What Republicans are doing is not normal and we are not safe from it in technology.
If you think you should be able to moderate, or not turn over commenter data because of their political content, then you should be worried. It's no different that trying to plan a curriculum with guest lecturers. If they feel welcomed to intrude on this decision, then it won't stop there.
I genuinely can't... understand that kind of sentiment without specific examples, given how many examples we have that there are major differences. Public education, affordable healthcare, protection of the environment and recognition of climate change.
At the meta level: one party is much more guilty of denying democratic norms, obstructing popular legislation in government for shrewd partisan purposes, and wanting to hold up reforms to government that would make it more democratic and modern.
Specific examples of that last point: Florida banning any form of voting besides First past the post, which is one of the worst ways to vote for a candidate. But it entrenches the established parties.
Yes there are policy differences. My point is that the behavior is similar. They all lie, they all obstruct, they all gerrymander, they all have giant corporate and financial influence, they all drag their feet and fail to get anything meaningful passed, none of them care about real healthcare reform, they all push problematic overly capitalist ideals.
Yes there are differences. But dems have had plenty of chances to pass meaningful changes in the past decade and we still have broken healthcare, broken education, broke electorate systems, broken civil rights. If they were really that different we’d see different results based on who is in power, and we really barely do
Are you under 30? I ask because I wonder if you had to get your own health insurance prior to the ACA passage. I disagree with your premise about healthcare. If you don't remember the dreaded "gap in coverage" or "pre-existing condition", then you might not appreciate how much has been accomplished for improving healthcare. It didn't solve everything, clearly, but things are much better than they were 20 years ago.
Beyond that, saying "there are still problems, why didn't one party fix them" is a little unrealistic when another party has shared power and actively fought them. You might want to research the circumstances around Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, the FY25 Education Appropriations Bill... there are a lot of examples if you look into it. The two major political parties are very different.
Mid late thirties. I still don’t get healthcare despite being unemployed for over a year bc it’s horrifically expensive for doing effectively absolutely nothing for me as a relatively healthy person. I can appreciate it’s different but will also mention that something like 20% of dems in the house still voted against the ACA. Obviously things have changed but my original point is about the ends justifying the means on both sides, and both sides use the same means
>But dems have had plenty of chances to pass meaningful changes in the past decade
I don't think we've had a Democratic president, a Democratic House, and a 60-seat Democratic majority in Congress in the past decade.
We have had meaningful improvements to healthcare for millions, though we don't have a public option. We are fighting against a right-wing political party looking to defund public education.
I'm curious how you say "civil rights" are broken: Do you mean privacy against a police state? I agree big tech and government can see and do too much without cause.
<< I genuinely can't... understand that kind of sentiment without specific examples,
Hmm, what could be a good indicator of uniparty being in charge today? What current events could serve as a good indicator of why people may think it is all merely a kabuki theater with more cross-dressing than substance? What and who could possibly make denizens of US so gosh darn cynical? What could be the one thing establishment dems and reps just can't help themselves from doing?
<< At the meta level: one party is much more guilty of denying democratic norms, obstructing popular legislation in government for shrewd partisan purposes, and wanting to hold up reforms to government that would make it more democratic and modern.
There is no 'more guilty'. You are either guilty of it or not. You want to be holy and claim to dispense divine wisdom? You don't get to piss in the holy water then.
<< Public education, affordable healthcare, protection of the environment and recognition of climate change.
Oh yeah. Such massive differences. So massive. Like. Public education. Everyone knows in Chicagoland left leaning individuals of means send their kids to public schools, because it is the right thing to do ( and public education is just the best kind of tits ). Everyone knows. And everyone who does not is likely an evil republican and likely a climate change denier. Maybe even a fascist.
<< hold up reforms to government that would make it more democratic and modern.
Why on earth would I want the government to be modern or more democratic? Do you even know what you are asking for here? And which government? Federal? State? Local?
Like seriously. Do you want the government to use new and improved Python 3.13? Do you have a strong objection to use of C++ in government code? Do you want it to use blockchain to validate voter information? Do you want to use AWS to store everything about everyone? Do you want memory protection? What? Talk about being specific.
And why anyone would want US to be more democratic, where an average voter is functional, semi-literate moron[1] ( From 2012 to 2017, a survey conducted with 12,330 adult participants aged between 16 and 74 had a mean score of 264 out of 500 on a literacy test. There were participants from every state and county within the total that took the exam. ; 54% of adults have a literacy below sixth-grade level. )
They barely understand what is happening to them and you want to let them have more of a say how this country is run? Seriously?
Fuck man. If anything, we need to bring back full blown early republic when you had a right to vote if you had some skin in the game ( likely land ). Since it is 2024 we can add having kids as having a skin in the game.
<< Specific examples of that last point: Florida banning any form of voting besides First past the post, which is one of the worst ways to vote for a candidate. But it entrenches the established parties.
Is it a useful example in your book? To me it signifies little. Power tries to get more power. Surprise.
You think public education is bad, but instead of trying to fix it, the solution is to disenfranchise poor people and childless people. And who cares if political parties try to block reforms, that's just normal.
Democracy is the means to freedom. Not giving the vote to "dumb" people is taking away their sovereignty. Why do you think you'd be in the ruling class in your authoritarian fantasy?
"Democracy is the worst political system, other than all the rest."
Anything short of universal adult suffrage is an attempt to oppress classes of people. Even things like reading tests or logic exams, which I would love in an ideal world, would quickly be used (and have been in the past) to oppress people.
So: Democracy is necessary in a free society, and permitting everyone to vote is necessary in a free society. If we're going to require all people to vote, they should be as educated as possible. Hence free public education.
<< Not giving the vote to "dumb" people is taking away their sovereignty.
I think there is clear level of misunderstanding of what sovereignty actually is. It is not some of sort semi-legal status.
Naturally, we could spend time here going over the definitions including how that definition refers to democracy and Democracy ( we can also spend fair amount of time discussing how the capital D differs from the small d and why it is relevant to this discussion ).
I am not sure it is that worthwhile, to be perfectly honest. There are tomes discussing it and most of it is rather dry.
<< "Democracy is the worst political system, other than all the rest."
I mean, since we are going for trite I will reply with similarly trite "Democracy is a nice idea if it was actually implemented." And now we can spar over whether US is a democracy, which also is largely a waste of everyone's time.
<< Anything short of universal adult suffrage is an attempt to oppress classes of people.
Just by stating above you effectively confirm there is no democracy in US. Again, a fair amount of boring writing on this largely centered around the concept of a class. I am not sure I am the right person to discuss that.
<< If we're going to require all people to vote, they should be as educated as possible. Hence free public education.
By your own logic, since we do not require people to vote, free public education is not necessary. I agree there is some benefit to it, but I am relatively firm in my stance in its current shape, it is in dire need of a reform ( and by that I do mean effectively nuking it from the orbit ).
**
FWIW, while I do not buy your argument I am sympathetic to the worldview it represents. It is hopeful.
edit:
<< Why do you think you'd be in the ruling class in your authoritarian fantasy?
You greatly misunderstand my perspective on the matter. You are effectively a slave now. In my fantasy, at least you have a shot to not be one. It is not a lot, but it is more than what you have now.
I said "require to vote" but meant "require the right to vote".
You have said a lot, but you haven't defined the world you want, except one where an aristocratic class has power over the masses.
Somehow you follow up with "public education is good in theory but since it doesn't currently work we should eliminate it".
You say we are all slaves, but don't propose any method or course of action that would lead to your fantasy of betterment. This is troubling.
---
And all of this gazing-into-the-whoskey-glass discussion fails to recognize the very real differences that the candidates have, which have very real impacts on millions of people.
I (and presumably you) are privileged that Trump can't deport us, or take away our right to some healthcare choices, and that we have savings accounts and jobs with health insurance.
<< And all of this gazing-into-the-whoskey-glass discussion fails to recognize the very real differences that the candidates have, which have very real impacts on millions of people.
I like that phrase. I may end up stealing that.
I didn't say there are no differences or that there are no impacts. I said there were no real differences. Just because something has an impact on a number of people, does not make it important. Google email change may have a greater impact on most people's lives than some of the stuff we are talking about now.
But I will make a specific observation here and tell me your thoughts on it.
There is an amusing level of 'tax ideas' in the last moments of the campaign including no taxes on tips or no taxes on overtime, which, arguably has little to no real impact on the budget ( despite -- also arguably -- having some positive impact on the poor people ). Naturally, all of that has near zero chance of passing, which is partially the point I want to make here for you to consider.
This is literally the 'bread' part in panem et circenses and there is literally no chance of it happening despite being practically insignificant amount in the US annual budget.
What does that tell you about the priorities of the elected officials? What does it tell you about the candidates?
I know what I think here, but I am curious how you will defend espoused values of candidates vs the reality of what is being done ( or has been done or will be done ).
<< You say we are all slaves, but don't propose any method or course of action that would lead to your fantasy of betterment.
Which part? That there may be no way to make it better or the nature the reality we live in?
<< This is troubling.
Zero disagreement.
<< Somehow you follow up with "public education is good in theory but since it doesn't currently work we should eliminate it".
I am a simple man raised on Windows 98. Unfortunately, if there is one thing Microsoft taught me, it is that sometimes fresh install is necessary as no amount of fiddling will save it. This is largely how I feel about public education; no amount of fiddling will save this version..
<< I (and presumably you) are privileged that Trump can't deport us, or take away our right to some healthcare choices, and that we have savings accounts and jobs with health insurance.
In a sense, it is always a possibility. If you look at some of the fine print lately, you will note that naturalized citizenship could be stripped in some circumstances or that sometimes it does not matter if you are a citizen at all as long as the government deems you a big enough nuisance.
But that is not Trump's fault. If anything, he may be a symptom of a greater issue and a convenient face to justify even more fine print on our list of privileges ( just in case that nuance is lost, I am channeling immortal Carlin here ).
<< I disagree with your worldview.
That is ok. I do not come here to seek confirmation.
I do come here, because, people here, on average, are interesting, smart, and/or capable ( sometimes all three at the same time too ). Call it aspirational voyeurism.
I am disappointed by both parties but see clear differences in ideology and more importantly, respect for the law, due process, and civil rights.
In particular, the full title of this article is, "Cancellation of Naval Academy Lecture by Ruth Ben-Ghiat at Behest of Republican Politicians Threatens Institutional Autonomy"
If you think you should be able to moderate, or not turn over commenter data because of their political content, then you should be worried. It's no different that trying to plan a curriculum with guest lecturers. If they feel welcomed to intrude on this decision, then it won't stop there.