One of the themes I’ve seen here is people saying someone said something they didn’t then taking issue with what they heard/inferred.

I didn’t say they don’t have eminent domain, as an example. I’m saying that the closest thing I’ve seen to their model is eminent domain - and even then, it’s different.

It’s as if people here are so keen to land a point that they invent one. I’ve been on a variety of fora for decades. The frequency of misrepresentation and zero fucks about making it right is… I’ve never seen it so prevalent. People act like they aren’t talking to people.

Straight Dope, people cared. Giraffe board (after the switch), people cared. StumbleUpon, Reddit… people cared that they were seen “arguing” in good faith. They curated their reputation by listening and if they fucked up, many (not all) would try to reset and some would apologize.

I’m not simply describing my experience. I’m describing threads or branches where all I do is read comments.

I provided a cogent reply explaining that getting more people to vote is more effective than simply voting alone.

All I was asking is why you’re telling people they have to vote for “x” when it’s clear they want options.

Tell them how to find/create them but, yes, like you I want their support in a general.

They could do other things:

• organize
• get out the vote
• run for office (even low/local helps)
• protest

Example: sometimes protest moves things further than voting. What I have above gives them a way to be involved and help move things in a positive direction.

If they cause 9 more people to vote, but miss the date themselves. Are we worse off?

Telling them that voting for someone they barely agree with is the most important thing… it’s not the packaging that I think most find compelling.

If you adopt a specific outlook, the duplicity is less stark.

Russia is attacking a sovereign nation and when they took land, they took people. To most, that makes them the bad guys.

Backing away from that and making this a geopolitical chess game, both players have coaches. Sounds fair.

I remain a bit lost on why you think quoting my citation helped, but I have a theory. I see a lot of glib on lemmy. Are your usual sparring partners here that inept or clueless?

Honest question: are they? I’m still getting the hang of lemmy and so far it seems like a lot of self congratulatory wannabe-edgelord stuff.

Like it’s puffery with just enough citations for posters to think they’re smart?

And along the way, no citation is the right citation. I’m not lumping you into all this, I’m wondering if that’s what this is right now.

I don’t see people having discussions. I see people correcting each other on secondary points and missing the forest for the trees.

Edit: I didn’t need my citation clarified to me. That you think that’s what you did by quoting it is odd. If you added context, a link to why you think it’s a richer topic, I’m good with it and I enjoy learning.

But I had read it and did not need it read back to me.

The parenthetical part that you didn’t address was the key part. Being and staying in good graces is likely key to a seamless transition into the next 70 years. That’s different from eminent domain.

I get that you’re having a bit of fun. On a separate branch here, I make a similar point.

What people argue about is how much of one makes it “x.” They can seldom say it’s not capitalist, socialist or even communist.

We quibble over which side of a line it lands. And googling this lead to about a 50/50 split between capitalist and socialist.

I didn’t pull the idea that they’re capitalist out of my ass.

And all of the side stuff is people completely missing the article. It’s pedantic and cheap intellectual points and so rarely thoughtful or insightful.

Is lemmy usually this wannabe edgelord?

I’m a little lost here. By posting a section of what I linked… are you thinking you’re making a point?

I read it. I also know that the 70 year thing has only recently meant anything (the rule is slightly older than 70 years). As a practical matter, what you extracted is what makes sense.

Some will make more note of the parenthetical: “although the legal procedures for title renewal have not yet been legislated.”

That can also mean, stay in our good graces and things can go smoothly. In most other countries that specific concern isn’t a thing.

Officially owning the land and needing to re-authorize is different from eminent domain.

This is basically my understanding.

I get that they’re attempting to master plan and be ahead of things. I also know infrastructure is an investment - and sometimes it’s partially a jobs program.

Not every investment works out.

I’m not down on them.

I’m down on low-effort, glib and smug responses and I’m hitting more of it on Lemmy than I hit elsewhere. I’m not sure if this is the result of reddit leading to a population swing or if lemmy already had a lot of “smart” people who could be better than they are.

If I plan to smear someone. I click their post history. I’ve stopped myself from many errors and found a way to build a common ground. I’ve also found fools and decided they weren’t worth it.

But if I plan to be dismissive, I do the research.

If you don’t like them being called capitalist, then your quarrel is with a whole heap of people (and academics).

The question, like I alluded to earlier, isn’t whether they are capitalist, but a question of how much. And many, after careful study, have determined them to be capitalist.

Those determinations are based on measurable things and philosophy (somewhat).

Also: you are clearly not my original intended audience. In the referenced thread I was getting low-effort, glib comments that snowballed upvotes.

Not unlike the person who deemed me to be a republican. It’s easy to look at my post history.

I’m not a republican. But glib is easy. And glib, low-effort posters were the primary intended audience. Know-it-alls.

Good reply, thank you.

And I’ll defer to your categorization and consider the reading recommendation.

I weighed calling them socialist, but it seemed… unhelpful when what i was trying to highlight that the unemployed youth are relying on family, and not the state.

The responses yesterday seemed to think China is just giving away money. They aren’t.

Also: all developed nations are socialist. What people argue over is where lines are drawn.

Ad hoc and poison the well while being very wide of the mark, too.

Nicely done.

My politics align more with Sanders than anyone well known politician. Surplus is surplus and the left needs to retain the right to call a spade a spade.

Not all infrastructure spend is good. I’m both envious of what they have and stymied by articles documenting unused cities.

For ease of research, I recommend “China ghost cities.” Maybe those cities will make sense and not every idea has to work, but that is surplus, ergo excess.

Did you read the article before posting?

There are descriptions of embittered and/or depressed youth. They are not describing young people so well cared for (by the state) that they are opting out.

And older family will eventually perish or cease to have the means. Something must take the place to ensure production at certain levels.

Also: fewer hours per job, with an unchanging workload would lead to more jobs. Not fewer. Unless automation, computing or improved engineering lower the overall effort.

Edit to add one more point: China is Capitalist. The land use thing is communist, but fundamentally they went capitalist decades ago. The notion that they’re doling out buckets of money to people mystifies me (building unnecessary infrastructure is a job).

If someone has a source or refutation, I’ll click and read, but until then I’ll run with what I find.

You’ve done it here, you’re doing it in others threads.

Instead of telling them to vote for a candidate they barely believe in, why not recommend they find candidates they like, locally, state, etc and help them. But then in general elections, vote for someone who can win.

It’s an entire extra sentence that takes less time than calling them whiny.

You’re boiling the options down to a suck ass, “eat your dinner” message and if you want to prevent rightward movement, I think calls to action are better.

We move things to the correct position by having candidates that make a compelling case for why this (waves around) isn’t working. Then voting for what we got when we must.

Edit: it is NOT the most effective thing to do. Getting additional people to vote is more effective than standing in line individually like a dumb ass and saying, “this is the best I can do.” You can do more than that.

I’m not saying to do something other than voting. I’m saying you keep framing this like that’s the only thing when they could do more.

Voting is not the only option. It’s a good one, but we have more/additonal.

There are other options. The Constitution affords us numerous rights, including protest, among others.

They said they’re mad that nothing changes for the better and you said, why not spend an hour a year doing something.

I think they’re open to more. I’d like to see more doing more. THAT’s how things change.

He needs to be primaried, tradition or not.

He’s done an assortment of good things. He’s also older and sympathetic to economic “centrism.”

I’d like to see a credible democratic challenger primary him and force him to maintain a more left leaning posture. If done correctly, he’d re-message and it would help him in the general.

We need to pull people out of their culture war mindset and get them voting for their own best interests. Fanciful notions of “the wrong gender” in a restroom aren’t going to matter as much as domestic economic health, global climate change, or a changing geo-economic outlook. We need people voting real-worl issues and someone who can message to that.

I’ll add: everyone deserves certain fundamental rights. So when I say culture war, I’m referring to DeSantis types. I have no quarrel with treating LGBTQ+ with respect and decency.

It’s set for after Super Tuesday. He’ll ask for a further delay. She’ll absolutely consider if he’s got viable numbers.

I bet it’s half of why that date was chosen. And why Trump isn’t making too much noise about it. Stay quiet and people don’t notice what just happened.

You need to Google “sea lion troll.”

You’re not using the term correctly. Or keep doing it wrong, up to you.

I understand that you’ve answered that you get to decide if a person is worthy of respect or dignity or decency. I find it highly ironic since you seem to exist on a part of the spectrum that would want those things for (almost?) everyone. That may not be true, but you seem inclined to push socialist ideas. I’m very open to that, personally. Many Americans are; the culture wars are used to distract and divide and it works.

If I’ve persisted in my question on why you become knee-jerk incivil, it’s because the answers so far have landed as “because.” Your most recent response hits more authentically and I appreciate it. I’ve sparred with trolls. I’ve sparred with those who genuinely disagree for good (and bad) reasons. Authentic, mature conversation appeals to me.

Dropping to name calling (emojis) based on the first reply on a thread lowers discourse. I’ll stop here. I just wish that shit didn’t happen so much.

I’m not your opponent but you sure set out that way when you correctly determined I’m in and from the US. The combativeness was not deserved, it was off-putting and I am much less likely to want to engage. Shrug.

I’m not jumping in to start fights. I jump in to ask why you’re doing it.

There’s a difference. Clown faces (a pattern, not an instance), vomit emoji… all that is is you doing something for your feels and to feel better than. They do exactly zero for anything a normal, mature peraon would hope to generate.

You say you want meaningful exchange and you doggedly defend yourself as you bring the discourse down to single emoji and knee-jerk judgments.

You’re creating an unhelpful dynamic. Being likeable helps. Being right is “logically” enough. For persuasion, it is a distant second on a good day.

Being more likeable and less glib can help. Or, You’re not here to help. You’re here to feel better than. Your choice and you get to choose, but be consistent. If it’s the later, don’t criticize it in others, please.

Let’s go one further and I’ll ask other than when I told you themat you required evidence and you were being a hypocrite, when did I demand evidence over and over? Or do you not know what sealioning is?

I’m not demanding evidence. I’m asking why you’re so darn incivil to so many people. You look like an unsympathetic Don Quixote and it helps none of your points.

And if you’re not here to persuade, why post so many of a specific kind of article.

Again. I don’t follow you around. I’m in certain communities for a reason. And then you shit all over them.

It’s daft, touched-in-the-head kind of behavior.

Ah. The source of your anger.

The local Overton window shifted. You’d found a bubble you liked and now it’s different and more perspectives are flooding in. Not all perspectives are informed, but you are being credibly challenged now.

The big fish in a small pond finds itself in a different body of water.

I’m not insulting people until very recently and it’s only you. You cast a wide net with your anger and it’s helping no one. And it hurts your cause.

I never said you sealion me. Not once. You keep seeing things as said that aren’t. And then you complain about reading comprehension of your sparring partners.

It’s shameful. And I’m not using that lightly. You act shamefully. It’s fucking embarrassing the way you’re trying to advance ideas by insulting people.

Other people are here. Adapt.

If we need to have a thread about maladaptive rhetoric so you cam deem my discussion on topic I’ll point out that posting a single clown emoji or vomit one is not topical, either. It only further lowers discourse and makes you into an easily discarded clown.

And I doubt you want that.