I will once again point out tipping isn’t unique to the US. In my part of central Europe, tipping at restaurants with service is absolutely expected. Also for things like delivery, cabs, barbers, etc. You can often even tip delivery drivers right in the app.

I’ll also point out these same people will talk about how America has such huge portions for the price. So, when in Rome do as the Romans do, and tip while realizing that’s part of why the portions are cheap for the dollar. Or at least stop kvetching about Americans not abiding by local customs if you aren’t willing to do the same.

(Yes, paying a better wage would be better. No, you not tipping is not actual making change to that effect, you’re just excusing yourself. Legislation is the only thing that will fix that. Systemic problems need systemic solutions).

You know what is really funny About US Americans and their near religious reverence of their political institutions? You people think that the source of the problem is the solution. The constitution won’t save you. The constitution of the US describes a state that is incapable of operating and leaves open this sort of tyranny. Due the the broken structure of your government you’ve been unable to pass meaningful legislation for decades.

I think this is absolutely true, but as someone living in central Europe, I’m really curious what country you’d cite as having a significantly better structure? Parliamentary systems have their own problems, as we’re seeing play out in Europe now. China certainly has issues with their government.

I agree with the sentiment, but not with the tone that suggests this is particularly unique to the US.

Again, you’ll need to explain to me that if his real goal here is “align[ing] with fascist talking points”, why is the only actual issue he jumped in on anti trust? Where was he regarding the election moves? Where was he regarding the ICE policies?

A decent anti trust pick isn’t aligned at all with fascism, yet it’s that issue that he spoke up on. Why only that when there have been countless issues that are aligned with fascism he could have commented on?

This screams the kind of now typical online left purity testing way more than fascism, to me.

Sure, but he was also perfectly willing to encourage him towards what he could frame as being a win for Trump, too.

I’m in no way saying Mamdani isn’t principled. I’m saying he also has an eye for strategy over performative politics. There was, probably is, a small left cadre that was really giving him shit for meeting with Trump at all for fear of “legitimizing” or “normalizing” him… this strikes me as very, very similar to the dynamic around Yang.

Again, there has been ample opportunity for this guy to go to bat for fascism. Why only anti trust?

So in 2024 he is praising the republican party about anti-trust, which even you admit he is wrong about.

If I divested from everyone I thought was incorrect about something, I wouldn’t be able to do business with literally anyone. And I explained why I think he said this, which implied it’s quite possible he doesn’t even think this is true.

How is this any different than what Mamdani did?

Again, if he was out here stumping for fascist positions I’d have a little more pause. But the issue he picked up here, of all the political issues in the recent years, was anti-trust. Sorry, this doesn’t scream crypto fascist to me. Certainly not enough for me to worry about.

I also didn’t say I’m surprised. I’m arguing that I think it’s wrong and the vast majority of even those on the left aren’t going to care about this.

It’s always nice when people let you know to block them for juvenile and petty behavior that would make a redditor blush before they actually manage you get to you.

You can’t remove the context this statement was made in though, which was about the appointment. And let’s be real here: he is not wrong about corporate capture of the Democrats at all. Yes, saying the Republicans are any better is ridiculous, but this strikes me far more like stroking the ego of a guy that likes having his ego stroked and made a rare decent pick for anti trust. This is no different than what Mamdani did visiting the White House… do we cancel him too for appeasing fascists? Or can we acknowledge choosing to try and engage with and manipulate a guy that’s shown to be easily manipulated is probably a strategic choice more than ideological?

And the thing he’s praising here is anti trust. Sure, I think it’s wrong to say Republicans are better on this issue, but literally the thing he’s praising is very much antithetical to fascism. How can we really say he’s supporting fascism then? Where are his posts supporting his ICE policies? Where are the comments supporting overturning a democratic election? He makes one comment supporting anti trust efforts and suddenly he must be a crypto fascist because it came from Trump? Not buying it, man.

I really think trying to portray Yang as something like the My Pillow Guy, which is the level of discourse a lot of this has had around it, is really, really disingenuous and I think only serves to make people take these accusations less seriously even when they’re levelled against people who truly are fascist sympathizers at the very least.

The big difference, of course, being that you’re paying a not insignificant amount of money explicitly for privacy, not a “free” service like Google. While Enshittification can happen everywhere, they’ve got a pretty direct incentive not to just start selling data and that sort of thing compared to the incentive Google had. The bigger concern is the security risk of all your eggs in one basket, but that’s a convenience vs security tradeoff we make all the time. Each user needs to assess for themselves that tradeoff. But just the encryption at rest alone along with seemingly not reading your emails already puts an average Proton use way ahead of an average Google one, and moving them to a complete suite is a lot more likely than to 6 different services. That’s a hard sell for an average user.

Also, I think the framing of open support of fascists is frankly ridiculous, personally. The way people were talking about it I was afraid we were talking full maga here, but the guy literally just praised a single appointment in anti trust… and she did have some actual bona fides that made her surprisingly (for this administration) qualified for that job, she has actually worked blocking mergers. This wasn’t a Robert Kennedy appointment, this appointment could have been under any admin in the last few decades and nobody would blink, if anything might also have been praised for the pick. Broken clocks, guys, broken clocks, they’re right sometimes.

Everyone can make their own choice here, but praising a rare decent pick from a shitty politician doesn’t nearly reach a divestment bar for me and I think probably all except the most militant.

Sega Genesis. We got it with Revenge of Shinobi, a game I still play with a soundtrack to rival some of the best Nintendo stuff (a very high bar), and Power Monger, one of the real fathers of RTS that ignited my love for strategy games.

There, you see? The Catholic Church was simply about saving the children.

No, I wouldn’t be, because I was talking about a random location which was indeed pretty unique. That said, it’s a pleasure to finally meet you, I’m a big fan.

I understand that’s the theory, but these situations were specifically not something that could be easily gleaned. We’re talking like reminiscing about things that happened in our pre internet youth that there’s no record of anywhere and that came up randomly in conversation. I’m definitely aware of the dynamic, even before ubiquity of the internet, it’s true that sometimes companies would know people were pregnant before the person did based on their purchasing profile. This wasn’t that though, there’s just no possible connection.

That happened a few times now, so pretty much nothing is going to convince me it’s not the case.

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.