I mean with the recent stuff going on with them trying to deport someone for the pro-palestine protests I’m just reminded of the quote “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

The way it’s written my mind immediately read it in the voice of Wheatley from Portal 2.

I think if anything the swing of Gen Z voters shows clearly that his economic recovery clearly wasn’t helping everyone. Those with the least amount of money and no job experience entering the work force found a terrible job market that either was barely hiring or was only hiring people who already had experience. Combine that with high prices and the increased presence of AI in the hiring process and it makes sense Gen Z were upset about the status quo. A lot of people argue that it was the podcasts that made Gen z swing right but if anything I think that just connected Gen z with a message of tearing down the system that they were looking for. But anyways my point is that sure America’s recovery was good for people with wealth or companies but for those either entering the workforce for the first time or those without money saved up and good jobs already there really wasn’t much of a recovery.

Those small businesses you shop at still get their products from big businesses at the end of the day. Or their workers who you’re paying by shopping there will spend money at big businesses. It won’t significantly affect the engine that is the economy at the end of the day. Consumer choice only works against specific businesses you can target which if you wanted to have a campaign to for example not to shop at big chain grocery stores that could be good. If anything though that’s another mixed message I’ve seen with this event, is it no spending in general like what a lot of the original fliers for the event said or is it just no spending at big businesses? Either way if your goal is to shut down the economy to show businesses and the government that the people don’t want what Trump is doing then you’re gonna be much more effective through unions and shutting down workplaces through strikes. If your goal is instead to punish businesses that support Trump that can work depending on the business but needs to be more targeted and there are a lot of companies that even if you try to boycott you’ll still end up supporting them indirectly.

It still has to be organized though with a union, you need things like strike funds and the small amount of legal protections that come with having a union such as preventing them from just firing the workers who don’t show up. It has to be a large amount of people that are organized, otherwise the companies can just fire them and find replacements and the strike will be over.

Then there should be a stronger focus on getting people to organize and unionize in their workplace. Cause a general strike won’t work without a strong organized work force and this kind of action focuses much more on individual action that makes you feel like you’re doing something when you’re really not. I’d rather direct the energy that people have right now towards things that will actually have an impact like providing resources and pushing people to unionize to build the base needed for a general strike.

It’s different when targeting a specific business as that kind of boycott can continue indefinitely. A boycott against spending any money or going to any business can only last so long and therefore companies will see a downturn and then probably a spike in sales as people buy a bunch of stuff at once that they were planning to buy during the boycott. I agree with the other comments that organizing workplaces to eventually form the base for a real general strike would be a more effective strategy to actually hurt businesses.

I mean yeah I think the main problem is just Google having all that data about you and potentially selling it to others whether that be for advertising, robocalling, or other things. So it really just comes down to how comfortable you are allowing Google to be able to use your emails and communications from corporations to see what things you like. Only time it really matters more is if you are using email for more personal or secure communications which yeah I would always prefer using better encrypted more messaging focused apps like signal for or just talking in person when possible.

Might just be people who are used to having an algorithm so they dislike stuff they don’t want to see more of.

My guess was that it wasn’t boosting Palestinian content but wasn’t suppressing it like a lot of other American platforms and news outlets tended to do.

Yeah I definitely still have problems with remembering to do it, especially if I get an idea when I’m not at a place where it’s easy to note the idea down. But even having a few things on there can be enough and sometimes help with jogging my memory about other things I wanted when it comes closer to an event.

I have the same problem when I need to come up with things on the spot. So instead I keep a list that I add ideas I get for things I want over time. That way if someone asks I can show them that and I don’t have to think on the spot about what I want.

The problem with that is there is no centralized website you go to for Lemmy. The closest thing to that would be the various apps you use for Lemmy so my question would be where would you put this quiz? I think when people talk about joining a server being hard it’s just hard for people used to a centralized social media to get used to the idea that one social media platform can be made up of a bunch of different websites and it becomes overwhelming to even figure out where to go. They’re very used to just going to reddit’s website so if they can’t just look up Lemmy and click the first link to join it’s gonna be too complex.

The problem is a lot of people on Lemmy focus on blaming the voters first and don’t really connect that issue with the DNC’s failures. A lot of voters didn’t come out to vote because of how bad Kamala and the DNC were in this election. So focusing on blaming voters is just focusing on the outcome rather than focusing on the actual cause of the issue. You can focus on both issues but if your solution is that voters are bad and need to be shamed rather then the DNC needs to improve they’re not gonna win any elections unless they get lucky again like they did in 2020 with covid and how unpopular Trump was then.

I mean I feel like depending on what kind of problems they started off with ChatGPT probably could just solve simple first year programming problems. But yeah as you get to higher level classes it will definitely not fully solve the stuff for you and you’d have to actually go in and fix it.

I think that’s definitely a big reason for non-swing state voters but I do also think how hard it can be to vote in some states is a pretty bit barrier too. If you look at turnout data by state theres a reason a lot of the red states with the more strict laws have lower turnout compared to my home state of Oregon which isn’t a swing state yet still can get 75% turnout in 2020 even though it’s a solid blue state, cause we do full vote by mail.

You’re right there after looking into it, he didn’t endorse either but he did speak at the RNC which for a lot of people looked like an endorsement but is a little different. The quote of we can win with or without you was from a meeting the teamster’s president had with Kamala. Even if it was in response to him speaking at the RNC or showing some support to Trump that’s definitely not how you get someone to back you and in my opinion shows the attitude the Dems had to a lot of people this cycle. This idea of either you vote for us or we’ll win without you cause you have no other good choice. That attitude is not one that makes people excited to go out and stand in a 3 hour line to vote for you in a swing state. And if they keep relying on this you either vote for us or you get stuck with the bad option of Trump they’re only gonna win whenever Trump is in office and actively doing really really bad things.

Yeah that would be nice but the only way I see that happening is if a Bernie like politician manages to win the primary and the election and reshapes the party like what Trump did. But reshaping it in that way is gonna face a lot more pushback from donors than compared to what Trump did. So there’s always a chance but it feels pretty unlikely without changes to election and campaign finance laws.

I mean I can understand him not wanting to endorse Kamala when she directly told him we can win with or without you. That doesn’t exactly sound like the kind of person you would want to endorse if they don’t even seem to really care about you or the people you represent. But yeah endorsing Trump was a stupid move, he really should have just not endorsed either of them.

I agree that talking about non-voters in that context isn’t useful but we definitely should talk about non-voters more in regards to why they didn’t vote. Is it cause in a number of states voting access is really hard? Is it due to not liking either party and not feeling like there are good candidates? I think understanding that more could really give a better understanding of this block of people, is it really just people who don’t care about politics and would never care enough to vote or is it people who just don’t have the time to deal with navigating the system to be able to vote.