This strikes me as a pretend leak kind of story.

All true but just fine again may depend on your definition. It’s going to cause major inconvenience for everyone at minimum I think.

Long-term, possibly. But if the collapse happens too quickly it may cause a lot of issues. A slow steady decline would be best but may be difficult to achieve.

I don’t think it is failed. It has reached self-sustaining levels for many topics. It will need further growth to make smaller, niche topics self-sustaining. Whether this growth will take place is an open question. I know my instance is growing in terms of activity, but I’m not sure how others are faring.

But as long as it isn’t shrinking, I think it’s well-positioned to absorb more growth as users discover it or become disillusioned with Reddit or other sites in the future.

You truly can never predict what he will say next.

I am somewhat undecided about this action. It gets people talking (as we’re doing now) but it may also risk turning people away from the cause, especially those who are only casually interested or aware of the facts or issues.

But my point was your suggestion that everyone is already aware of climate change is absurd. Especially the follow up that no one can do anything about it. Sure, they’ve heard of it, but everyone is continuing to behave as if it doesn’t exist. There needs to be much greater awareness, discussion, and then action on this topic, and until such time we will need to do disruptive things to get people’s attention. I do prefer to disrupt the people most responsible, personally.

There is much work to be done and not all of it is physical. I don’t know the specifics of your condition but you are here posting on social media. At minimum, there is likely a need for similar work to be done in support of your local orgs.

Again, if you find some local folks doing such work, I am sure they would help you find your niche.

Lots of things but the easiest would be to find local orgs that have already developed political strategies relevant to your local political context and work with them. They can fill you in on the rest.

Climate change won’t be addressed until there is a much larger movement that can flex serious political power. Think civil rights movement—that’s the kind of organizing we need.

and there’s fuck all I can do about it.

Sounds like maybe you are lacking some awareness around this issue.

Not sure which version everyone is on but the cross-posting button is broken in the latest Lemmy version. Hopefully it will be fixed soon.

Very interesting! I am curious how modern populations would show up if tested by this method.

I think the idea that MLs are a far left ideology is pretty questionable honestly. But that is the conventional wisdom certainly.

The definition most people use for left and right isn’t really consistent or coherent. If you do try to iron out those inconsistencies, you’ll find that MLs don’t really fit with the rest of the left.

You can’t be a good president if you’re over 65.

You can’t be a good president if you’re under 65.

You can’t be a good president.

I see. You definitely would need to consider how that fits into the desired campaign narratives. If the whole campaign is about freedom fighters opposing Lord Ajax, it makes little difference if one character starts out as more of an outlaw than another. But if the campaign is meant to be knights of the round table doing quests for the one true king, it might be more of a problem if a player has to have a secret identity or sit out most social encounters. I wouldn’t want to impose that situation on a player unless they are specifically interested in playing that role.

No but I would consider requiring a reflavor if it was incompatible with the setting. Not sure that’s ever come up but it could.

Or are you asking about in-world legality?

People who think this way are either behaving irrationally or don’t understand electoral strategy. I will always vote for the better of the two candidates in the current system. If it was Trump vs Hitler, well damn, I guess I’m voting for Trump. It’s not an endorsement of anyone, it’s simply a matter of how to minimize the harm of the current system.

By the way, Trump supports genocide more than Biden, so if that’s your key issue, you should vote for Biden.

When they seized power as happened in Russia, China, and many other countries, they consistently murdered or enslaved dissidents. And they defend such practices to this day. I am an outspoken dissident in my current society and surely would be in their imagined future as well.

No, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and I do not fully disagree. But I think context matters. I like tanky because it helps people understand the dangers of the ideology more than other alternatives like communist or Marxist-Leninist or whatever. Is there more danger of violence against tankies or that their ideology may grow and cause violence against others? Right now I perceive the latter to be a bigger issue, and I don’t see any real risk of harm coming to them, at least in the social circles where my words have influence.

If there was a movement that sought to do physical harm to them (outside of a defensive context) then I would weigh that appropriately in my language. The term is a tool of persuasion and I deem that persuasion more important than any risk of dehumanization, which I do oppose and recognize as harmful.

I acknowledge that tankies are humans with rights but I don’t acknowledge that those rights include not being called an accurate but slightly demeaning term that they don’t like. Particularly because their preferred terms for themselves are inaccurate.

Like I’m not going to stop calling fascists by that name even if they prefer to be called freedom-loving patriots or something. And I personally see the two ideologies as having a lot of similarities.

But the mods don’t allow that kind of discourse, that’s the whole problem.

Also, tankies are advocating for a society where I and those like me would be killed. If that’s not worthy of a derogatory term then what is?