Excellent breakdown imho.:-)

Preemptive: take what I’m saying with a heavy grain of salt, obviously and as always.

The true liberals will vote Dem no matter what - Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, hell this group would vote for Pete Davidson at this point!

The true conservatives… same, mostly. Unless the liberals advanced someone like Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney, who may be able to chip into that? (This is when we finally stop pretending that liberals have any options in this race, midway between neoliberalism and outright fascism.) Bc just like Dem != liberal, but differently, Repub != Trump-er.

There are probably like 5-100 people in the middle somewhere, but bc they live in swing states somehow determine the course of the entire nation. Would this be a time to be risky and advance AOC - as a young, passionate, genuine person, since the votes of neither liberals nor conservatives are likely to be affected either way? Except the old money probably worries too much that they could not control her, whereas both Trump and Biden have been vetted in this regard.

Okay but… worse than Biden is already doing?

At this point is there anyone, anyone at all, who isn’t merely voting for “not Trump” on the “left”?

Conversely, there are a few on the right who actively like Trump.

And there may be a handful of people - in key spots though - who may vote for a younger candidate?

That’s the thing: Trump is playing to his base, whenever he is rude. It is unfair that liberals demand more from their candidates than conservatives but that is the way that it is. Knowing this, someone could aim to win, or else they could… not, I guess.

And since this is Chidi:

Imma ultimately decide:

Long-term: facing them and dealing with the source. e.g. I would get nervous about job interviews, but like… as I should, right!? Bc it means that I care about the outcome. Nothing will ever reduce that, except experience doing it over and over, but in the meantime that fight or flight response “helps” to go over everything, e.g. to practice and prepare in all the various ways needed.

Short-term: reading a new/old 400pg tome for an introduction to some random topic… 😜

Why u gonna out your neighbors like that?

(Bc if they aren’t “in” either, then they are likely…:-P)

This joke brought to you by my brain. Are you sure you wouldn’t rather have the AI now? 😜

Oh really?

Well, now I just appreciate all the more your sending me that one, kind person:-).

Is a real™ one better than a Lemmy-computed™ one? Either way, it’s good to have choices you know!? 😃

A large part of the confusion is that dinosaurs did not emerge from birds in the same way that humans did not evolve from Chimpanzees (nor monkeys) - but rather, both groups in those pairs evolved from a common ancestor (but different ones:-).

Birds have feathers and for the most part fly, while alligators not so much. In attempting to simplify, e.g. Avians to “birds”, it causes confusion. Alligators also are not warm-blooded as birds are, not do they have beaks, all hallmarks of modern birds, but they do have four legs, long body with a tail, moveable eyelids - and don’t they have external ear openings as well? - all hallmarks of modern lizards.

Scientists use precision language like “non-Avian theropod”, but those don’t map perfectly to common words like “birds”, which everyone knows are just government drones anyway:-P.

One is The Reverse Gish Gallop and another is The Card Says Moops, though the latter is a significantly longer journey.

If you haven’t watched (or its been a minute since), I would start from the first one in the series bc it builds so nicely and foundationally:-).

Rules should only be followed by the other side.™ - conservatives

How long before the AI answer to every question is simply “username checks out”? :-P

“You mean like Biden?”

That is how many conservatives on the streets talk, when interviewed by e.g. The Daily Show.

Words apparently mean the precise opposite now - people “defended” (rather than attempted to overthrow) the government, in “support” (rather than defiance) of the Constitution, and despite Trump’s felonious facts, he is touted as a fucking “hero”, and the legitimately elected President as the one who is “traitorous”.

Sad.

Only if you follow the script(s).

Your answer refers to the theoretical outputs of each of those - in which case capitalism also likewise probably does not result in slavery either? That’s extremely highly debatable ofc and depends on whether we are talking about unregulated capitalism, which at that point might be better called anarchy, vs. a regulated form, which no longer produces actual slavery, bc of the regulations holding it back - and if the source of the regulations is a voting citizenry, then making it more akin to socialism even? (Bc despite the lack of direct ownership, they would have that indirect source of control - in theory at least.)

True anarchy does not produce slavery ofc. At least not in theoretical models, where once you enter a state you are never allowed to leave it. However, if you had a true anarchist state irl, then people would be free to do as they please. And since some people prefer to own slaves, therefore they would. And then more and more would, progressing through stages such as feudalistic warlords, which could no longer properly be called “anarchy” but it would bring us back to slavery at an institutional level (with peasants having no rights). Not just in theory but bc of actual practice in fact. Anarchy removes the institutional blockers to allow people to do as they wish, so seems to always be a temporary condition on the way towards something else that will last? Barring some external factors that can keep that going, like a small area in-between two large states that gets left alone so that it can be a buffer zone. Even a pirate kingdom will eventually become a feudal state with some people lording it over others, just bc they can (and bc their money or access to secret knowledge entices people to go along with it).

Outside of theory, irl I don’t know that “capitalism” can exist without regulations keeping it going. Otherwise big monkey take from little monkey, and vice versa, without something (regulations) keeping that in check, so that monkey must exchange goods and services for money rather than simply bc they can get away with it. And ofc even “regulations” seems a simple word, but it too will have its nuances like a whole spectrum of how many and what type there are - e.g. are they only ever applied to the poors, in which case trending towards slavery but not bc of “capitalism” and rather bc of “anarchy” i.e. the lack of control of anyone stopping the rich from doing whatever they want.

And similarly, how could socialism exist irl either, without regulations propping it up? At which point I’ll remind us that while regulated socialism doesn’t lead to slavery, neither does regulated capitalism? But yes, unregulated capitalism can lead to slavery, and by a similar process, how could unregulated socialism not do the same? Bc “unregulated” anything really means anarchy, whatever it used to be before it lost its regulatory abilities.

i.e. these terms - capitalism, socialism, and anarchy - do not refer to systems, or at least not stable ones over time i.e. especially referring to those existing irl, but rather processes, that must be sustained (or else systems that maintain those processes). Bc the entropic decay process will counterbalance any such irl process by allowing anarchy to creep in and therefore trend towards slavery, hence an equal and opposing force must be applied to halt that shift. This leads to such extremely ironic - laughably so - thoughts such as: is the USA somehow not capitalist enough to prevent slavery (e.g. landlords need to provide goods and services in exchange for money, rather than simply collect in return for nothing), which I say is ironic bc capitalism always trends towards anarchy, as money acts to corrupt. However the crucially important distinction, i.e. the reason I went into that tangent, is that it is the lack of capitalism there that was the direct cause of the slavery, the latter being due rather to the anarchy, even while at the same time we all know that capitalism will eventually trend towards anarchy overall, ironically not bc it is too strong but bc it is too weak to resist that inevitable slide into anarchy.

And then the caveat is that socialism is the same way: it too irl has to fight that slide into anarchy and thereby feudalism and slavery. Its corrupting influences may not be monetary and instead other forms of power but the underlying greed is the same. A regulated capitalism can avoid slavery, for a time until it succumbs to anarchy, and a regulated socialism can do the same, until it too succumbs to anarchy as well. Maybe if can last longer? We have yet to see such proof irl, but maybe? But ultimately they both lead to slavery, unless efforts are expended to prevent that, at which point we must be fair to the truth and say that neither causes slavery directly, at least not while they are still actively maintained and haven’t yet fallen into the anarchy state… but both have that pit of anarchy ready to swallow them up if not resisted, and yet irl both really do resist it, for a time as best they can.

Well I am not in charge, but I did think I’d offer that thought for consideration, as it offers greater inclusivity. :-)

Not at all - I’ve never faced that particular scenario, being more focused on college at that time in my life and also you have shown me that some things have really changed - but I do hope that mulling over this different perspective will help as you move forward:-).