This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

xhieron, in Gen Z, millennials have a much harder time ‘adulting’ than their parents did, CNBC/Generation Lab survey finds avatar

Yeah no shit. They feel that way because it is that way. You don’t need polls for this information. It’s economics. “Perceived” or not, it is actually, literally harder for millenials and younger adults to achieve the same level of financial stability as their parents, full stop. That’s not a matter of feeling or perception. That’s the declining real value of money. Inflation, greedflation, economic contraction at key life milestones, wealth inequality, lower indicators for health, and on and on. Across every metric I can think of off the top of my head, millenials and the next generations perform worse than previous generations due to circumstances entirely beyond their control (and largely the result of the prior generations, including dead hand control and policies directly adversarial to young adults’ accumulation of wealth). For many young adults, the best financial windfall they’ll ever experience will be when their more affluent parents die, and no active measure they can take on their own behalfs will meaningfully change it.

The ruling class should be terrified of them.


You know what your problem is, it's those damn cellphones.

Veraxus avatar

And coffee. And avocado toast. And wokeness.


And iphones!

Seraph avatar

My mother has joked with me that she's spending my inheritance, despite her friends telling her not to say that. I didn't expect any windfall even before that, to be fair, but it's nice my own mother can be honest about the "Fuck you I got mine."

no active measure they can take on their own behalfs will meaningfully change it.

They don't seem to understand what this means to an economy. I experience it now at my job: there's no reason to work harder, there's nothing to gain. Without growth there's no reason to invest and an economy collapses. All growth right now is artificial, consolidation of smaller growth business into giant mega corporations that won't pay taxes or employees fairly.

A Greek proverb says a society grows when old men plant trees whose shade they shall never know. What's the exact opposite of that?


What’s the exact opposite of that?

Maximizing next quarter earnings.


chopping down trees to heat the house in their vacation homes? i dunno


A Greek proverb says a society grows when old men plant trees whose shade they shall never know. What’s the exact opposite of that?

Short-term quarterly profits


My mother has joked with me that she’s spending my inheritance, despite her friends telling her not to say that.

Without knowing your mother, it’s entirely possible she was first exposed to that joke when it was generally believed that your children will be at least as successful as you, thanks to ever-increasing standards of living, and never stopped to reevaluate the cruelty of the joke. But since friends are telling her to stop, she’s either willfully ignorant or being cruel.

A Greek proverb says a society grows when old men plant trees whose shade they shall never know. What’s the exact opposite of that?

Fuck you; got mine?


My mother has joked with me that she’s spending my inheritance, despite her friends telling her not to say that. I didn’t expect any windfall even before that, to be fair, but it’s nice my own mother can be honest about the “Fuck you I got mine.”

Not that I want or expect any inheritance from my mother, but because she’s rubbing it in like this you could ask her a question. Say “As I navigate life growing up, I’ve learned many things from you so let me ask you this. How much inheritance did your parents leave you when they passed away? Are you planning on equaling (adjusted for inflation) what you received to pass on to me or are you deciding to take from them without giving back? I’m just trying to figure out how I should be a parent to my kids.”


A Greek proverb says a society grows when old men plant trees whose shade they shall never know. What’s the exact opposite of that?

Well what’s happening right now is old men are actively uprooting anything that won’t grow to shade tree size in their lifetimes. It’s as if their aim is to one day build their own coffin out of the absolute last tree on Earth.


The ruling class should be terrified of them.

Well, this time around they’ve got technology. They’ve got the Internet.

And they’ve learned from past attempts, and I believe they have nearly perfected their ideal society (which is really just feudalism again). Which includes exposing people to enough lies and propaganda that they will actively advocate against policies that would help “correct” things, and in favor of policies that worsen and perpetuate their (and their children’s) own situation.

At least here in the US, we’re far too comfortable with our Real Housewives, and our XBoxes to ever take real action beyond just voting. I’m including myself in this so don’t think I’m being high and mighty.

HuddaBudda, in US Supreme Court blocks student loan forgiveness plan
HuddaBudda avatar

Tim Scott

The South Carolina senator praised the ruling as "a victory for common sense."

"You take out a loan, you pay it back. This decision frees taxpayers from shouldering debt they never signed up for," he tweeted.

Weird, I didn't get a decision to shoulder the bad debt these companies that got their PPP loans forgiven.

Or the 2008 Financial bailout on my future.

Or the 200 billion in medicare/covid fraud


But what's good for the economy is good for the people. You know, trickle down and stuff. Totally works, trust me bro. Just give us a few billion more, this time it'll rain down gold on you. Absolutely sure!


These people are incapable of not being disingenuous. They're allergic to good faith. The hypocrisy has become so ingrained in these people that calling it out hasn't been an effective counter to them for years, if not decades. They simply do not care.


They care. They care about making sure that the benefits of socialism is exclusively for the elite and wealthy and totally denied to the average citizen.

IHeartBadCode, in Heat wave puts over two-thirds of U.S. population under heat alerts
IHeartBadCode avatar

"It's 1°C. That's not a lot."

It's 1°C on average. That means every molecule of air has AT LEAST 1°C extra thermal energy. And I'm not sure if anyone has noticed, there's a lot of air molecules. So while taking one cubic centimeter of air and increasing it by 1°C isn't a ton of energy. Do that for roughly all 109 tredecitillion molecules and you get about 2.2 zettajoules of energy. Annual US energy consumption is just 0.094 zettajoules. So one degree increase is equal to more energy than the US uses in 23½ years. The biggest nuclear bomb humans ever made, that pulls in at about 0.00021 zettajoules. So one degree is roughly 10,500 Tasr Bombas going off and then the resulting heat just never leaving.

All of that energy. It has to go somewhere. Sometimes it makes ice turn to water, sometimes it increases the speed at which some wind is moving, sometimes it increases the surface temperature of land, sometimes it evaporates water leaving an area very dry. But it has to go somewhere. And it cannot just radiate back out into space, it hits a CO₂ molecule, bounces off of it, and flies right back down to Earth. And the more CO₂ molecules we put out there, the more often that happens.


Whoa. I’ve never had this explained so clearly. Thanks. Also yikes.


Huh this is the first thing I’ve read that puts it into a sort of understandable perspective (eternally recovering from my conservative raised childhood, maybe sane people explain it better in general)


If you want a feeling for how your local temperatures will change you can extrapolate the peaks linearly. So if we look at London Uk as an Example ……/_125961900_optimised-max_temp_uk-nc…

With a global mean temperature increase of 1 C since 1970 there was an increase in peak temperatures (avg) of about 2 C. So till 2050 it will be somewhere around 3 C for the average peak in summer. If we look at the ramp up since 2008 we can expect more like 5-6 C higher temperature records than today. So in the 2050s there will be some summers with 45 C records and the average hottest day every year around 35-37 C

Edit: and not to forget that this is only talking about how high the peaks every year are. The length of heatwaves will also increase by a few days. So where it was maybe 32 for three days and then 35 for one day, followed by a cooling thunderstorm it will be more like five days of 35 followed by a day of 37 and then a much more intense thunderstorm than what we know today.


Who! This is the first time someone explain this shit to me! 🤯 Like actually explained it so it makes sense.

Thank you!


This is an amazing explanation.


Love this explanation. Thanks much. Sharing…

hightrix, in Remote work is still 'frustrating and disorienting' for bosses, economist says—their No. 1 problem with it is how difficult it is to observe and monitor employees

There is a great way to monitor employee’s performance. This one weird trick will save you losing your best employees!

Are their tasks getting done on time and with quality work?

Congrats! You just learned how to treat your employees like adults.

Now kindly fuck off and let me continue to work in my underwear.

Crackhappy, avatar

pssshhh underwear.

Semi-Hemi-Demigod avatar

I like to save that for Casual Friday. It helps the weekend feel special.

snooggums avatar

Is it underwear if it isn't under anything?


It's under my ass all day, does that count?

snooggums avatar

Under where?

Hatecoach avatar

Under there.


So what do you do when it isn’t on time or quality work?


The same thing you’d do if they were working in an office. How does being remote change this?

FaceDeer avatar

Are you suggesting that physical punishment is necessary?


No. Is working in an office physical punishment?


Yes. Yes it is.

FaceDeer avatar

Why do you need physical access to employees that don't do their work on time or up to quality?


Training and education have been found to occur better in person than online.

If someone needs help, shouldn’t they be given the best chance at success?

FaceDeer avatar

I'm going to want a citation on that. I learn just fine on my own, and I'm sure many others do too. If you're really concerned about giving people "the best chance at success" rather than just forcing them into boxes then you'd be presenting options.

Flaky_Fish69 avatar

it probably has to do with the quality of "remote training" materials. my company (contract security), I train new hires in a variety of things including CPR/AED/First Aid.... you can definitely tell the difference between people who were given the stupid web-cartoon training vs actual in person training.

hell, the remote training shit had terrible localization issues. (as in, would get our people arrested and charged with felonies... ooops....)


Is requiring all employees to spend multiple unpaid hours in a car during rush hour in order to put them in unattractive cubicals or desks akin to prison cells, where they are only allowed to shit x amounts a day, and where the manager keep looking over the shoulder to see if you are not wasting a minute thinking about anything other than work a punishment?

What do you think?


I don’t tell employees where to live.

Neato avatar

Paddlin' is only for A+ work. It's a reward.


The beatings will continue until morale improves


My company has a management mentorship program for remote employees. The boss actually travels to different employees homes and will stay with them and work with them at their house for the week. This keeps the execs happy enough to know that they’ve got middle management keeping an eye on the employees, while also allowing the remote work with no fuss. It’s an interesting approach for sure.


That sounds interesting, but I really wouldn’t want my boss at my home.


Is that real? No way in hell I would be hosting my boss for a week. I’m not even sure where they would fit.


No lol. I’m just being dumb

Rhaedas avatar

Sounds like a solution for when management can't even pay rent.

magnetosphere avatar

Make them a manager, obviously


People rarely get a job with no intention of doing the work. If work is falling behind there’s usually a reason for it that can be fixed.

In the rare case that the person is just taking the mick, warn, punish, fire. In that order.


But... but... but...

It's proving that my 25 years of being paid 3 times as much as the people I "manage" has been a complete scam the entire time!


My supervisors are the worst with this.

I work a physical labor job and the supervisors are supposed to help with that. What they do instead is idie away chatting and spending inordinate amounts of time “doing” it work.

Thankfully, in a backwards sort of way, after one of them tried dodging their work when the venue needed to be turned over for a city council meeting, our manager has throughly chewed them out.

Still, I don’t have much faith in them, but we’ll see where that goes.


Hey, if they’re getting all their work done on time, they’re probably not getting enough work /s


And the 9 floating around managers will figure out to send THAT email, right?

Oh. Wait. No. You right.

Dem 9 gonna have 7 pointless meetings.

So frustrating how a remote world is exposing that...

Edit: not sarcastic. Satiracle.

Call me Candide.


Also, ask “how did you spend your time last week” and “what are you planning to do this week”. The answers may surprise you!


I actually like daily standups. I know many don’t, but they can be really useful.

What did you do yesterday. What are you doing today. Any issues for the group?

Then get back to work!


This would be a massive waste of time if it were with the whole team every day. I don’t need to know what every other employee on the team is doing every single day, and I don’t need to spend time listening to them explain it. I’ve got shit to do.

Neato avatar

It wouldn't be explaining it. It would be your teammates telling everyone where they are on the projects you all work on. If you aren't working the same projects, then you aren't on the same team. Or you need sub-teams. If your work is so independent you don't rely on anyone else's work and vice versa, then you probably don't need standups.


So what if it’s a waste of time. Gotta make the 40 hours anyway.

Haywire, (edited )

We used to have a rigorous schedule. Arrive at the office between 8-830. Make coffee and chat. At 9am we started the daily meeting. We all read what we were going to do today to each other. By then it was 1130 and so we broke for lunch. After lunch, at 1300 we would do the thing we said we would do. At 1530-1630 we would submit out updates to the project management system and produce tomorrow’s report for us to read to each other. 1700 we would go to the bar then head home around 1830.

When I started working for myself I would usually start around 9 to finish at noon, including travel time.


I agree with you. That’s why we make our teams small enough in size that standups are 10min max, usually more like 5.

That said, it can be really beneficial to hear that Joe is working on something similar to a thing I’m going to start today. He may be able to give me some lessons learned or point me to a library.

But I completely agree that big teams a make this an annoyance. I used to be on a 20 person team and standups were completely worthless.

Now, we have 3-5 devs per team and it’s usually really quick.


My husband holds his team meetings at 3/4pm ish on friday on zoom with beers. Afterwards he tells everyone to fuck off home.

THAT is how you do it. It turns into a pile of geeks talking geek and part post-mortem, part decompressing from the week and they’ve actually had some absolutely mint ideas rising out of deformalising the dev pileup.


Late on a Friday? Yeah, no.


nah yeah, mate. You spend the arse end of your friday workday drinking beer and talking shit in an informal setting and then fuck off early

Flaky_Fish69 avatar

the problem is, then i a can't leave at lunch if my shit's done. And lets be honest, nobody was doing shit on friday anyhow...


Zoom meeting. Everyone works remote

Flaky_Fish69 avatar

there you go...forgetting service and manufacturing sectors... and everybody else who simply can't work remote because the nature of the job precludes it.


…I’m literally talking about a developer meeting here. I was very clear from the outset on that. Go find an actual valid target.


I’d rather be doing that on my own time, or something more productive with friends, thanks.


They are getting paid for it since it is during work hours, and the beer would probably be on the company as well.


Ok, so you go hold your own weekly dev meetings


Daily standups are fine, but they need to be like 10-15 minutes tops. And between 10am-1pm. Putting them at 9am sharp is just rude.


Yeah I hate this. At 9 I don’t remember where I was yesterday.


Yeah, check your email, get a bit of a plan, “hey what’s your plan, what’d you do yesterday”


Ugh. I hate being on the west coast of the US. Most office jobs start at 7 or 8 AM here.


That sucks.

I sometimes work with west coat companies and the quiet time in the morning was great. It sucks having to be on calls at 8/9PM though.

Flaky_Fish69 avatar

Heh. Not enough coffee for mondays as it is....

Nyanix, avatar

God, I hear that…plus I usually need to meet with my coworkers in India, so I’m often needing to start meetings at 6 AM. I am nooooot functional that early


I usually had to do that for Europe. Most Indian coworkers I have worked with work a later schedule so there has always been a bit of overlap. Generally the Europeans I have worked with have been German and they generally have a labor rep on the board so they can fight against messed up work schedules.


What I used to do was make notes at the end of the day. Just a couple short bullet points to say at standup and help me get back on track a little faster the next morning.


I try this but it never sticks, so I try and log everything in tickets instead.


Honestly I like your way better. Makes the ticket easier to hand off. Pocketing that for later.

wantd2B1ofthestrokes, (edited )

Ha, I could not be more the opposite. I want to be 75% done with my day by 1pm. I’d rather them be at 8am


I'm the same way. If I could start work at 5:00 a.m. and be off by noon or 1:00 p.m. I'd be happy. It's just hard to find people who want to do therapy at 5:00 a.m. 😂


They are out there, in other time zones.


Indeed, move to Alaska then do therapy exclusively for east coasters.


You know, actually I'm in Oregon, so I hadn't thought about the fact that if I did telehealth with people who lived across the country I might be able to start at 5:00.


Or Hawaii and you can do the entire US.


I’d love it if therapy hours were before and after normal work hours. On Betterhelp they are, but I gave up on it after a couple tries when I couldn’t find a good fit.


I'm allowed to set my own hours, so if it was telehealth I could theoretically do late night or morning appointments if I want to. I just haven't really thought about that. When I eventually have my own practice. I really do want to have weekend hours and evening hours, before I worked with a lot of parents and that was one of the biggest issues was when do you have time for therapy when you're chasing a toddler. Or like I remember when I would have friends who worked as bartenders, they wished that they could do therapy after they got off work but sometimes that would be two or three in the morning.


Is there some kind of rule that you can’t do any work until the stand-up?


No of course not. It’s just structurally kinda weird. Not the end of the world obviously


A few jobs back the director was having daily standups with the whole dev team for 60-90 minutes and sometimes longer.

The goal was to figure out why the project was behind schedule… yeah.

grue, (edited )

Keeping the meeting short was the whole point of them being “standups” (as opposed to “sit-downs”) in the first place!

Frankly, even 10 minutes is excessive: it means either people are talking too much or your team is too big.

I’m fucking sick and tired of cargo-cult managers adopting the trappings of agile without understanding WTF they’re for.


Ha! Yes.
For the first time, we are trying out a full scrum team in our company, with an external “scrum master” who really seems to know what he’s doing. It’s bloody amazing. Small team, the daily meeting has yet to exceed 10 minutes and is usually <5 minutes, the planning and refinement meeting keeps everyone in the loop. The rest of the time I can just be a happy code monkey :)


My stand-ups are at 10 am (11 am for most of the team), last between 3 and 15 minutes depending on how many of the 7 of us show up and how much everyone has to say, then we all go back to what we’re doing. My project manager and boss both care about the work that gets done rather than monitoring us to make sure we’re working the entire time, and we actually get reasonable (even generous) timelines for most things unless it’s something super important.

I love my job.


I don’t like them daily, it’s too much accountability to always say something, and there’s always that one person who stretches it out.

I prefer a weekly priority list and a weekly planning meeting.

Flaky_Fish69 avatar

eh. i think best practice is smallish teams get everyone together once a week for the stand up. but a supe or somebody makes the rounds daily. five minute check up 'do you need anything? get you some coffee?', kind of conversation before going to the next.

it doesn't impact the team if that one person wants to chat, but also gives people an opportunity to bring up concerns they wouldn't normally bring up in a group.

largish teams need to be broken into smallish teams.

JBloodthorn avatar

I was doing daily technical meetups in the morning so that my team in India and the more local members could stay in sync and ask each other questions. Usually 10 minutes, but occasionally an hour or more when we had to go way out into the weeds.


if i stood up on a video-conference everyone will see my underpants.


Do you mean standups where you are actually standing up? Many places I’ve worked have called a daily meeting a “stand-up” but it has been an hour-long sit-down meeting.

Then there are the actual “stand-ups” where the tall guys tower over the group, and the shorter people (typically women) are either talking into the chests of those guys, or they’re craning their necks up at painful angles.


Thats the thing… boses are basically saying that they cant do that. They cant actually measure how productive people are so they fall back on watching them like a hawk

TSG_Asmodeus, avatar

You’re overlooking that most managers don’t actually do anything, so they need desperately to justify their positions. I have a manager who has seven hours of meetings every day, five days a week. We make a fucking app. It barely changes month to month. What on earth are you spending 35 hours a week talking about?

The manager has so little to do they just micromanage everyone, and cause a massive backlog of work that doesn’t have to exist.

I always thought that Office Space was satire, but it really is like that in a lot of companies. I spent more time updating managers than doing actual work since I started this position.

LopensLeftArm, in If Biden loses in November, don’t blame voters who are angry over Gaza | Arwa Mahdawi avatar

I’ll blame each and every eligible person who didn’t show up to vote for him, regardless of what their excuse is. This isn’t the time to be playing around.


Swing state voter here checking in. I voted for Biden last time and will be voting for Trump this time. Make sure to blame me twice, thanks love.

norbert avatar

And absolutely no one believes you voted for Biden last time.


Meh, I could care less whether y’all believe it or not. I used to troll the .win forms back then because Trump supporters were utter cancer, and now somehow y'all have become even worse.

Btw, wanna quote Sartre for me? Thanks Norby, I missed you.

Blackout avatar

Now you're the cancer, congratulations! 🎉


Nah, just an impartial observe to the average internet dweller. Y’all and the .win simps are largely just mirror images of each other.

Blackout avatar

^ Mr. Original


That’s Dr. Mr. Original to you

ShepherdPie, (edited )

When is the time to be ‘playing around?’ Your phrase gets repeated every single election meaning you’re doing nothing more than reinforcing the status quo.

This is the behavior of sycophants and rivals that of the MAGA base. “Shut up, don’t criticize, and mindlessly vote for my guy, or it’s the end of the world as we know it!”

LopensLeftArm, avatar

The primary. A general election in which a fascist like Donald Trump isn’t the only other viable option.

Like it or not, we have a two party system. Either Biden’s going to be the next president, or Trump is. When it comes to the general election, if you do anything besides voting for Biden, you’re complicit in electing Trump.


If you back Biden and he loses, you’re also directly responsible for electing Trump. Another candidate would have beaten him.

LopensLeftArm, avatar

Which candidate, specifically, A) Wants to be president and is willing to run, B) Is better than Biden on the issues you mentioned, and C) Has a reasonable chance of beating Trump in the general election?

I’m dead serious, pitch me a name.


Sanders 2016. Americans still defending the system tho ¯*(ツ)*/¯

LopensLeftArm, avatar

Sanders isn’t running this election. In fact, he’s supporting Biden. He’s not a reasonable option to try to dump Biden for.

ReallyActuallyFrankenstein, (edited )

The people in these threads never have an alternative. They are drunk on righteous fury and just want their clarity of purpose to result in clarity of action. To do this, they flip the classic logical fallacy on its head and have to argue, “the means justify the ends.” Voting against Biden to them is an unassailable means, wherever the ends lead.


But you won’t blame the Biden administration for disregarding the wishes of their constituents?


Or the Democratic establishment rigging a primary in 2020, and then forgoing one in 2024, to have one of the least democratic races of all time?

If this was an election in Turkey, the US would be imposing sanctions.

FlyingSquid, avatar

Versus someone who would be even worse for Palestinians and Americans? No, I won’t blame Biden if people let Trump in over the issue of Palestine. Because it means they were fast asleep between 2016 and 2020.


Thats what fucking matters. Do you want to fucking beat Trump or not? Whats your priority here? Running Biden or beating Trump? You have to pick one.

There is a genocide going on now not later. Joe Biden has had multiple opportunities to stop the genocide he is currently supporting and has not. This isn’t a hypothetical. If Israel is allowed to continue, by April, there won’t be a Palestinian people in Gaza to consider. They’ll have been starved/ bombed to death, by Israel with the explicit support of Joe Biden.

Do you not fucking get it?

BraveSirZaphod avatar

Joe Biden has had multiple opportunities to stop the genocide he is currently supporting and has not.

So, are you claiming that if the United States stops sending some military aid to Israel, Netanyahu will be unable to continue military operations in Gaza? Because if so, you are sorely mistaken. Israel's military is perfectly self-sufficient, and if you think they particularly care about some UN resolutions, you need to talk to some Israelis.

American support in this is not a significant factor in the outcome. Joe Biden could not unilaterally stop Israeli operations in Gaza unless he declared war on Israel and deployed troops, and I can assure you that isn't going to be happening. Not to mention, China, Russia, India, Europe, and all of South America also exist. Americans do not unilaterally decide everything that happens or doesn't happen in the world. We're not that important.


Do you realize that you’re arguing against yourself here? Claiming that “it wouldn’t make a difference whether the US supported Israel or not,” makes it look so much fucking worse that Biden is refusing to drop support for this genocide. This is incredibly tone deaf.


The United States was the sole veto of a ceasefire 20 days ago.

American support in this is not a significant factor in the outcome.

If it wasn’t for US support of Israel, Israel would be north Egypt.

BraveSirZaphod avatar

And you think that, if only the US hadn't vetoed it, Russia and China would have invaded Israel to stop it?

FlyingSquid, avatar

Considering how Egypt treats Palestinians, one would think that would be something you wouldn’t want.

It’s okay to oppress Palestinians as long as you don’t kill them? Apartheid is a good thing?…/no-recognition-no-rights-palestinia…

FlyingSquid, avatar

There’s another genocide going on now in the U.S. that people like you don’t seem to care about and which Trump will absolutely make far worse.…

Because the genocide of queer people in the U.S. apparently is far less important and if Trump gets into office, has already planned and made clear that it will be far worse.

But who cares about queer people in America, am I right? Just let them die.


So we’re just completely changing the subject?

Just seriously ask yourself if you want Trump to be president again. If the answer to this is “No”, the look at the data and see how Joe Biden is doing. He’s doing fucking horribly. He’s losing this election and we haven’t even had the convention yet. His support is very low and is dropping. If you insist on proceeding with Biden as candidate, you are insisting on a losing proposition.

If you are concerned about queer rights, you better figure out a better option than Biden, because by the numbers, he’s not going to win in November.


Bro, scope my comment history or his this is his go to

FlyingSquid, avatar

Pointing out that you are ignoring a genocide in the U.S. that Trump and his people want to make worse is not changing the subject. It’s pointing out that you’re ignoring a genocide. Which you are.

But please tell me who I should vote for to stop that genocide. Give the name of the candidate that would get enough votes to beat Trump.

Because if you wanted someone other than Biden, you shouldn’t have waited until after the primaries started.

But go ahead- give me a name.


Millions of Palestinians are facing starvation right now. They will be dying en-masse before the end of March if something doesn’t change. Joe Biden is supporting this. He just lost There is no equivalence happening within the borders of the United States, except maybe our prison system. Yes the Republicans are setting the ground work for a genocide of queer people in this country. We have to stop them. Insisting that we support a candidate who is clearly losing the election is no way to do this. We can’t afford to lose this election and insisting that Biden be the nominee is insisting we lose this election.

Uncommitted just won two delegates in Michigan. Biden will not win this election unless he massively shifts his position on Gaza.

FlyingSquid, avatar

You haven’t given me a name.

People like you never give me a name.

If we have to stop them, who should I vote for instead of Biden?


You haven’t given me a name.

People like you never give me a name.

What are you on about? Stop changing the point of the conversation.No one is personally attacking you. We’re talking about what its going to take to keep Trump out of office in 2024, and we disagree about some key points. Why are you making this about you? How narcissist are you? Its creepy and weird. Stick to the points of the conversation please.

like you

And what is that? An advocate for peace and justice? Someone who wants to not have Trump in 2024, no matter what (even if that means Biden isn’t the nominee)? What assumptions are you making?

FlyingSquid, avatar

I haven’t changed the conversation at all and never said you are attacking me.

Yet again, who should I vote for? Why can’t you tell me? All you’re telling me is not Biden. Fine. So who?

stoneparchment, avatar

hey I see and appreciate you, I’m also trans, I literally research justice initiatives for LGBTQ+ and specifically trans* individuals in the USA

but my friend, can we please not compare what’s happening to us to what is happening to Palestinians? This makes us look like ignorant assholes

Trans people might be next in line for literal genocide, but right now we’re experiencing ideological violence more than physical violence

In fact, when we closely examine violence against trans people, the rates of murder and physical violence are only elevated for trans individuals who are poor and people of color. White, middle class trans people are actually less likely to experience physical violence than non-trans poor POCs. That could change depending on political winds, but…

Right now, people in Palestine are experiencing something horrific and unprecedented that eclipses trans suffering in the USA. I am right there with you, afraid of the march of fascism, afraid of what another Trump presidency might bring for our community. But I am not getting airstriked, starved, and war crimed right now. My children are not being shot in the head. I can write about these issues online and in my professional life and not get hung for it. It’s just not the same.

FlyingSquid, (edited ) avatar

No. It’s not the same. But it is still genocide. As the link shows, it fits that definition. And the person is telling me that I shouldn’t do something to stop that genocide because there’s another genocide that neither Trump nor Biden is going to do anything to stop and both will make worse. It seems to me that Americans should work on stopping the genocide that is happening in our own country with our vote rather than voting for some third party in protest or sitting at home when that has never worked.


You’re not stopping either genocide if you elect the same guy who is currently doing nothing (and is actually actively making them worse) about either of these things. That’s pure cognitive dissonance.

FlyingSquid, avatar

Fine. Who should I vote for that has a chance of winning?


It sounds like you’ve already decided that you want to support genocide in both the US and Palestine, so clearly you should pick Biden or Trump because they’ll both deliver on that.

FlyingSquid, avatar

Maybe there’s a better choice. Maybe you know that better choice. Can you tell me who that better choice with a relatively good chance of winning is so I can vote for them?

stoneparchment, avatar

Yeah, you’re objectively correct for encouraging people to vote for Biden instead of sit at home in November. Just please, please, please… I deal with offline average joes all the time. If we make one to one comparisons of our situation with that of Palestinians, most people will be disgusted and think we’re incredibly off base.

We are in agreement across the board. I just want to caution you to be mindful of the comparison, is all.


so biden is currently presiding over and doing nothing to stop two genocides? and you want to reward that with an unconditional vote of support, so that next time democrats are in office, they'll know that people don't care?

FlyingSquid, avatar

Reward? No. I want to stop the one who will make it worse.

And if you can tell me who I should vote for to stop Trump that isn’t Biden, a person that is more likely to get more electoral college votes than Biden will against Trump, please name the person.


biden's only selling point at the moment is that he isn't trump, so with 6 months of campaigning and biden's endorsement you could probably sell any democrat

me giving you a name now is almost entirely pointless given that you're just going to turn around and say that because they haven't already done that campaigning you can't imagine them being popular

Reward? No. I want to stop the one who will make it worse.

do you or do you not acknowledge that by voting biden you're sending a message to the dnc that their voter base doesn't care about genocide?

FlyingSquid, avatar

I will answer that question after I am told who I should vote for that will stop Trump from getting into office. Because I haven’t been given a name yet despite asking multiple times.


You've literally asked me once, friend, and I explained why me giving you a name wouldn't make any sense.

I fully expect that in the hypothetical world where the DNC decides it doesn't want to lose this election and decides to swap out Biden with somebody else that my gut reaction will be that they're shit, but that's because they haven't done any campaigning yet.

FlyingSquid, avatar

If there’s no one to vote for that has a chance of beating Trump other than Biden, I guess I’ll vote for Biden.


I know for the sake of pride you aren't going to openly acknowledge this, given how pointedly you're refusing to engage with anything I'm saying, but at least admit it to yourself: voting for Biden is sending a signal that the democrats can allow as much genocide as they want so long as they can convince you the other side will be worse.

If you think that's worth the trade-off, fine, but don't pretend that that isn't the trade-off you're making.

FlyingSquid, avatar

The trade-off is stopping Trump from continuing the genocide in the U.S. that he and his Republican friends are already a part of and which my daughter would be a victim of.

So yeah, saving my daughter’s life is sure as hell worth the trade-off.

And I’m pretty amused that you think it sends that message after the primaries. Because the time to challenge Biden was before the primaries.

Did you do anything about that? Did you canvas for any primary rival of Biden’s?

Because if I’m sending a signal to the Democrats that “as much genocide as they want” is okay… unless you’ve been canvassing for Dean Phillips or Marianne Willaimson, I think you have been too.


If the democrats win this election while running a candidate that's twiddling his thumbs over multiple genocides, then the next time they're presiding over one, they're going to have solid data that tells them that they don't have to bother themselves about it because their voter base will elect them anyway.

It's really that simple.

FlyingSquid, avatar

Your lack of answering my question is actually an answer.

You did nothing about Biden being the frontrunner. You did no canvassing. Yet somehow you bear no responsibility in your criticism.


Similarly your lack of engaging with the point I keep repeating to you past an unsubstantiated "no" is also an answer.

Yet somehow you bear no responsibility in your criticism.

This is just whataboutism. I could be the guiltiest person on the planet, and that wouldn't change the fact that electing Biden while he's failing to stop three (?) genocides is a clear signal to the DNC that the amount of genocide happening on their watch has little to do with their eventual success or failure.

FlyingSquid, avatar

And yet, the time to do something about that has still passed and you still did nothing about it when you had the time.

I know you want to avoid all culpability and put it on me, but sorry. I’m putting my child first. And that means stopping Trump no matter who the Democrats choose.

I’m not a Democrat anyway.

Primarily0617, (edited )

I know you want to avoid all culpability and put it on me

"culpability" seems a lot more important to you than it does to me

and again, let's presume i'm the worst person in the world and i'm guilty : it doesn't change anything about what i've said

and you know it doesn't matter if you're a registered democrat, right? your vote still shows up in the tally just the same

FlyingSquid, (edited ) avatar

Of course it matters if I’m a Democrat. I don’t care about teaching them a lesson. All I care about is saving my daughter’s life.

The fact that you seem to think that voting to stop Trump in order to save my daughter’s life is a moral failing on my part sincerely makes me hope you don’t have any kids.

Sorry, my daughter’s life is the most important thing in the world to me and I would immediately sacrifice my own life to save hers. If you have children and you wouldn’t do the same, I hope someone calls CPS on you.

The funny thing is, you keep saying things like this- “If the democrats win this election while running a candidate that’s twiddling his thumbs over multiple genocides, then the next time they’re presiding over one, they’re going to have solid data that tells them that they don’t have to bother themselves about it because their voter base will elect them anyway.”

And yet you have clearly not done a single thing about it except berate people on the internet. You have given zero solutions. You obviously did not help to primary him.

Frankly, I’m tired of an armchair quarterback telling me that I’m in favor of genocide because I’m trying to save my daughter’s life. The fucking gall you have.

Primarily0617, (edited )

A lot of words there to tilt at a strawman.

The inescapable fact is that you're completely unable to provide any justification as to why re-electing Biden while he's failing/not bothering to stop a genocide doesn't signal support from the democratic voter base. (No you don't have to be a registered democrat to count as "part of their voter base", and I don't know why you would think otherwise.)

As I said several comments ago:

If you think that's worth the trade-off, fine, but don't pretend that that isn't the trade-off you're making.

Your one response has been to attempt to put some kind of imaginary guilt on my head, which as I've repeatedly pointed out, changes absolutely nothing about what I've said.


telling me that I’m in favor of genocide

You know full well that at no point have I ever told you you support genocide, but you are inescapably voting in support of it by voting for Biden.

FlyingSquid, avatar

You still don’t get that I don’t give a shit about the Democratic voter base or what re-electing Biden tells them. All I care about is saving my daughter’s life. That’s it.

And you don’t have to tell me that I’m in favor of genocide. You’ve been implying it the entire time.


But who cares about queer people in America, am I right? Just let them die.

Isn’t that exactly what you’re arguing for? The guy currently in office, who you want to re-elect, is the one presiding over both of these genocides. How the hell does re-electing him make things any better?

FlyingSquid, avatar

Putting Trump in office will make it worse.

So who should I vote for to stop that?

ShepherdPie, (edited )

How exactly does genocide get worse? Are they going to start reanimating the corpses of these dead men, women, and children and then kill them a second time?

FlyingSquid, avatar

Please tell me who you feel I should vote for that has a good chance of winning.


Do you (or anyone who thinks not voting for Biden is a smart thing) think that Trump would do anything differently? Because those are the two choices. If you don’t vote for Biden then you are either voting for Trump or helping Trump by taking away votes from Biden… unless you live in a blue or red state where your vote doesn’t matter anyway.

I do blame Biden for how he is handling this situation. However, I am smart enough to understand that there is more than one situation that a president has to handle while in office. For the most part, Biden has honored the wishes of me as a constituent. If the only thing you care about in life is how the President of the US handles a conflict on the other side of the world, as opposed to the US economy, civil rights in the US, US Supreme Court justices, US circuit court judges, environmental policy in the US, etc., then that is your right as a voter. I hate what is going on over in Gaza (and the region in general), but I also care about is going on in the country I live in.

iAmTheTot avatar

If you don’t vote for Biden then you are either voting for Trump or helping Trump

I'm so tired of this rhetoric. Let people vote for who they believe in without shaming them. Americans should not be strong armed into voting for a candidate they don't actually want.


If you are eligible to vote, and don't, that is the same as a vote for the winner - whoever that is.

iAmTheTot avatar

No, it's not. For the record, I'm a huge advocate of voting. I think everyone should vote for the candidate they believe in.

BraveSirZaphod avatar

If you're driving in a bus with 40 people voting on where to go, with 14 wanting to drive to a buffet, 16 wanting to drive off a cliff, and 15 saying that they don't care enough to vote but they don't really want to go to the buffet because they're not hungry, yes, I am going to judge the 15 people who are content being driven off a cliff.


I am going to judge the 15 people who are content being driven off a cliff.

But you’ll happily sit on the bus, never questioning why you’re helping to maintain a system that results in such terrible options, and then blame others when that system you help to maintain comes back to bite you in the face.

iAmTheTot avatar

You can criticize the fact that they didn't vote, I literally just said that I think everyone should vote. But that's not the same as saying they did vote for the winner. If you're mad that the bus is driven off a cliff, then be upset with the people that did vote for it.

This is excusing that I personally think your analogy is an oversimplification.

BraveSirZaphod avatar

Both instances are willful action that contributes to direct harm to yourself and others.

No, in the context of a voting system, it is not literally a vote for the other option. I don't think your friends tumbling off the cliff will really care much about the distinction that serves no purpose other than personal moral satisfaction.

iAmTheTot avatar

I trust my friends to distinguish between the people who voted for the cliff and those who, you know, didn't vote for that.

Perfide, (edited )

And before anyone judges this analogy because one option is objectively good while the other is objectively bad: Everyone is guaranteed to get food poisoning at the buffet. Now both options are objectively bad, but I’m still judging the people content with going over the cliff.

tal, (edited ) avatar

Nah, only half as strong.

Candidate A and Candidate B.

Vote for A: Candidate A has 1 vote

Vote for B: Candidate B has 1 vote

Vote for neither: 0 vote for either. Midway between the two outcomes.

That being said, voting for neither doesn’t make much sense for anyone in terms of outcome. If you prefer one outcome, it doesn’t make much sense to only use half of the strength of your vote to support that outcome.

Not voting makes more sense if you’re making the argument that the time spent voting isn’t worth the return you get.

rudyharrelson avatar

Let people vote for who they believe in without shaming them.

Voting is like freedom of speech. Everyone is free to vote for whoever they want, but they aren't immune from criticism for how they vote. If someone votes for a guy who says he'll "be a dictator on day one" and encourage Russia to "do whatever the hell they want", I'm gonna shame that person for supporting such an insupportable candidate who espouses such insane ideas.


If Biden is polling to lose and Trump ends up winning, you’re also supporting Trump by backing a losing candidate and handing the election over to Trump.

iAmTheTot, (edited )
iAmTheTot avatar

To be clear, I was directly responding to someone who was claiming that not voting for Biden is like voting for Trump. I hate that rhetoric and it's not true. If you want to blame someone for Trump winning, you blame the people that voted for him.

rudyharrelson avatar

Sure, but you also said not to shame people for how they vote. I responded specifically to that statement and not the others because I understand wanting to vote for a candidate you actually want in office.

Unfortunately, strategic voting has to occur in order for things to get better in the USA. Until we massively overhaul the voting system, voters need to understand that you either vote for the lesser of two evils, or are (albeit passively) contributing to the greater of two evils' ascent to power.

Even far-left progressives like Bernie Sanders or Noam Chomsky were like, "Dude, you gotta vote for the Democratic candidate or else these crazy far-right candidates are gonna push the country further to the right. At least if the Democratic candidate wins we either stay where we are, or maybe get to move a bit further left during their tenure."

It's a deeply flawed system, but in the general election, it's a simple calculus. There's nothing Biden could do to lose my vote in November because I owe it to our society (and our allies worldwide) to prevent another Trump term.

iAmTheTot avatar

I said that as a direct response to someone saying not voting for Biden is like voting for Trump. I wasn't trying to make some general statement. I don't know how else to say that.

If you want to judge a Trump voter for voting for Trump, judge them on that merit. Don't judge someone that didn't vote for Trump if Trump wins, that's bullshit.


Sure, but what I’d say is I’ll still say in this fricken 2 party system, you also have to justify not going for the lesser of two evils, however you define that. And if your position is “I want someone to stop Israel continuing their war on Hamas”, you also have to contend with the idea that neither option is likely to do what you want. This just reads to me like throwing a fit that mommy brought you peas instead of beans with your dinner and saying you want daddy, when he’s not bringing any food at all.

iAmTheTot avatar

I don't have to justify not voting for the lesser evil when I can vote for an option that is, in my opinion of course, not evil at all. I encourage every American to vote, and vote for who you actually want to be the President, not just against who you don't want.


At first, I thought you weren’t American and weren’t aware of how the system works.

I’m not American, but I do know that if you live somewhere where your vote matters, you would improving Trump’s odds of winning.

If your riding already has a victor predetermined, then sure, vote for whomever you want. But if you’re in a swing state or anything like that, then not voting for Biden means helping Trump win.

You can hate how it works all you want, but it won’t change the reality of the situation.

iAmTheTot avatar

then not voting for Biden means helping Trump win.

No, it doesn't, and loops right back around to the rhetoric that started my whole comment chain here.

A vote for Trump helps Trump win. If Trump got no votes, Trump would not win. The responsibility for electing Trump rests squarely on the shoulders of those who voted for Trump. No one else.


Okay but we’re in a 2 party system. It sucks, but it is what it is. It’s either Biden or Trump winning no matter how you feel on the matter.

Both of them support Israel, one with slowly(very slowly, yes) waning support and the other essentially saying he’d gladly help turn Palestine into rubble.

Domestically, Biden has been doing pretty good. The rail strike was a fiasco but besides that he’s mostly been a small step forward from Obama.

Meanwhile, Trump is Trump. His first term was a complete disaster for the country, and now he’s outright saying he’ll be a dictator rounding up the “enemy”, he’s saying he won’t defend our allies from Russia, he’s well and truly dementia-addled now(Mercedes? oof), etc…

Voting for Trump is far worse obviously, but not voting against him still makes it more likely he wins. Just as you have the freedom to make that decision, I have the freedom to judge the shit out of you for it.