solo, just use headphones, but... hanging out in a group and listening to music together at the beach is about the most normal use of a beach trip I can think of.

Surely you can also see that, by positioning yourself as old and experienced, ie wiser, you are speaking condescendingly towards those you disagree with?

Do you not think you're being a bit condescending yourself in suggesting people go read a guide written by you in order to have a discussion with you? I think you're holding yourself and people who agree with you to a very different standard than those who disagree with you.

Regardless, my intent isn't to really be condescending, but you've been pretty tenacious in asking why I won't debate you... what else am I to do but explain why I've reached the position I have when you keep pressing and say that I should do a thing I've decided against doing as a rule?

You’ve already shown yourself to be fairly obstinate

Physician, heal thyself. You've pressed me for... what, half a dozen comments now? On literally nothing but saying I should debate you or others when I don't care to and explained why. I think you're quick to see qualities in others that you aren't realizing you have yourself.

In other words, I focus on swaying onlookers

I'm very aware of that, that's exactly what I'm uninterested in. I've moved past "debate" in the sense of a public disagreement and an attempt to sway people to my side... used to do that a lot, but I'm just over it at this point. I'm interested in real conversations and attempts to understand another person and another point of view, I explicitly do not like the kind of conversation that happens when people are trying to convince a third party. I think it lends itself to toxicity, condescension, basically the worst qualities that people associate with redditors, for good reason.

I also disagree

Okay. I disagree with your disagreement :). I think not offering any substantive rebuttal and simply saying "you don't know theory, go read this" is definitely a cudgel to dismiss opinions a person doesn't agree with without putting in any effort, and it's obviously a performative thing for onlookers. If you disagree, I'm comfortable with that.

With respect, I'm just not interested in reading guides as again, whether people choose to believe so or not, I actually have studied this in an academic setting and am satisfied with that. I understand your passion, but Marxism, socialism, and leftism absolutely inform my politics, but they aren't my entire life and I think too many people use them as a source of identity that ends up trying to conform to a label rather than incorporating ideas into well thought out positions. I say this as someone who probably strayed too close to that in my youth as a firebrand and just don't see the point in my old age. It just leads to ulcers and infighting, IMO. I did extend the offer for private discussion if is really that important, but I really do find the tone that is struck very different when people are talking one on one versus, even subconsciously, trying to make points that win upvotes a la reddit. Take that initial reply I took issue with... would anyone really bother privately messaging this? "Hey, I'm not really going to elaborate, but I really disagree with you, go read this other thing"? I've never encountered such a thing and I think we can agree that would come across a bit... unhinged. But it's par for the course with these kind of discussions in public forums and is uniquely bad in Marxist circles IMO.

Note that I'm not saying any of this is you, but I do think this might be true of the person who leveled it at me in the first place (which might be unfair, but I think is no more unfair of an assumption than those made about me).

Feelings noted, but I think that point can simply be taken back one more step: one shouldn't make snappy, bad faith assumptions with no actual support aside from the weaponizing of a guide someone on the Internet has written as a cudgel to dismiss people they disagree with. I feel you're being unfair in your application of who should and shouldn't make an assertion based on who you happen to agree with. So we just don't agree with each other's position here, and that's fine.

No worries, dude, I'm with ya... I completely understand the disillusionment, but people touting the death of electoralism that think they're really being revolutionary, IMO are being useful idiots for the elite. And its definitely rampant here... I'm back and forth on whether to stick around, honestly.

My friend, you are very much barking up the wrong tree here. And I don't blame you one bit, there is a ton of what you're describing here and it is very frustrating, but you've misunderstood me to be saying something I'm not. I think it's helpful to know historical context to know that even more leftism is not only possible, but has happened... but I think Mamdani is still a huge win in this current political climate and I think attempts to tear him down are almost laughably self-defeating from anyone considering themselves on the left.

Fully agree with you man, we should take the W here as a much needed shift left of the Overton window....

You don’t have to defend this assertion

But this is a counter to their assertion, which they would have to prove first, even in a formal setting. Which again, this is not. Are you bugging them to prove their assertion? Why or why not?

Block if you want to, but this seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too, raise your opinion on a subject and shield yourself from talking about it on a social media platform focusing on discussion.

I literally did not raise this topic, I responded to someone else who moved the topic to this and why I don't agree with them. That comment, by the way, was a similar offhand opinion about why they think I'm wrong with nothing supporting it but their opinion. I don't think countering it withe same minimal effort is out of place or on me. You're free to disagree. The topic I was discussing is whether the tyranny of the majority can exist or not. That, I could understand wanting to prove, but I did indeed open with what I feel are solid examples thereof. I can think of non American examples though too if that's the issue.

Communists aren’t a hive mind, expats from socialist countries, even if they believe themselves to be communists, may have faulty lines or flawed understanding. You don’t have to speak if you don’t want to, but surely you can understand how an expat teaching in a western country has certain understandings that likely go against proletarian Marxism-Leninism.

I think you're leaving such a narrow window for who is allowed valid thoughts on socialism as to be essentially exclusive to people you think are right, which doesn't seem super useful or insightful to me.

Again, you don’t have to speak if you don’t want to, but I would argue that you’re inviting more dogpiling by not expounding on what you mean.

The block feature is easy enough to use, and I'm happy with it. It isn't really your business, honestly.

Conversation can only really happen when both parties participate, when someone lays out an assertion without backing it, it can only be attacked directly, not as a point but as the assertion it is, which lends itself more to dogpiling.

I didn't really lay out an assertion though, the other person did. I just said I don't buy their premise that my comment was an example of why study of Marxism-Lenninism is strictly necessary and why. The onus isn't really on me to do anything, even in formal debate, which this is not.

I was interested in the initial conversation, just not the more general topic on theory that it was moving to. I think it usually ends up in navel-gazing at best and toxicity at worst, and I gave it up years ago. In person or private when there's less want for performative argument and point scoring, it can be more interesting. The tone is just very different when people talk directly to you vs when they publicly debate you. Just my personal take, I just don't do it anymore as I've gotten older.

Yeah, but Windows is no easier to install... most people just don't experience it because it is the usual pre installed distro. I don't think it's really fair to count that against Linux... in terms of the installation process, I found them to be similar, which is to say a pain in the butt. I wouldn't recommend a non tech person try to install WIndows either.

Aside from that, no, it did not need any further set up aside from installing Steam via the repository. Arguably easier than in WIndows, certainly not harder.

It's funny you mention drivers as that's what made me switch it over. A Windows update inexplicably borked some video card drivers. I didn't need to install any drivers manually for the Linux setup, it all worked out of the box without any issues so far. Driver pains used to be a big issue years ago, but I think for 90% of PCs it's a non issue today.

No, it was a very vanilla Windows setup.