Congratulations, you have been promoted from “terminally online Leftist” to “Leftist who understands the basics of American elections”.

Not my party, not my wing. I categorize myself as one of the “Leftists who understand the basics of American elections” mentioned above. I vote strategically, because a Leftist isn’t one of the top two names on the ticket. The name with an R next to it is significantly detrimental to the advancement of Leftist policy, the name with the D next to it is also detrimental, but to a far lesser degree.

Until an effective Leftist’s name takes one of the top two spots on the ballot, the math is simple: D > R. Even if both are negative, so long as D > R, the choice e is D, every time.

I’m talking to you about the practical benefit of voting for a particular candidate, not blame. Leftists comprise maybe 5% of registered voters. Centrist Neo-Libs comprise probably 30+%. Leftist turnout is significant in tipping a close election, but not enough to carry it without the Neo-Libs.

Neo-Lib candidates are better for Leftists than Fascists are. On every single metric, they are better, or at the very worst equal. Even if you consider the Ratchet model, the keep-things-the-same party is objectively better than the ratchet-to-the-right party. At least it gives you time to popularize Leftist policies and candidates. The further we ratchet to the right, the harder it is to promote the Left.

Not a very materially significant portion of them, since he wasn’t elected. I fear the terminally online leftists have convinced themselves they represent a silent bloc of significant size, and that outwardly embracing their policies would gain Democrats more voters than they alienate.

Certainly, Dems need every vote they can get, and every tiny 1% bloc helps in a tight race. But centrists are a much bigger bloc than the far-left, and scaring them off is a net loss. Democrats are yucky, but Republicans are poison, big tent for yucky or get force-fed poison.

Centrist Democrats will. Leftists who understand the basics of American elections will. Fence sitters will stay home, and terminally online leftists will vote third party out of protest, and thus the God King will ascend his golden throne.

I cut deals with my spouse all the time. Divvying up chores, watching shows, choosing meals, etc. This seems like it’s not that though.

We’re only stuck with Biden because Biden and the people he put in charge of the DNC would rather risk trump than Biden step aside.

We’re stuck with Biden precisely because the DNC doesn’t want to risk Trump, and the incumbent advantage is significant.

Without Biden’s unconditional support Israel would have to stop.

How did you come to that conclusion? Israel has their own arms production, and many current and potential allies who would step in.

That was a rhetorical question. Obviously, admitting it would be counterproductive.

Is it your job to sow dissent among non-Republican voters? Because it certainly seems like you’re getting paid to do it.

Move fast and break things, I guess. My take away is that the genie isn’t going back in the bottle. Hopefully failing fast and loud gets us through the growing pains quickly, but on an individual level we’d best be vigilant and adapt to the landscape.

Frankly I’d rather these big obvious failures to insidious little hidden ones the conservative path makes. At least now we know to be skeptical. No development path is perfect, if it were more conservative we might get used to taking results at face value, leaving us more vulnerable to that inevitable failure.

You’re voting third party in a First Past the Post election structure, so you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the specific incarnation of democracy you exist within.

Her is set in 2025

This is an impressive contribution.

Did I? I described a practice as moral masturbation, I didn’t accuse anyone of anything.

“It would be nice to develop an auxiliary sign language to bridge the accessibility gap between the hard of hearing and those who don’t learn a dedicated sign”

“You’re just as bad as the colonizers that decimated native American cultures”

Get out of here with that bad faith savior complex nonsense. Teaching indigenous people English wasn’t the problem, the problem was beating children for using their native language. I guess you think literacy is racist too because literacy requirements were used to disenfranchise black Americans, huh?

Your sanctimonious colonization comments are dripping with irony. I asked a question, directly to another person, about their opinion of the concept as a deaf/hard of hearing person. You interceded uninvited, deliberately ignored the explicitly stated context of the question (gestural languages having unique properties from verbal ones) so you could shoehorn in your opinion about a topic explicitly excluded by that context, which you smugly assumed I wasn’t familiar with, purporting the relevance by referencing authors who wrote very little about the actual topic at hand.

You want to talk about colonizers, look at your own actions here.

My goalposts are in precisely the place they started: a collection of basic international gestures to facilitate the most basic communication. Where are you jumping to colonization? Where did I say that my cultural group gets to decide what the signs are? You’re, again, wildly overestimating the scope of my proposal and jumping to ridiculous, unsubstantiated conclusions.

You get a group of signers from around the world to develop an international pidgin (like they already do informally at international gatherings) and come to consensus based on commonality. When the majority agree on a sign, use it. Where there’s little agreement, choose a new sign. No finger spelling, no complex abstract concepts, just a formalization of gestures most people could probably figure out anyway. I fail to see how that perpetuates colonization unless that’s what you’re setting out to do with your methodology.

I am familiar with the regionality of language. I don’t understand your point, you’re simultaneously saying that you can’t have universal understanding, but we have gestures we instantly understand instantly so there’s no need to codify them, but they look different.

I think you’re wildly overestimating the scope of my proposal.

It would certainly be limited and rudimentary; I wouldn’t suggest a solution exists capable of any broad nuance. But gesture is a unique variety of communication, in that it can convey “innate” meaning in ways verbal language simply cannot, except in the case of onomatopoeia. Pointing is nearly universal, smiling is nearly universal, beckoning is nearly universal. Gesture is a spatial form of communication, centered around our primary means of material interaction with the world.

Grammar and syntax aside, I’d argue that it would be possible to assemble a vocabulary of universal concepts (eat, drink, sleep, travel, me, you, communicate, cooperate, come here, go away, etc). Certainly not a language for extended detailed conversation, but a codification and extension of gestures which are already nearly universal by virtue of their innate implications alone. Enough to communicate that you’re hungry, but not enough to send for takeout.

A universal language, at the level of any other sophisticated language, is obviously impossible. A formal codification of simple gestures to communicate at the most basic human concepts is much more doable.

Deontology is moral masturbation, a luxury reserved for those with little effect on the world. Responsible, conscious adults have to take into account the consequences of their choices. Politicians’ choices have consequences which are orders of magnitude more significant than a random person. The president of the United States, especially this president ahead of this election, has a vast number of complex consequences to consider in their moral calculus.

When political choices have moral consequences, and vice versa, you can’t draw a tidy line between the two considerations.