I wish it was given their current government, but it still is the number one military and economy, so they can do a lot of damage. It will depend on what happens after Trump, if they continue spiraling down or not.

There is already nsfw flag to avoid this kind of thing, so it’s not a new concept on Lemmy. Except this content is usually not considered nsfw enough.

Thanks for linking to this, it could indeed be a solution.

The RFC: https://github.com/Neshura87/rfcs/blob/main/0004-post-tags.md

TL;DR: a tag/flag system for posts is described in this RFC and being actively developed with a part 1 already merged and a part 2 in review. Tagging would only be possible for privileged users such as mods and admins so they can keep a sensical classification. So from there, we would need softcore communities’ mods to agree to use a specific tag that we could filter out. That’s still a lot of if, but it’s a good step, with many other use cases.

How do I discover new communities without using all?

They appear in the all feed without subscribing. Only using the subscribed feed would mean I am missing on new communities that may interest me.

I think when people feel like things are going downward (quality of life, economy, local security, international security, ecological crisis etc.), tend to regress towards a conservative reflex. They want to protect what they have, by extension, they don’t want things to change out of fear of losing what they have, or they attribute the loss of what they had to unrelated change (I lost my job because of immigration).
I think it requires good quality education and information to go past this conservative reflex and understand that accepting some constrains (regulations, taxes) may make society better for everyone.
It also means that manipulating education and information can prevent that and encourage people to take the natural conservative slope. I think “evil” people have found a powerful tool to do that with the mass adoption of social media that they can buy and manipulate.

I see two big solutions, either falling so low that humanism bounces back out of terror of what happened like after WW2. Or managing to implement systems that will prevent nefarious manipulation of information and instead promote humanism.

How comes that multiple times in history, societies reached a sufficient consensus (including part of the rich elite) to build democracies, write down rights and enforce their protection? And why would it not happen again?
Maybe human societies are too complex to be reduced to evolutionary interpretations.

The good old original “AI” made of trusty if conditions and for loops.

It certainly would, but I would be worried about the people at the bottoms whose salary depend on this. Rich people can afford not getting revenue for a month, but people with precarious work contracts often can’t.
What about mass boycott targeted at the companies undeniably supporting this government?
It could impact bottom people less.

I think Western cultures often value differentiating yourself from the mass, it has its stupid downsides too of course.

There’s a culture of not sticking out of the pack, and the feeling that everyone is judging you if you do. It’s sadly more about that than deep understanding of the value of civism, according to my native friends.

I think this is already contained in Stoicism, an important root of Christianity.

The living standard doesn’t have to be proportional to natural resources consumption. For example, many people would rather live in a walkable 20 min city than needing a car and getting stuck for hours in traffic.

It’s not overpopulation that is the problem, it’s overconsumption of natural resources. Population will not grow indefinitely, see the notion of demographic transition. It would possible to live sustainably with the estimated population peak if we respect consumptions quotas such as the 2 tones of CO2 per year per capita. Most developed country people are far above this though.

I had a Chinese colleague who was in a “relationship” with her idol and thought it was way more convenient than a real partner. I am fully ready to see people be openly happy with AI partners and never try to have real partners.
Especially because it’s hard to have a social life when you’re asked to work 9am to 9pm, 6 days a week, or worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/996_working_hour_system

You have to work on building a party and preparing a candidate a couple of years in advance, you can’t do that 3 months before the vote, at this point you can only vote for the lesser evil. Are you working on that now?

I hope you can develop more options in the future, but for this election, there were only two.

Again, it’s not a matter of support, it’s a matter of chosing the lesser evil to reduce the potential negative impact. Similarly, if the only way to prevent far right from getting elected is to vote for the right, you would rather not participate in preventing the far right from getting elected?

If your choice increases the magnitude of the genocide, how could it reduce your complicity?

Sometimes you have to choose the lesser evil, and you did good in the difference.