• Whatsit_Tooya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Was coming here specifically to say credit scores. Oh what’s that you paid off your student loans? Here have a big credit hit as a treat. Oh you’re using your credit? Here have a credit hit even tho you’ve never missed a payment. How dare you use the credit you have??

      • dingus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Why would paying off your student loans give you a credit hit?

        Edit: lol who is downvoting this I legitimately didn’t know the answer

        • yawn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Credit scores are in part based on the oldest line of available credit, which for most people are their student loans. Pay those off, your oldest line of credit becomes something more recent, and your score goes down as a result

        • Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Length of credit and credit utilization, you get points* for the length that each account has been open, so when you pay off your loan the account is closed and no longer counts. Also as you get to the end of the repayment it shows as a $30k account that you owe les than $10k on, you get points for using less than half or less than a third of the credit available to you.

          *You don’t actually get points, that would be too easy to understand, you get factors that affect a complex equation in your favor.

          • tko@tkohhh.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Loans are different from lines of credit… loans don’t have an “available credit” associated with them. The reason your score might go down when you pay off student loan is because you’re reducing the number of open accounts you have, and also possibly reducing the diversity of accounts (lines of credit vs. installment loans).

            Disclaimer: I’m not saying this is a good system, just explaining how it works.

        • Neshura@bookwormstory.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          In Germany taking out a small loan even tho you don’t need it can help massively boost your credit score.

          That only works because here no credit history is worse than a bad credit history.

        • Whatsit_Tooya@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s more the case that if you use more than 20% it is seen as negative. 0-10% is excellent, 10-20% is good, and it gets worse from there. Every year I request a credit increase despite my spending staying the same simply because it makes my utilization go down. But it’s dumb. I don’t need the extra credit. I’ll never use it. But have to have it to max my score.

      • Even better if you use Experian: give us access to all your spending data or else you’ll never see a score increase again (source: been dealing with this for three years while Equifax continues to go up. I feel like they’re doing something illegal, but they probably already were and nobody cares.)

    • s20@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with everything but voting. Not because we ever have great options, but because sometimes there are terrifyingly bad ones, and while option A might not be at all good, option B is so much worse.

      That’s why it’s called “the lesser of two evils.”

      • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The problem is that they aren’t two evils, they’re two parts of the same evil machine whose functions are mutually dependent and mutally reinforcing

        “The United States is also a one-party state, but in typical American extravagance, they have two of them.” -Julius Nyerere, first president of Tanzania

        • s20@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You don’t seem to know what “lesser of two evils” means.

          It doesn’t mean “that guy’s bad, so the less evil guy is good, actually, and totally deserves our support!”

          It means “no matter which one of these assholes wins, I’m fucked, but if I’m lucky the one guy will use lube.”

          I can’t do a damn thing about the two party system. That ship sailed before I was born, and nothing I do as an individual can change it. In fact, I can’t see a solution short of possibly violent revolution. If that happens before I’m to old and feeble to help, great. Other wise, I’m fucked no matter who I pick, so I’m sure as shit going to pick the one who just wants to fuck me and not fuck me plus kill my trans neighbor.

          I’m sick and tired of being called stupid, gullible, or uninformed just because I can actually see how completely fucked we are. Your shit is great for people who still have hope. My shit is just trying to survive without the Gestapo coming for my neighbors.

          So come get me for the revolution. In the meantime, stop calling me stupid for being depressed and practical.

          Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to copy and paste this in reply to some other lemming that thinks I’m a gullible moron instead.

          • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You don’t seem to know what “lesser of two evils” means.

            Yes, they do, they were trying to explain to you that it’s a scam and only serves to move the nation to the right. Everybody understands “lesser of two evils” we’re all browbeaten with it our entire lives.

            • s20@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Edit: Sorry, wrong starting sentence. I meant to say:

              Clearly not browbeaten enough.

              Lesser of two evils means we’re fucked either way, but one way slightly less. It means there are not good choices, just less bad ones. If you sat through the Trump presidency and still think there’s no difference, then I don’t know what the fuck to tell you. If you can’t look at how fucked trans people are in Florida and other red states right now and still say there’s no difference, then go fuck yourself.

              They’re both shit, but one of wants to fucking murder my friends. There’s a fucking difference. And if I sound mad, it’s because people saying shit like this vote dumbass third parties that can’t possibly win, or sit out an election because of protests. People are fucking dead because of this dumbass “there’s no difference” bullshit.

              You wanna tear down the system and stat over? Fine, great, get going. I’ll even help if it looks like you might have a prayer. But right now, there is no hope. There’s just mitigation of harm. Your idealism gets people killed.

              • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s amazing that despite knowing everybody, everywhere, already knows what “lesser of two evils” means, you still resort to just belaboring the point pedantically to repeat what everybody already knows. I’m sure you think you’re very clever, but your tactics suggest you find basic knowledge to be esoteric and worth repeating over and over.

                • s20@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I tend to repeat myself whenit appears that my audience isn’t listening. You’re the third person who seemed to think that “lesser of two evils” meant “if one guy’s bad, the other guys good.” People in this thread keep acting like I’m happy with the Democratic party or something.

                  So, since it seemed like you didn’t understand what I’d said, I repeated myself. I’m pedantic for the same reason: you’re either ignoring what I’m saying or don’t understand it. Either way, I apparently have to spell it out.

                  Nice use of the word “esoteric”. Did you find that in the word a day calendar this morning? It doesn’t really apply here, though, because nothing I’ve said is esoteric. It’s not arcane, obscure, or in any way difficult to understand. And I don’t think it is.

                  I just think you’re either being intentionally obtuse to rile me up, or you really don’t get what I’m saying.

                  It’s all good, though, dude. I’m tired. I’m just so fucking tired. I’ve been watching this shit unfold for close to five decades, sometimes while getting shot at, and I’m tired.

                  I’m mad, but I fucking give up. My position - despair - isn’t worth fighting for and I don’t know why I briefly thought it was. I fucking surrender.

                  Let me know how that revolution you guys are never going to have goes.

                  • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I tend to repeat myself whenit appears that my audience isn’t listening. You’re the third person who seemed to think that “lesser of two evils” meant “if one guy’s bad, the other guys good.” People in this thread keep acting like I’m happy with the Democratic party or something.

                    The irony here is you’re the one who seems to not be reading or comprehending us. Nobody’s saying you think one guy’s good, we’re saying voting for a marginally slower fascist is a stupid thing to give a shit about because it doesn’t even produce results.

                    So, since it seemed like you didn’t understand what I’d said, I repeated myself. I’m pedantic for the same reason: you’re either ignoring what I’m saying or don’t understand it. Either way, I apparently have to spell it out.

                    What you are saying is said by millions of people, you’re neither clever nor cutting new ground here. We all understand it, and we think it’s wrong. You might be exposing your intellectual shortcomings here that you can’t figure that out.

                    Nice use of the word “esoteric”. Did you find that in the word a day calendar this morning? It doesn’t really apply here, though, because nothing I’ve said is esoteric. It’s not arcane, obscure, or in any way difficult to understand. And I don’t think it is.

                    Now I’m really starting to think you’re a dumb guy deeply invested in pretending to be smart. Esoteric isn’t an unusual, special word - read a fuckin book.

                    I just think you’re either being intentionally obtuse to rile me up, or you really don’t get what I’m saying.

                    I disagree with you. Fundamentally. Grapple with the disagreement instead of trying to fake being high-minded or just repeating shit children understand.

                    Let me know how that revolution you guys are never going to have goes.

                    Nobody’s going to update a reactionary who can’t even allow themselves to directly consider arguments against their atrophied, ignorant worldview.

              • cubedsteaks@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Lesser of two evils means we’re fucked either way, but one way slightly less

                So you are just okay with these incredibly low standards. Sorry, but I’m not and we could be doing things differently instead of this “lesser of two evils” garbage.

                • s20@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Who says I’m okay with it?

                  I hate it.

                  I just can’t see any way to fix it.

                  • cubedsteaks@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    There are definitely ways to fix it but you keep posting about how you don’t agree with it, and you think you should just settle for the lesser of two evils… if you’re so against it, why even vote?

                    why tell others to vote? Fear mongering that the guy you’re afraid of is gonna win if you don’t vote cause uh oh then only evil people are left voting??

                    the more we don’t participate in this bullshit, the quicker we can get rid of it. Unfortunately, people like you just settle for what you have. Instead of pushing for something better. By just settling for this shit, you hold everyone else back from real change.

      • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Under the policies of the greater evil, billions will die due to climate change because corporate profits are more important than human lives to them. Under the policies of the lesser evil, billions will die due to climate change because corporate profits are more important than human lives to them.

        It makes no difference, both parties should be opposed and true change can only come through revolution and the abolition of the capitalist class.

        • s20@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Under the policies of the lesser evil, billions will die as you say.

          Under the policies and rhetoric of the greater evil, a woman just got brutally murdered in California for the crime of hanging a fucking flag outside her shop.

          My point, as I have been trying in vain to make this whole time (but apparently don’t have the writing ability to convey) is that if you’re fucked no matter what you do, then do the thing that hurts your friends less.

          If you have some other course of action that can lead to actual change, then tell me. If you have some other course of action that will help my trans friends today, then tell me. Because billions dying over the next century doesn’t mean much to people who get shot, stabbed, or beaten to death today.

          I want to believe there’s a better way, though, so explain it to me.

          • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The action that leads to security and a better life for yourself and those around you is to organize your community along whatever lines are possible. Unionize with your coworkers, form a tenant’s union with your neighbors, physically get out in the street and provide security for LGBT+ events and spaces. Build up parallel structures so that when the government fails, you and those you care about will still have access to food and water, a place to live, and security. Join a political organization that’s active and actually does things in your area (one of the communist parties, DSA, or even just Food not Bombs) and do all you can to prepare for a revolution that might never come.

            I’ll close this by saying that I’ve been harsh on voting and the electoral system in general during this conversation, and probably too hostile in tone towards you. I apologize for that, because it’s sometimes hard to tell when someone is actually acting in good faith, this being the internet and all. Voting isn’t something I think is particularly useful, but if you vote for the democrats because they’re less openly fascistic, that’s up to you. The key is to not let your political activity start and end at voting, because direct action in the real world is by far the best way to achieve positive change. I wish you and yours the best in surviving the collapsing fascist hellhole we find ourselves in.

            spoilered giant emoji

            rat-salute

        • s20@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree with everything but the “it makes no difference” part. Thinking it makes no difference is a privilege a whole shit ton of people can’t afford.

          They’re both horrible. Capitalism sucks. But to say there’s no difference? That’s just delusional. You’re missing the trees for the forest.

          Until that “true change” you’re talking about happens, I’m not willing to sit by and let women, immigrants, minorities, and LGBTQIA+ people get fucked over even worse than I am. And fuck you if you are.

          • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            Roe V Wade was repealed under Biden. The concentration camps at the border are still open. In response to the mass murder of black people by cops, Biden gave more money to the cops. The extermination of trans people is continuing apace at the state level and the dems are doing nothing to stop it. This is all to say nothing about foreign policy, where the US is still complicit with killing thousands if not millions since 2020 through sanctions and facilitating genocide in Yemen. Or lifting all COVID restrictions despite the massive danger still posed.

            There is a rhetorical difference between the two parties, but there isn’t much evidence of a material difference.

            • s20@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Okay.

              What word did I say that made you think I’m happy with the Democrats? That I actually support them rather than hate them just marginally less than the fascists in the other party?

              It’s all fucked. And the Supreme Court was stacked by the last administration, so you’re arguing against yourself buddy.

              • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                What word did I say that made you think I’m happy with the Democrats?

                I never said you were. I was addressing the claim that they’re a lesser evil, which I’m not convinced by.

                It’s all fucked.

                Agreed!

                And the Supreme Court was stacked by the last administration

                Largely irrelevant. Biden could stack the court, or just tell them to fuck off since they have no real power, or codified Roe into law when the dems controlled congress. There are excuses for why they couldn’t do any of those things, sure (not least of which that Biden opposes abortion rights himself because he’s a fucking monster). But all of them show that they’re fundamentally unserious in fighting back against the fascists. I’m not going to vote for von Hindenburg 2.

          • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Until that “true change” you’re talking about happens, I’m not willing to sit by and let women, immigrants, minorities, and LGBTQIA+ people get fucked over even worse than I am. And fuck you if you are.

            Did you vote for Biden? So you voted and still got roe v wade overturned. You voted and Biden has continued the staggering majority of Trump’s inhumane border policies. You voted, and we’re one well-timed court case away from the SC overturning gay marriage. Congratulations, the better guy won and all the same shit happened.

            • s20@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              you voted and still got roe v wade overturned.

              Roe v Wade got overturned by a Supreme Court that was stacked by the Republicans during the previous administration you absolute waste. You’re literally arguing against your own point.

              And again: what fucking part of any fucking word I’ve typed makes you think I’m happy with the Biden administration.

              Oh, wait! You’re not actually reading anything I’m saying! You’re just shifting goalposts and regurgitating talking points! Holy fuck, it’s like talking to a communist version of my mother.

              Don’t talk to me unless you actually know something. Take your useless idealism elsewhere.

              • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Roe v Wade got overturned by a Supreme Court that was stacked by the Republicans during the previous administration you absolute waste. You’re literally arguing against your own point.

                And what is your vote doing to stop that? Anything at all?

                Oh, wait! You’re not actually reading anything I’m saying! You’re just shifting goalposts and regurgitating talking points! Holy fuck, it’s like talking to a communist version of my mother.

                I’m reading what you’re saying, it’s just so dumb and trite it might as well be embroidered on a tea cozy

                • s20@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m reading what you’re saying, it’s just so dumb and trite it might as well be embroidered on a tea cozy

                  The fact that I feel the same way about you probably indicates that this is a pointless waste of time on all sides.

                  And what is your vote doing to stop that? Anything at all?

                  In the Biden election? Nothing. Roe was done for as soon as Trump won. It was on life support, but people refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils pulled the plug.

                  I’m tired dude. I’m just so fucking tired.

                  Do what you want. You’re not gonna accomplish any more than I am so I’m not sure why I cared enough to get worked up. We’re all fucked no matter what. Do your little protest vote or whatever the fuck. I’m sure it’s gonna do so fucking much.

                  • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Roe was done for as soon as Trump won.

                    Why did Trump win? Did it have anything to do with the Clinton campaign choosing a pied pipe strategy where they boosted everything Trump did in the primary and ignored all the less fascist candidates? Do you suppose that continuing to use that tactic is good? The Democrats continue to use their donations to amplify the furthest right candidates in races, and they do not have anywhere near a 100% success rate in defeating those fascists they intentionally amplify. To make the point, money given to the DNC is, in some small proportion, money given to the RNC because the DNC would prefer to amplify worst case scenarios to improve their chances instead of offering GOOD CANDIDATES to entice voters. Supporting that is supporting the rightward slide of everything.

                    It was on life support, but people refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils pulled the plug.

                    That’s one way to see it - the same way the DNC paid pundits and managers see it, since it validates them. Another way to see it is, the Democrats steadfastly refuse to offer a better alternative.

                    Do your little protest vote or whatever the fuck. I’m sure it’s gonna do so fucking much.

                    You know that voting for Biden resulted in a worse world, and here you are sneering at anyone who thinks that was a waste.

                    edit: let’s address Obama, too - he had a fucking SC appointment, and instead of doing anything serious to seat a good candidate, he fucking punted on the assumption - the incredibly stupid assumption - that Clinton would win. Obama is why Roe is gone. So your vote for Obama was also a vote for letting Republicans pick a SC candidate. Can’t you connect the dots? It doesn’t matter how hard you vote for Democrats. They will always let the Republicans win, because they’re both paid by the same masters.

                    You’re not gonna accomplish any more than I am so I’m not sure why I cared enough to get worked up

                    one more edit: the distinction is you keep repeating shit everybody knows, whereas I (and other leftists) are trying to explain you to a new concept. It’s clear you’re not listening, but I’ll keep trying until you give up.

                • ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Lmao I can’t wait until you and your comrades try to start the revolution, shit is going to be hilarious 🤣

                  Also why tf does everyone on hexbear put their pronouns in their username on a site that emphasizes anonymous interactions. No one cares about what you like to be called.

        • s20@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You don’t seem to know what “lesser of two evils” means.

          It doesn’t mean “that guy’s bad, so the less evil guy is good, actually, and totally deserves our support!”

          It means “no matter which one of these assholes wins, I’m fucked, but if I’m lucky the one guy will use lube.”

          I can’t do a damn thing about the two party system. That ship sailed before I was born, and nothing I do as an individual can change it. In fact, I can’t see a solution short of possibly violent revolution. If that happens before I’m to old and feeble to help, great. Other wise, I’m fucked no matter who I pick, so I’m sure as shit going to pick the one who just wants to fuck me and not fuck me plus kill my trans neighbor.

          I’m sick and tired of being called stupid, gullible, or uninformed just because I can actually see how completely fucked we are. Your shit is great for people who still have hope. My shit is just trying to survive without the Gestapo coming for my neighbors.

          So come get me for the revolution. In the meantime, stop calling me stupid for being depressed and practical.

          Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to copy and paste this in reply to some other lemming that thinks I’m a gullible moron instead.

            • s20@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ugh. I’m not pro establishment. People who are pro establishment think it works. People who are pro establishment have hope

              Where the fuck did you get that out of what I wrote? Do I sound hopeful? Or like I think the system in any way works?

              Or is that just your canned response when someone disagrees with you and you can’t think of a decent comeback?

              Is that what you kids call a “cope”? It sounds like a “cope”. My generation just calls it “What the fuck are you even talking about?”

                • s20@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  How. How am I doing that? I’m too tires to fight you, I’m just looking for information at this point.

                  • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Any legitimate vote is defacto consent for the system. The biggest stand you can take in a voting booth is spoiling your ballot with obscenities. It is abundantly clear that “harm minimization” doesnt work. Voting for a lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil.

          • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The two Party system will only go of you get rid of the “winner takes all” system.

          • cubedsteaks@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            no matter which one of these assholes wins, I’m fucked, but if I’m lucky the one guy will use lube

            this is some scary logic if you think about it. Imagine you are a person, who doesn’t want to get fucked. Two guys are about to fuck you, even though you don’t want it, and you get the option to choose which guys fucks you even though you don’t want to get fucked?

            oh but the one guy is gonna use lube. To fuck you. The person who doesn’t want to be fucked.

            that’s insane.

      • BilboBallbins@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If we want better options we can vote for third party candidates. I have no faith in the system, and a third party candidate will almost never win. But if enough people vote for them it gets them more recognition, which could eventually shift the narrative. Gary Johnson got over 3% of the vote in 2016, and Ross Perot got as high as 19% in the 90s.

        • s20@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Okay. But if the people you vote for can only muster 3% of the vote, how does that help?

          I get it in local elections, up to and including State legislature, gubernatorial races, and maybe Congress if they can get a good campaign going. That all makes sense because even if they don’t win they get enough attention to attract local media and push discussion among others.

          But Senators? The President? Ross Perot was an extreme outlier. The last time a 3rd party presidential candidate got more than 50 electoral votes was 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Progressive. In the last century, the highest total electoral votes for a 3rd part went to George Wallace in 1968 running as an American Independent. He got 46 out of 538. Rounding up, that’s 9%.

          Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968.

          So I’m asking: how does it help. If it helps, I’ll try. But from where I’m sitting, it’s all hopeless. I don’t want to feel this way. So please, for the love of sanity, convince me.

          • BilboBallbins@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            But from where I’m sitting, it’s all hopeless. I don’t want to feel this way.

            I feel this way too. But if we as individuals recognize that the system is going to screw us no matter who is elected, then if we vote it might as well be out of principle. Have you ever shared a fact or opinion or taught someone something, and later noticed that it changed their behavior in some small way? Someone on the internet might see Perot’s (or more relevant, Gary Johnson’s since it happened only a few years ago) vote count on Wikipedia and it could lead them down a rabbit hole that ultimately gets them motivated to take initiative in the local community. So yeah, I feel you, at the federal level it’s hopeless. I think the real change will happen within families, friends, and local communities.

            Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968.

            I’ll guess ending the Vietnam war…

            • s20@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Based on the year, that was a good guess. But nope. It was pro segregation.

              Which brings me back to my point. If:

              • My vote isn’t going to help further discourse, and …
              • Odds are good that even a popular 3rd party option isn’t going to be remembered all that well, and…
              • If nobody represents my ideas all that well anyway, then…

              what’s my choice from a moral standpoint? You mentioned Gary Johnson. You couldn’t have paid me to vote for him. The Green Party is closer to my value set, but their idiot said anti-vaxxers might have a point (among other takes, not least of which was a seemingly complete misunderstanding of how economics work), so that would have been a no-go too.

              And nobody was talking about ending the punative justice system, federal bans on cash bail, demilitarization of the police and radical law enforcement reform, legal protection for LGBTQIA+, ending first past the poll elections, massive education reform, or (outside of the Green party) anywhere near the investment we need in green tech and fighting global climate change.

              So I voted for the one that a.) had a chance of winning, b.) wasn’t specifically speaking out against most of that stuff and was at least paying lip service to some, and c.) wasn’t a cretinous rapist; she was just married to one.

              That was voting my conscience. The cretinous rapist won, but that’s not on me.

              So when you say to vote on principal, okay. I’ll do that. I will do my best to vote for people I agree with or, at least, against people who spout shit that makes me want to vomit.

              But that’s what I was already doing.

              Edit: changed out a word for clarity and to reduce repetition.

              • BilboBallbins@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                If you feel like you vote consistent with your principles that’s respectable. Since we can’t do anything about the shitshow that is the federal government, other than voting I try not to stress out or think about it otherwise. It’s a waste of the energy that we can direct to our local communities, which we can do something to improve.

                The libertarian party aligns closer to my values, but if the Green party candidate was the only other option I would pick them without hesitation. Regardless of what any politician says, they are self serving and will change their stance when it benefits them. If the green candidate sounded like an idiot with bad policies it wouldn’t give her less credibility from the other idiots who wouldn’t follow through on their policies anyway. So at least supporting third party candidates changes it from impossible for them to win to incredibly incredibly unlikely, but possible to influence others to open their mind to the idea of something other than the official media narrative.

                Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I’m not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process.

                • s20@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy?

                  I don’t think it’s at all unrelated.

                  Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed.

                  It is. That’s why I used to be a (literally) card carrying member. But at the end of the day, the party has too many places where we differ (gun control, health care, and education are three places where I just can’t support the party’s platform anymore, for instance). Also, it’s got way too many creepy members calling for the abolishment of age of consent laws. I know it’s just a vocal few, but it skeeves me.

                  Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I’m not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process

                  I’m not confident either, but the free market hasn’t done a great job, and other countries have had a great deal of success with regulation. Heck, we’ve had success with regulation.

      • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sports are a scam because it distracts people from discussing politics yet voting and democracy is a scam? Not a very compelling argument.

        • williams_482@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Au contrarie; sports are a fantastic way to get socioeconomic issues (like labor rights) front and center on the minds of people who wouldn’t necessarily be thinking of them the same way. And they create opportunities for people to educate themselves in other areas as well. Not every sports fan is the willfully ignorant meathead you describe, nor do willfully ignorant meatheads exist because of sports.

          MLB is not only a state sponsored monopoly, but like every other American sports league a blatant cartel which is constantly squabbling with its own employees over revenue shares (at the expense of the on-field product) and lying about how much money they actually make. Same thing as most other business owners, but people are a lot more willing to listen to the perspective of, say, Shoehi Ohtani than a random McDonald’s employee. I can tell you that I am personally much more clued in on these sorts of societal problems as a result of sportswriters discussing labor issues, on top of being far more statistically savvy and generally more sceptical of oversimplified narratives than I would be if I had never gained an interest in baseball. Nor would I have anywhere near my current understanding of global politics without global football (soccer) creating both a mechanism and incentive for learning about them.

          But that’s not even the point: sports are not a “scam”. Sports exist first and foremost because for many people, watching elite athletes play a game is fun. That is the intrinsic value of professional sports, and nothing about that is inherently scammy. Full stop.

        • Xbeam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sports is a very broad term. I am aware of MLBs antitrust exemption. However, that is a unique situation that does not apply across all sports. That’s why we have seperte leagues like the NFL and XFL. My kids playing little leugue are not affected by this at all.

          As for the 90% of males comment, this is rediculous. It is very possible to both follow and discuss politics while also have other interests. It’s not an either or situation. There is nothing wrong with having distractions you enjoy.

          I agree that pro sports are subject to massive corruption. But that doesn’t make them a scam.

        • very_well_lost@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They’re basically responsible for 90% of males simply refusing to discuss important issues in politics.

          Gonna need you to cite some sources on that one.

      • kugel7c@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would say the concept of liberal representative democracy is a scam, because on one hand lobbying and media control will decouple votes and decisionmakers from the actual collective good decision, and on the other hand party politics and and corruption will skew the fairness and representation even further from what is good.

        And it’s not like there aren’t better concepts out there, the problem is more that almost all groups in liberal democracy, so parties, companies, the government itself are at best partially democratic and at worst authoritarian in nature. Especially companies obviously aren’t usually democratic at all. So continued or deepening democratisation isn’t actually in these groups interest because they or their leaders would lose power.

        Council democracy or other direct democracy approaches are goals to work towards, or in some places just more representative and less dishonest voting would be a start.

        In essence liberals like calling things democracy that on the whole make very few honest attempts at pursuing democracy, while still calling themselves democracies. I find nowadays my personal definition doesn’t include these “democracies” and is more along the lines of “a continuous process that honestly tries to provide the most value for all people and pursues contious improvement toward that end.”

        • hglman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Big yes to the scam that is liberal democracy. One terrible use of libs calling things democracy when they aren’t is blanketly condemning everyone in some place bc someone got elected: Russia and every red state in the USA. These places are full of people who do not support the government and had no real chance of electing real representation nor would those elected officals really be useful.

      • Caveman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It depends on the voting system. In the US there are two parties, that’s just one party away from being like China. Scam is thinking US is fully democratic when you can only vote for two parties or throw the vote away.

    • j891319@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In the UK university is still wayyyy cheaper than US, but local students pay ~$10,000 a year max due to regulation, but international students have no protection and typically pay ~$30,000

      • ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That makes perfect sense though. The UK government subsidizes/funds the universities, and in turn domestic students are more likely to have higher paying jobs and pay more tax. Foreign students are more likely to leave after graduating, so no tax for the government once they go.

        Australia has a similar system.

    • besux@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      How do you get college without tuition, affordable housing, or not-for-profit healthcare without taxes?

      The real scam is the widespread aversion to taxation.