darthelmet

joined 1 year ago
[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

There's a philosophical and a practical side to this:

Philosophically, the core of a democratic system is the peaceful transition of power. The idea that you won't just try to force your will over people with violence and will respect the will of the populace. This is a fine principle in a proper democracy with a fair process and political outcomes that fall within acceptable ranges. If you wanted more money for the trains and someone else wanted more money for the busses, that's a disagreement you can live with. And if the voting system is set up so you had equal chances both to introduce topics/candidates and vote on them, then great. By accepting the election and not trying to go outside the system to get your way, you keep the peace and allow for that process to be a viable vehicle for change.

If this is a requirement for democracy, then the converse is that if a system isn't fair and produces unacceptable results (eg, Nazis and genocide), participating in it merely legitimizes it. Obviously nothing physically stops you from organizing, but symbolically you've shown that you view the system as the sole legitimate way to exert political power and garner authority. And people will then turn around and say you should vote instead of doing xyz actions. "I don't agree with your methods."

On the practical side of this: people put a lot of time, energy, and political capital into supporting candidates in these elections. It eats up the public bandwidth, crowding out other forms of political participation. In addition, once someone works hard to get their candidate elected, there is an impulse, an incentive, to defend them. The people who said to suck it up, vote for Biden, then push him to the left turned around and chastised leftists for protesting over things like the continued anti-immigration policies or the support for Israel's genocide. US electoral politics is a team sport. People get psychologically invested in their team. They don't like it when you criticize their team. This makes them resistant to change even on policies they nominally support. I think encouraging people to maintain that emotional investment in elections is harmful. It hinders organizing efforts. It hurts attempts to build class consciousness because it gets people to think about their fellow workers as the enemy and capitalists as potential allies. And the corresponding obsession with 24 hour news cycles turns politics into a TV show. Trying to talk to libs about any history older than like a week ago or maybe at most a presidential term is impossible. If it wasn't on their favorite TV show it doesn't exist.

We need to be drawing people's attention to actual types of political participation. Elections don't just distract from that, they make people think they're doing the right thing. It's a release.

All that said, that's not to say there's never value in any part of the electoral system, it's just very limited. Bernie's attempts at running were part of what got me more engaged in politics and shifted me from being a progressive-ish lib to being more of a socialist. Important to that though was not just the policy platform, but the structure and messaging of the campaign promoted the importance of mass political participation. I ended up meeting some local socialist groups in the process of going to campaign volunteering. However, most of the time and energy still went into the election only for the system to block us at the end and Bernie to give in. Tons of hours of volunteer time went into doing little more than getting people to sign ballot petitions. We weren't getting those people into a union or a mutual aid group or anything. We basically just tossed our energy into the void.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

For me: Voting represents support for both the process and the government that results from that process. By voting you are essentially expressing that you submit to the electoral process as the sole means for the exercise of political power. Even if you don't like the results, you've agreed to accept it because the rules are more important than the results.

Some obvious problems with that: What if the process itself isn't fair in the first place? We don't really get to choose our leaders. We get presented with a set of options which are acceptable to capitalists and are asked our opinion on which we like more. You could write multiple books on the ways the US electoral process has been structured to disenfranchise people and reduce the impact they can have on their government, but fundamentally it comes down to the fact that the government doesn't represent people and that's a feature, not a bug.

So we end up with a pair of awful candidates who both have done and will do more awful shit. If the election randomly fell out of the sky without context, sure, you could argue about one being technically better than the other. But it didn't. It's this way for a reason. It's this way because people are willing to cede their expression of political power to it despite the fact that it's clearly unaccountable to them.

Voting is just supporting the system that's deprived us of any real democracy while normalizing fascism to protect itself. Voting is a fairly low information form of political expression. You don't get the choice to be like "Oh I'll begrudgingly support this candidate, but this this and that are things I don't like and want them to change." You get two boxes. Each one represents EVERYTHING the candidate stands for plus the implicit choice of accepting the process in the first place.

If people want things to get better, they have to organize and take real, tangible actions rather than just begging capitalist politicians to do stuff for us every 2-4 years. People should be doing this regardless of who's in office, but let's put a fine point on it: People are worried that Trump is gonna be fascist, take away people's rights, and end democracy. Are you just going to accept that because he won the election? Are the rules that bind the process more important to you than the results? If not, you should be willing to do what it takes to stop him instead of chastising that people didn't show up to participate in a sham of an electoral system.

For what it's worth, I actually did go to the polls to vote specifically on an equal rights ballot measure in NY. At least that has a semblance of direct democracy. There I'm explicitly saying "I support this policy specifically" instead of supporting a candidate who just says they support those things while also doing awful shit. It passed, so that's nice. If anything I'm more pissed at Californians for voting against a measure to END SLAVERY than I am with people who didn't want to vote for a person currently engaged in supporting a genocide.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Oh so the turnout last time was 100%? I guess someone should go fix the data then.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

By “popular vote,” you mean the % of people who voted. I’m talking about the country overall. Which includes people who didn’t get off work, have a handful of understaffed polling places, no good public transportation to get them to polling places, imprisoned people, people screwed my voter registration laws, etc. and that’s not even counting people too young to vote.

Your view only makes sense if you ignore literally everything about the broken US electoral system and all the other systems that touch it.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (4 children)

If you completely ignore how the electoral system works, sure. Back in reality, we have elections which, largely due to voter disenfranchisement efforts, only at best only account for ~60% of the country, only about half of which go to the fascists. So less than a 1/3rd of the country, and even that comes with the caveat that their other option sucks too.

They only get power because the system is set up to favor them and the state needs to use violence to enforce the will of that minority on everyone else. We have the numbers to change things for the better, we just lack the organization to make that happen because of a century of efforts to violently repress those organizations and socially isolate people.

So you can keep being a misanthrope by pretending most of the people aren't worth saving or you can recognize your fellow humans and work with them to do something about it.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (6 children)

Even if someone wins an election by a lot, the nature of voter turnout in the US means they at best represent like a third of the people. The fascists don’t outnumber us in reality, just in a political system that will allow them into power before even a social democrat.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Conservatives do well because their ideology is compatible with the interests of capital. No party that is a serious challenge to those interests can win any notable power through elections in the US.

As far as the idea of focusing on local races: If your main concern is immediate and substantial action on climate, what good would winning a local race do for you? Yeah maybe it would be easier to get a left wing candidate on a school board or whatever, but that's because it holds no meaningful power.

Not that I think they have any particular chance of success at the national level. I've just found that "local races" argument... most charitably put, confusing, less charitably: bad faith or willfully missing the point.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

It's just what you do when your side doesn't have a justifiable platform on it's own merit: See: All the people who keep telling us to ignore all the bad stuff corporate dems do because Trump would be worse.

IF you could actually run on things people liked, you'd talk about that and perhaps only call out your opponent's opposition to the things you support or show how they might be lying about claims that they want similar things.

But when your core platform is "let rich people keep doing what they want," you have to find ways to deflect from that.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

It’ll be one of those photos from a ride at a theme park where everyone is screaming in terror.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Not a niche game, but: day (????) of waiting for Sony to put Bloodborne on PC.

Also, this is a bit of a tangent, but I really wish Nintendo would start putting some of their games on PC. Not even so that I can play them, I do have a switch, but because there are quite a few of them that just don’t do well on console, either performance-wise or in terms of UX. For example, I’ve been playing the new Zelda game. The game’s core mechanic involves scrolling through a MASSIVE list of objects to find what you’re looking for and the best solution the game has for this is a handful of sorting options that only get you so far when there are just this many things. Without changing any of the gameplay, you could make the experience soooo much better by:

  • Letting you use a mouse on the menu.
  • Adding a basic search filter.
  • Letting you hotkey some echoes.

Some games just deserve better treatment than what they got from the limitations of their original platforms.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Yeah I think you're right to some extent. It's definitely harder to get invested in the ones with no or less VA. However, I think there's also something to be said for the tutorials/starts of these games. The Larian games I've played had relatively punchy tutorials that lead into a nice amount of structured freedom very early into the experience. Disco Elsyium also gets you into the the thick of things without much explicit tutorializing because it's so mechanic light your "tutorial" ends up just being gradual introduction to your main characters, the setting, and the case, which is what you're here for anyway.

The other CRPGs have hit me with the double whammy of tutorials that lead me by the nose for way too long while also just dumping paragraphs of exposition on me that have almost nothing to do with the immediate characters or plot.

EDIT: Thinking about it a bit more: While you don't need all the voice acting and cinematic to make good, dramatic, character focused story bits, I think the converse is true: It would have been a waste to get all these great VAs only to have them stand around and dryly deliver exposition. So it kind of had to be very character focused if it was going to work and be worth the effort.

Imagine how much worse the start of BG3 would be if you run into Laezel and you just stop for like 5 minutes while you exhaust all her dialgogue options so she can explain the entire history of the Gith and the Ilithid. Even fully voice acted that would have killed the pacing.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago (9 children)

The funny thing for me with CRPGs: DOS2 was the first one I played and I really liked it. Followed up again with BG 3 when that came out. Since then I’ve tried a bunch of other CRPGs and… I don’t think I actually like CRPGs. I just like Larian. The one exception is Disco Elysium, but that’s so far removed from most others of the genre because it has no combat.

10
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by darthelmet@lemmy.world to c/unions@lemmy.ml
 

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but does anyone have any advice on how to get involved in union organizing efforts? I actually went to school for labor relations, so I've got some familiarity with the concepts, but for all sorts of reasons, the main one being mental health, I haven't really been working or doing much of anything for a few years now. I want to try to get out and do my part and I view the labor movement as a really important avenue for political change.

But I don't really know where to look/start. I'm also pretty shy/socially anxious, so I kind of need some way to ease into this since it involves talking to people a lot. I've also been thinking of trying to learn a language that would help me interact with more workers who might be recent immigrants like maybe Spanish or something. (Although I'm not really sure which would be most useful for this and I'm not exactly a fast language learner, so if I was going to do that I should really prioritize one.)

I'm in the US close to the New York City. (Long Island) Does anyone have any suggestions for resources, organizations, advice on how to talk to people in this context, or other ways to help in a less direct way, etc. that could help me get started?

 

I mostly like Doctor Who for being a fun, campy show. I stopped watching after Capaldi initially because it felt like the show wasn't really doing that anymore. I've been re-watching the modern show after checking out classic Who for the first time along with family recently. We recently got back up to where I had stopped and... I'm still not really feeling it. But the show has been on for quite a while since then. So I'm kind of curious what it's like now and if it's worth pushing through/skipping ahead to get to a part that I'll like more.

 

Over the last few years my family and I have binged all of Star Trek, then moved on to Star Trek adjacent shows like The Orville and Stargate. At the moment we're not really watching anything sci-fi. I was wondering if anyone had recommendations for similar shows (or maybe some books) that fill the void left by Star Trek. In particular I really like the episodes that deal with interacting with other civilizations, diplomacy, and exploration more-so than say, an anomaly episode.

 

I've been very overweight for a long time. Lately I've been trying to eat healthier and lose weight. (among dealing with other nutritional deficiencies.)

One of the big problems I have though is that I have a lot of trouble eating foods with weird textures, smells, tastes, etc. This of course includes a lot of vegetables and some kinds of healthier proteins like fish.

A doctor I was working with recommended talking to a nutritionist who is familiar with these kind of problems. However, I didn't find them to be that helpful. They didn't really have a good understanding of what kind of things bothered me and didn't really seem to want to learn or incorporate that into a plan. I got a lot of "Well can't you just try to put up with some of these things that bother you?" So eventually I gave up with them. So I'm back to eating either miserably small portions of unhealthy foods (which doesn't really solve the nutrition problem and makes me hungry) or a handful of rather bland healthier foods that are fine to eat but just make me sad.

Does anyone have experience navigating these kinds of problems? What did you do? Do you have any suggestions? Types of foods, recipes, resources that deal with this, etc?

view more: next ›