Both

I know this is how the fediverse works, and how it has to work. But maybe we shouldn’t be advertising this tool right now when the right is trying to dox people and get them fired/deported for liking a kirk meme.

I feel like both parents working is more common in working class families then rich ones. A rich family may have one of the parents working part time or not at all because they can afford it.

case in point, in reference to some people who made edgy memes on bluesky

Mormons and skiers, also a decent amount getting born there too. There fertility rate may not be positive but it’s a lot better then the other states so they’re relatively gaining population.

I understand people making choices despite popularity, it seems a lot of people here are of that category, I’m concerned with the people who are choosing not to join a cause because of its lack of popularity, leading to the issues mentioned above. I think this second group is a larger percentage of the population then the first group. I think we can agree that these causes gaining popularity is good, even though they can have value without popularity. So getting that second group into the cause would be good.

I think what your advocating is to just evangelize the benefits and then people will come. But I think there are a lot of people that even if I could explain every benefit of Linux, they’d still stay on windows citing one of the above benefits of popularity, same with a lot of the causes listed above. If we are to say evangelizing is the best/only method then we leave a lot of those people for which education is not enough.

I was looking for people who were at that point of being educated about a cause, but weighed it it less then those benefits of popularity and continued on in the capitalist consumerist system. Then maybe something else pushed those scales to the other side and they chose to join the cause. What was that experience? Was it having a child? Was it an experience with death, spiritual experience, revelation, drug trip, etc. I guess that’s the question.

I wouldn’t say Palestine is a losing cause. All the ones I listed are minoritarian, some in the low single digit percentage of people, especially in the US. A majority of people in the US and a large majority of the world want a ceasefire. It’s not failing due to lack of popular support, its failimg because a small minority of very powerful people really want this genocide.

What makes you think a given person prefers the capitalist options?

The fact that they vast majority of people choose the capitalist option. You could chalk some of it up to lack of awareness, but even those that are aware still tend to go for the default capitalist option. Out of every normal person you’ve explained Linux to in real life, how many do you think made the switch? Yes individuals may choose them but the vast majority of normal people aren’t.

vegans are not bothered by restaurants not catering to them because they simply won’t go

Speak for yourself, I’m a vegetarian and often get annoyed by the lack of options, and that’s in a very liberal city. Not everyone has your same moral conviction, my girlfriend is a vegetarian too but will eat meat if it’s the only option on the menu. You can say she’s a fake vegetarian or doesn’t truly believe in the welfare of animals, but she still cares a hell of a lot more than your average person, so if she’s is still occasionally eating meat then your never going to get rid of animal products for the average person who doesn’t give two shits about animal welfare.

The fact is the more good vegan options there are the more people will be vegan, or at least partially vegan. Most people value taste and there food preferences more then animal welfare, environment etc. But if there’s an item on the menu that is tasty and they prefer and its vegan then they’ll choose it, and that’s a win. But most chefs aren’t putting there time into making a variety of tasty vegan food because the markets not there. Yes there are people with a higher moral conviction that value welfare over taste but that is a slim minority who won’t be able to stop all the abuse the industry causes.

Also you don’t always select where you go to dinner, a lot of times the friends or family your going to dinner with will select it. Some are kind and will check the menu for options but a lot of the time they can forget and just pick one. Am I supposed to not go to dinner after my cousins graduation because it’s at a steakhouse?

Can you elaborate on this one?

A platform like this benefits from having more and more diverse communities to keep people engaged. Lemmy, as it stands right now, only has a couple broad communities, mostly about these causes I mentioned: FOSS, socialism, etc. If your not interested in those communities at all you probably won’t find lemmy very valuable. Even if you are somewhat interested in those things you may still stay on reddit because it has the other communities your interested in along with those that are on lemmy. This is especially true for niche interests but even some broader interests like sports in general are completely absent from lemmy. This is self fulfilling to a certain extent, as less people talk about sports, less people post about sports, less people come here for sports etc. So for a person who wants a feed of say 50% socialist memes and 50% baseball they’re gonna go to reddit because they can get that, even if the socialist memes and discussion is better over here, now we’re missing out on that person’s discussion in the socialist meme communities and that’s a loss for everyone in that community.

Have you noticed a loss on libido? My understanding is that those pills reduce testosterone, which can reduce libido and everything else t does for men.

You’re looking at this as a red vs. blue issue and identifying with blue when it’s really a people in power vs. normal people issue. This is the california democratic party taking power away from the people and giving it to the ruling party. Sure you may like that ruling party now, but if a new party takes power or the current one does something horrible then you’ll have less of an ability to remove them from power.

Eh, the democrats seem to be getting back on board with it too now. Most Americans at least have a vague concept of gerrymandering. They just choose to ignore it when it benefits their side.

I think the events op mentioned probably happened in the last couple hundred years too. It’s more that the U.S. has been more stable over the past 2 centuries compared to most other countries. There’s only been 3 mass wars in defense of the country, the revolution, the civil war and WWII. Compare that to say France which has had 3.5 revolutions and 3 giant continent spanning wars in that same time period.

Don’t worry, trumps learning. Jan 6th insurrectionists are all getting pardoned right now meanwhile people are getting deported for saying free palestine.

That’ll cause competition with the private owned stores and force them to push down prices / raise wages until their profit margins are gone, putting them out of business.

The only entity that will buy the defunct stores will be the state , or maybe some actual non-profits , and now the state owns all the grocery stores and communism will be achieved. Then we get bread lines, is that what you want? /s.

Yeah, since it’s “peace time” and less risk there’s probably a decent chunk of the armed forces who are just in it for the perks ( free college, Healthcare) and don’t believe in it and are trying to serve there time and get out and not make a career of it.

They aren’t cops who almost always want to be cops and make it a core part of their identity and belief system. They aren’t allowed on lemmy.

This isn’t data security though. In a cyber security context, yes paranoia is a valuable attribute. It can let you catch threats before they happen which is good.

In a political context though, paranoia, especially directed within the organization, is a corrosive and reactionary attribute. It divides and causes factionalism in political organization and brings energy away from making positive change and fighting the actual oppressors and puts that energy toward testing and purging your “allies”.

If a group out of power gives into paranoia and conspiracies they just divide into smaller and smaller factions who don’t trust each other and can’t work together to gain power. If a group in power gives in to paranoia, the majority group tends to start purging whoever they can claim are “fakes” conveniently along with everyone else they disagree with.

I can’t think of a single time in history where paranoia directed at secret enemies within has ever helped a progressive cause. Meanwhile I can name tons of instances where it destroyed a progressive cause, or at least it’s credibility and popularity: the reign of terror, stalins purges, mao’s cultural revolution, even in modern day Maduro loves to claim the CIA is out to get him.

It never helps the cause, it is just used as a way for the leaders of the group to offload any anger directed at the people in charge of the organization towards some, often imagined, sabotoeurs. Collectivization failing and causing mass starvation? Is it stalins fault?, no it’s the kulaks and the trotskyists sabotaging the revolution.

The democrats have failed us, twice now. Instead of recognizing there failure and changing tack they’re trying to direct anger at the enemy within, progressives and Palestinian activists who they claim are sabotaging the democratic chances and are probably agents of russia. Pelosi literally told a group of pro-palestinian activists protesting on her lawn to “go back to russia”.

We need to stop focusing on finding the “Russian assets in our midst” and focus on reforming the democratic party and defeating trumpism with a positive plan for change.

In a sense yes, people generally tell the truth more than they lie so the default assumption should be that someone is telling the truth, otherwise you enter into paranoia. That assumption can be broken when there is a clear gain from lying. Eg. You catch a thief outside the store they robbed they have a very clear reason to lie and say they were just walking by.

You’re explanation on why they’re lying isn’t very clear. First off, you fail to name who these people are and leave it ambiguous to let the person reading fill it in with their enemy (maga, nazis, russians etc.) just like every other conspiracy theory. Since the subject isn’t clear neither is the motive, you just sort of fill that in with "they hate the left, why do they hate the left? What are they gaining from convincing maybe a couple dozen liberals that the democrats suck on a very marginal social media? This isn’t the politburo for the comintern, there is barely any power on here to diffuse, so why put effort into doing so when there are far larger platforms to influence.

just do a little thought experiment with me. If there is a vector that allows authoritarians to dismantle all progress made by the left, to demotivate us and to detract from our ability to form coalitions and build solidarity, do you really think they wouldn’t take advantage of it?

This is the same kind of argument that the tankies use to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as a CIA plant. At least they name the CIA, you seem to be pointing to an even more ambiguous “they” that are out to get us. This is a conspiracy theory, dress it up all you want but your pointing to some ambiguous “they” and blaming them for your problems with no proof.

Occams razor is that they are leftists who hate the democratic party. They critique them more then the Republicans because the liberal side of lemmy covers that pretty well already, half the front page is shitting on trump right now. That’s good but at a certain point your beating a dead horse, everyone here already hates trump and thinks he’s bad, no point in reinforcing that past a point. A lot of people on here still have loyalty to the democratic party though that far exceeds the democrats loyalty to the left, so pointing that out can be effective and help change people’s minds instead of posting/commenting trump is hitler for the millionth time.

If it was a comedy I would give it a pass, but this episode wasn’t, or at least it was a bad one. The only sort of funny scene was the sermon. The rest was young boys slowly dying.

Thanks for the references.

Fair enough, seems there’s not full consensus on this. Just wanted to point out that there is real science backing the idea that saturated fat is bad and it’s not just some contrived myth by a bunch of politicians like OP said.