• 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 20th, 2023

help-circle


  • Half the country didn’t vote. 70 million people directly voted for this outcome. If you want to rage at something, it would be appropriate to send it that way.

    Consider how self-righteous and smug posts serve to dampen enthusiasm and cause people vote in contrarian ways. When dems and their dedicated supporters stopped trying to earn votes and instead switched to the current hostage-negotiation method of campaigning, they also ceased telling any kind of story about the future. The message became “it’s gonna be bad, but possibly less bad than if we let the evil man win” The margins were so bad it can’t be lazily pinned on antifa super soldiers. Something didn’t sell to a huge number of people.

    The call is coming from inside the house, and lockstep supporters who refuse to question anything are the reason the DNC felt comfortable running the same losing strategy they’ve run over, and over and over again. To support this is to ensure it will keep happening. The DNC and their apparatus are completely to blame for their poor performance, and trying to externalize the blame simply covers for them and lays the ground work for more poor performance and weak results.

    At this point the DNC would probably perform better if it dropped all the consultants and just randomly picked people off the street in different states.

    But honestly, this is assuming the DNC fucked up, but they really do seem more comfortable with a fascist being in power than a candidate who might threaten corporate power, so possibly this is just the system functioning as intended.

    If I lived in a swing state, I suspect I would have voted Harris based on harm reduction, but it would have pissed me off. They’ve indirectly told me they don’t want, and don’t need my vote throughout the campaign.






  • It makes me wonder—would the dynamic change if there was only an upvote? So you could choose not to upvote, but the default action would be a neutral one, and if you liked/wanted to support/etc you could signal that.

    I see tons of posts on here now that are downvoted to oblivion, because they are a legitimate article that says something a group doesn’t like. There won’t even be comments on the post. So like a Reuter article that discusses Palestinian casualties and no comments and like -20. This doesn’t seem like a super useful mechanism. Or at least, it’s just functioning today as a content preference “I don’t want to see this typed content” as opposed to “this is bad info, out of line with the community, etc.”

    And despite ranking my list by either hot, or top day/six hours, I still see the downvoted posts regularly so the mechanic doesn’t even really do anything in terms of visibility. Or possibly there’s just too little content on a given community for it to get filtered out.




  • It’s similar to how they’re using the disaster to decry open borders allowing terrorists in. Meanwhile, the crew on the bridge that died in the disaster, on their night shift lunch break from fixing potholes, was made up almost exclusively of immigrants… everything is just an opportunity to grab engagement for your talking points now, no matter how absurd. The idea that this disaster is being used to fan hatred of immigrants, while the people who were killed were literally hard-working immigrants… it just breaks my brain.

    So basically I guess, no surprise that they’re also somehow connecting the bridge to Brandon Scott, and diversity hires (lol, he won an election fuckos, not an HR hiring process). It’s all a part of the unreality we now live in.