It is easy to very feel disillusioned with the world, but it is important to remember that there are still good people all around willing to fight the good fight. And it is also important to remember that technology is not inherently bad, it is a neutral object, but people could use it for either good or bad purposes.

That is what I am insinuating. But last time I promoted those, there have been pushback from neoliberals and trolls in the midst. Thought I was pushing an “agenda”.

Raising the minimum wage has been talked about for decades now? And yet the Democrats never really seriously wanted to implement it? The talk on economic progressivism is all performative; considering that time when Bernie Sanders criticised Trump at a Democratic convention, he was cheered on, but when he started talking about minimum wage and Medicare for all, he was booed. A staffer of Kamala cautioned then presidential candidate not to openly criticise the oligarchs and wealth inequality before going on stage (before the debate with Trump?), but stating in hindsight she probably should have done so. All of these really points to the Democratic Party not serious enough to dealing with more pertinent issues that affect ordinary people of all background.

Credit where it’s due, Biden has tried doing couple of things, but then he rolls back or limp dicking on certain things. He takes one step forward and one step back. Here is a comprehensive video explaining that his administration is half hearted when it comes to actually being progressive overall. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFi73TzEN_8

Well, aren’t we all stubborn when it comes to doing new things?

My guess is that it will be younger people who will go to Lemmy (like Reddit before had been).

It takes time, bud.

What is identity politics for you?

As I mentioned to other commenter, running on socially progressive platform of being inclusive to women, lgbt and ethnic minorities alone is not enough to win elections, the Democratic Party also has to run on economic progressivism. As an outsider looking on previous US presidential elections, the Democratic party hasn’t really offered anything of good substance on economic issue. The $25,000 cash assistance to buy a house is a joke if people say stating to someone that making six figures is not enough to impress anyone anymore. I heard Democrats go on more on “Can you believe Trump said this!”, or “Kamala will be the first female black Indian president!” Any average voters would say “okay, we expect Trump would say and that you are black Indian female, but what are you gonna do for us with the rising cost of living?”

Running on socially progressive platform alone is not enough to win an election…

There has to be a grassroots movement to change the Democratic party from within, since a third party winning is practically a challenge. The two parties had an ideological flip after all. It is not like the Democratic party couldn’t switch to suit the electoral demands. But, it seems like Americans forgot how to hold their politicians accountable.

A considerable number of lgbt, Latinos and African-Americans voted for Trump than before. Gen Z also voted for Trump.

Putting someone in an insecure state makes them vulnerable to emotional manipulation. And that insecure state is economic insecurity, as alluded in my title post. 60% of Americans are living pay check to pay check. Several Latino families are living in under one household. Young people feel they are locked out of jobs and from owning their own homes. If liberals in their high horse don’t get this, well, it is not like they have not been warned before.

I argue with them to change the minds of people reading the argument.

This is why I would labour to keep arguing until either I get last word, or the interlocutor clearly runs out of good arguments. You can’t reason with people who never reason themselves into an idea to begin with. But you can convince the readers that the idea is dangerous and to keep away!

Not sure what you mean by “actively focusing on harming groups left of it”. Did you mean that SPD did not want to cooperate with the German communists? The latter is just as violent and corrupt as the Nazis. Also, Thaler, the leader of the German Communist party at the time, thought that if Hitler would be allowed to power, then Hitler could be revealed how incompetent he is as a leader, and then the communists could show the Germans how better they are! And boy, how gravely he miscalculated! The Zentrum party also thought they could puppet Hitler!

Anyhow, the run up to the voting of the enabling act was mired with violence on Nazi side. Nazi thugs prevented the communists from entering to vote, while many SPD member were intimidated from coming in. Those from the SPD that managed to come in all voted nay (94 according to Wikipedia). While the rest of the conservative and right-leaning parties voted yes.

I was going to upvote, but then your second paragraph erroneously blamed SPD.

The SPD was not in government when Hitler came to power. It was all the conservative parties, including the conservative-centrist coalition partner of the Nazis, the Zentrum party which is the predecessor of the modern CDU, that voted to give Hitler the dictatorial power. Only the SPD opposed that!

Speaking of Zentrum and CDU, their current leader flirted with the far-right by proposing stricter immigration policy that the neo-fascist party, AfD, gleefully wants to pass. And the modern SPD voted to oppose it! Oh how history rhymes and repeats!

Sell the Tesla cars for scraps? At least the disillusioned owners would get something.

He’s a true man of reason and rationality. I respect Penn for that!

Normally, I see any news on government blocking social media for any stated reasons as typically a cover for censorship. But with how Facebook and other social media morphed into something else, I could not care less if they are blocked.

I am of different opinion that these folks know they are wrong, but are too egotistic to admit it.

I was taught at an early age to accept mistakes, learn from it and move on. Now I have grown older, I realised that not many people know this, and society also stigmatises someone making mistakes. I think some people refuse to admit to be wrong because either they are too egotistic to accept and learn, or doubling down assertively on the wrong belief as a defensive mechanism from potential public humiliation.

We can’t exactly stop shipping that is not pragmatic. That is like trying to stop air travel. What we can do is to promote alternatives where it is more practical and easier like converting to EV’s on the road, and using more renewable energy in power plants. Even if majority of CO2 consumption comes from shipping, a huge portion nevertheless comes from vehicles and electricity generation so switching to alternatives would have already made dramatic changes to reducing carbon emissions. Although, if shipping could sail on renewable energy (not that I am aware of), then that would be even better!

Autarky has been tried before and failed. Good luck growing coffee in China. Speaking of which, China is strangely the new champion of global free trade because they know they can’t produce and grow everything on their own; not because they make literally everything contrary to your statement.

We wanted cheaper products, and now we are reaping what we sow.

Globalisation is not bad, it is mismanaged. Why? There is no globally harmonised rules, policies and regulations to prevent exploitation of workers in third world countries to produce cheap products and services, compensate workers for their jobs being outsourced, prevent environmental degradation, and prevent over accumulation of wealth at the hands of miniscule amount of people. Norway can’t exactly tell Bangladesh they should pay the same wages that workers in Norway are getting.

How are those going to be resolved? A world government that implements rules and regulations uniformly; instead of dealing with different standards, regulations and policies of other countries-- or lack thereof in case of third world countries (which is why we have cheap goods because these countries offered themselves to be the world’s factory).

The world government is like the EU but on the world level. It should be able to address the unequal distribution of wealth, unequal division of labour and enviromental issues that the current lawless globalisation “order” has wreaked havoc both to humans and environment. Are you down for that kind of set up? I thought so.

Chinese EVs are cheaper, unfortunately, so they are competitive.

Fucking hell, the fight against globalization truly was for nothing, people these days are even defending it against their best interests…

Globalisation is not bad, it is mismanaged.

You are not wrong. Elon Musk is the PR man for the companies he either founded or have a majority of shares in. However, his companies’s products and services are not actually superior to his competitors. Take Tesla, the cars are not road-worthy, they are expensive, the battery sets on fire more often, and uses inferior image-detecting camera when driving automatically. Meanwhile, Chinese competitors are cheaper, more safe and use better LIDAR technology for automated driving (but only because the Chinese government heavily subsidise in EV companies making their cars far superior).

So, as someone already mentioned, hype up your company and convince anyone to buy shares, then your companies’s valuations increase tremendously. It creates the illusion that your company is productive and valuable when in reality it is not.