this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2025
419 points (85.2% liked)
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
913 readers
653 users here now
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sure, I understand what an oligarch is. I just think their influence is overestimated, and the amount of people that think neo-liberalism is legitimately a good thing from a philosophical standpoint is underestimated.
People tend to blame that on oligarchs, which is a convenient cop-out imo. Oligarchs have become this boogey-man we can conveniently blame our problems on instead of having to take a more critical look at our problems in things like messaging and communication.
edit: Like, look at Joe Rogan. I don't think his success in communication is due to oligarchy in any of its forms. That's an example of the kind of communication and outreach that we lack, though. They've got it, we don't.
I mean, a lot of news outlets are owned by the same groups funding politicians on both sides and far right think tanks. After 9/11, somebody bought up over 500 local news channels with the express purpose of running more anti-Muslim news.
There isn't some big conspiracy going on, but the facts of US politics are that since Reagan, the laws have been made based largely on the whims of the rich. More often than the majority, at least. And what do the rich want? More money. And dumb, angry people have been great for revenue. So the rich make decisions to benefit their bottom line, and politicians are beholden to their corporate sponsors, and it all leads down the rabbit hole of grifters and tech bros and all. Not in some long con conspiracy, but in idiots chasing infinite growth and infinite profits with no thought for 2 years down the road.
I think there's a big issue with Dems in their messaging, both in style and who they platform to, but the extremists have an advantage here: people think emotionally, not rationally. So if your job is to tell people that it's not their fault their lives suck, it's the fault of (insert minority group here), that's going to be a lot more palatable to people than "Biden added 500,000 jobs to the economy during his presidency" when much of the country have to choose between food and heat this week.
I also agree with the neo-liberalism (also, both sides-ism and centrists), but I think that also can be partially blamed on the Dems, and also our culture in general. The Dems have been the party of "reaching across the aisle" since before I was born, and my entire life it has only allowed things to get worse. The Dems clearly have a losing strategy, but they've tried nothing and they're all out of ideas because they refuse to let truly progressive candidates lead the party for fear of giving up their power/positions (and their corporate sponsors).
Not entirely true, laws being to the benefit of the rich requires some cherry picking. Dems have allowed tax cuts to the rich to expire, that was not to the benefit of the wealthy. Obama taxed private health insurance to fund the ACA, that was not to the benefit of the wealthy. Free school lunches are not a benefit to the wealthy, nor is increased minimum wage in many states.
People have forgotten all of this, though, which is a failure in communication imo. I do agree that the dems need to fight more fiercely overall, though.
I wish I had the studies in front of me for the stats, but studies done by schools like Harvard have shown that the US cannot be considered a democracy (technically, we've been a republic anyway) and has been an oligarchy since at least the 70s. Nobody gets their way all the time, but since the 70s, laws have been passed in favor of the wealthy twice as often as the majority. You can easily pick out examples for any side, of course. Like I said, nobody gets their way all the time.
I never meant to imply that the Dems are as bad as the Republicans, anyway. Just that they act as a stop gap in the push ever right. There are those among them who are actually actively fighting against the flow as well, but overall, they are the party of the centrist/moderate status quo, and they hamper the more progressive side of the party when they can. There are a few in office who side with Republicans more often than not. Even the ACA, as great as it has been, was cut to be more palatable to Republicans before they ever even saw it. What we got is a very neutered version of the original, which I will forever love to remind Republicans was based on Romney-care, a policy created by a Republican governor of one of the most left leaning states in the nation. A Republican who was re-elected and is still looked upon favorably to this day for his actions while in office.
Before the current MAGA party, the biggest difference between the two parties was that Dems largely believed in equal rights and strong regulations, and everything else was largely arguing over the minor details like just how strong those regulations should be, tax brackets, etc. Like you said, both parties still believe in Neo-Liberalism.
Personally, I think the Dems (the leadership, in particular) just don't really care to fight because they believe they have golden parachutes just like the CEOs when they bankrupt yet another company in the name of short-term profit. The Dems were more than happy to throw trans people under the bus this election, and then blame them and "identity politics" when they lost. They seem to think that nobody who matters will be hurt in the next 4 years and people will come crawling back to them in the next election. And if we still have free and fair elections in 4 years, they'll probably be right about the second part.
Ultimately, the Democrats have a leadership issue more than anything, and a changing of the guard is in order if we are going to solve the problems at hand. Our politicians are largely old and out of touch.
I can agree with most of that. I'm not so sure where you get trans people being thrown under the bus and blamed for the loss, though, LGBT folks in general voted at a pretty high rate afaik.
Ultimately, there's just not enough of us, though. I think that's the core problem. The general sentiment most prevalent geographically across the nation is right-leaning, and due to the electoral college (edit: and Senate distribution), that gets to determine an outsized amount of policy. We can't not make something palatable to the gop, or we simply get nothing. That's what they want, after all, us to get nothing. It's what we have to work with. We can't magically just change that without the actual votes to do so.
Especially when the Supreme Court is considered, which we haven't held in decades. But even in the legislature, our majorities when we infrequently get them are narrow, with no real room to maneuver. The thing I'd personally most like to see is voting rights protections and campaign finance reform, but I know that'll never pass without 60 Senate seats, which feels like a pipe dream. Nobody's leadership can do anything about that, they have to work within the rules too.