here we go again

is also: @experbia@kbin.social
was: /u/experbia

  • 0 Posts
  • 80 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 20th, 2023

help-circle

  • been noticing the conservatives on Twitter freaking out over the music rights thing, rattling on about how “music should be for everyone”. which is a hoot, because like, wait, you’re telling me you want to take the property of someone else, which they invested time and money into producing, and redistribute it to all people who want it?? HMMMM that sounds like something…

    I’ve had a few folks delete their tweets but for the most part they just ignore it or call me very stupid and evil (their go-to when they have no argument) lmao. I actually engaged one Maga musician because he was afraid of what would happen if we allowed the right’s “musical socialism” discussion to continue.



  • I think it’s more about the attempt than the result. historically, we get a lot of promises of strong leadership and then no attempts to even start following through. in my opinion, this is a massive source of voter apathy both in general but especially among young people. “why bother? they’re all liars anyway, nobody will really try to help us once they’re in” - the kids energized into politics with Kamala’s campaign will wither or defect permanently if she makes these promises and they vote for her because of it and she does the usual routine of ignoring them until reelection season swings around again. if they want any hope of banking on the new energized kids in future elections, she has to at least try and she has to be loud about doing it. if she doesn’t, this will win us only 4 years.

    when companies pay lobbyists to change laws and it doesn’t work, they retry and retry and retry until they do it. same with unpopular surveillance and “security” bills. but when talk of important social reform come up, dems go “ehhh, it’s unlikely to pass… don’t even try, it’s not worth it. it will just be a hassle…”

    like yes, the prez cannot just make dictates to change laws like people wish. other parts of government have to be engaged to do these things. so… ENGAGE THEM







  • I agree folks are overestimating how many will switch. but also maybe you’re underestimating too - a lot of browser installations are managed by the “family tech guy”. the father, mother, brother, sister, aunt or uncle who sets up everyone’s new laptops on Christmas and has the suggestions when you look for a new phone. we all know the type. a lot of us are the type.

    setting up granny’s laptop? I’ll install whatever browser lets me automatically block the most “1000th visitor!” banner ads and change the desktop icon to the old AOL icon because that’s all she knows the internet as. she doesn’t know of care about the browser options so it’s up to me. Chrome used to be fast and simple so it was the right choice. Firefox has caught up a fair bit on UX simplicity and speed and now offers better blocking and general security, so it just stole the crown for these installations imo. I trust it more to not let her mess the computer up, so even if I’m not using it as my main personal browser, it gets use here.








  • just my 2c…

    conservatives require hierarchy to exist. they believe it always did, does, and always will exists - that achieving any kind of equality on a large scale is a pipe dream and unnatural and impossible or even evil to strive for, because it necessitates “knocking them down” to do it. so, their focus is to ensure that they are not currently on the bottom of this hierarchy (fortunately, there’s always someone to put beneath them) and to ensure that the bottom does not “rise past them” to leave them at the bottom (as anything promising equality may do). they rally around loud personalities that project power and control (even if it’s not true) because just as there must be those beneath them, there must be those above them as well - they pick superiors that are the most personally relatable to them (in an arbitrary, per-person manner) so they can feel they are higher in the hierarchy than they are. after all, if you’re just like this person who is obviously high on the ladder of society, you must be pretty well-off too, right? is this why the people they pick tend to be bigoted, unintelligent, and cruel? maybe.

    the reason it’s always someone else’s problem is that the problem (in their mind) is that the people beneath them (their “lessers”) are acting as though they’re on a level of the social hierarchy that they don’t belong. therefore, all social problems clearly have an obvious clause: “if only everyone else would just know their place under us, we wouldn’t be having these conflicts.” - it can’t be them that’s the problem, because that would imply there’s some kind of issue that may suggest they’re not as high up on the social ladder as they thought. gay/trans/brown/etc people want to be recognized as equals? it dilutes their position on the ladder. they would claw past others in this imaginary hierarchy by any means necessary, so of course they assume the “others” will too. no, it’s an attack on them, they have to strike back!

    gay nightclub shootings and anti-lgbt violence? “maybe they shouldn’t have called attention to themselves as they tried to push us down the social hierarchy” someone (anyone) threatens violence upon them? “intolerable. inexcusable. they need to learn their place beneath us”

    why do so many of them hate being called cis? because being labelled cis puts them at the same level as a trans person, who they believe is automatically beneath them by virtue of not being exactly like them. it is an attack on them, because they are not considered the normal, the default, as they believe they are. an identifier implies that differentiation between the conservative and the trans person is required, which implies it’s not clear to everyone that they are inherently superior to the trans person. you may as well call them “poor powerless worthless scum who deserves to be exploited and abused” in their eyes.

    it’s maddeningly difficult to convince a hierarchy-addict that it’s a delusion.

    it makes being a politician for them pretty easy, too. just be relatable to the average self-absorbed person, and claim to do what’s needed to put the inferior scum back below your voters where they belong so they can rise up to be superior once more. no surprise this interlaces very well with fascist and racial supremacist ideologies.


  • my theory is that nobody was even really there, no shooter, no cops, no trump, no supporters. a party city caught fire the next town over and it was just an extremely coincidental arrangement of bits of glitter in a really specific kind of dust storm that happened to highly resemble a trump rally, and some photographers showed up to document it. they snapped some pics and now don’t have the heart to tell everyone the winds died down shortly thereafter and they were standing in a glittery yet empty field.

    hey, yeah, this is kind of fun



  • I really hate the guy but if you’ve never had a near-death experience you wouldn’t understand that your logic is a bit weird in the moment. it takes more than a couple of moments for your brain to catch up with reality. his shoes are special thick lift shoes to make him seem way taller because he’s extremely vain. if he fell out of his awkward tall shoes when he ducked, he probably would have been preoccupied in the moment with not appearing short and weak (his true form) until the reality caught up to him. I don’t doubt at all that some sycophantic pr stooge was yelling into his earpiece to “look triumphant, look triumphant!!” when he was getting back up though.