ternnoburn

Which of the two isn't a classical liberal party?

Social democrats (e.g. Nordic model) are left of center, but aren't MLs or communists. Anarchists (e.g. Kropotkin) are left of center but aren't MLs or communists.

There's plenty of room between the center and Marxist Leninism.

I would say many labor politicians are centrist. Some democrats are center, some are center-left. Some are center-right.

Some members of Liberal parties are centrist.

The center has tons of parties in it.

I'd be thrilled to have the right correctly differentiate between the democrats and leftists. Using the right terms would be a useful start to having some dialogs.

Not really? The democratic and republican parties are both classical liberal parties, invested in business and capital as the standard and correct way to organize a society. Classical liberalism is a center-right ideology, globally.

Show me the party in the U.S. that wants to abolish private property, wants to provide food, healthcare, and housing to all, that wants to nationalize key industries, that wants to govern from a standpoint of "wellbeing for all". If you can point me to a place where that's the prevailing ideology, I'll gladly recant the idea that no place like that exists here.

The Left Right dichotomy is a fairly broad set of political ideas, especially globally. The Left typically includes socialists, communists, anarchists, labor movements, syndicalists, and social democrats. Typically, these movements are collectivist, whether that's collectivist in a big government or collectivist in small local communities.

Classical liberal policies, looks those of the Democrats and Republicans, are right of center.

An example, when was the last time the Democratic Party pushed for nationalization of a whole industry? Eg aerospace, rail, or energy? What about offering food and housing for everyone? Abolishing private property? Those are leftist policies.

Burlington Vermont might be close.

It's widely regarded as a slur.

[flagged]

Is he not?

Why would they engage with you? If they are safe, there's zero need for them to give you the time of day. How do you propose moderating someone who can tell you to fuck off with impunity?

This is one area leftists and right wingers can agree on -- gun control doesn't work, it punishes minority communities, it targets the wrong things, and it's written in ways that aren't backed by data.

Leftists want to be armed for community defense (and because Marx and other leftist writers wrote about the importance of being armed).

That said, if I show up at the range with a pride flag on my rifle people lose their shit about it, so I guess we have a ways to go before we've got left-right solidarity there.

Thank you. It's astonishing to me how few people remember the text of this movie -- it is so clearly saying dumb people are breeding, smart people are not.

Does "other people do it worse" mean we do it well?

Because I only put forward the claim that the US does it poorly. Whether others do it worse seems to have no bearing on whether we should strive to improve or not...

Sort of. They got the outcomes pretty close, but the movie was based on a premise of eugenics and equating poverty with low intelligence.

Read some of the items here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42611374

I'd argue neither political party is helping people with disabilities, and both are pretty strongly neglecting them. I don't think any of the current slate of politicians care at all. Bush I was a generation ago.

I made no claims about other countries. I forwarded only the claim that the U.S. treats disability as a failing.

Let's start with various cognitive disabilities -- depression, for instance, is heavily stigmatized. Seeking medication and therapy, and especially talking about medication and therapy, is considered awkward and uncomfortable in most circles.

Or ADHD, which causes a whole range of executive functioning failures - inability to focus, manage schedules, etc. Yet we make access to diagnosis and medication very difficult, and workplaces often fail to accommodate people.

On the physical disability front, one of the easiest and fastest things we can do is add alt text to images, yet even "progressive" places struggle to do this. In fact, a coffee company just sued for the right to not have to provide an accessible website, trying to undermine the ADA's protections of digital spaces.

But don't take my words for it, there are many resources online that are worth reading:

Disability and access to health care: https://fisafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Access...

People with disabilities experience higher rates of exclusion: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/four-ten-adults-d...

Countless examples of care being inadequate: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2...

I work in accessibility. The ADA is barely acknowledged. Every automatic door, curb cut, and accommodation is still a tough fight.

[flagged]

The US is not particularly safe. Various indices put it well below other countries -- in the top half, for sure, but it's hardly a safe place.

You'll have to supply evidence that the US is safe, as that's not self evident.

[flagged]

People learn, change, and grow. People experience things and change their perspectives. The person I am at 45 is not the person I was at 25.

Also, some folks believe crime has root causes in systems outside the self -- poverty, violence, compulsion -- helping people out of those systems and then seeing if they can contribute in society without those pressures against them.

More or less, yeah, you got it.

20% of the world's prisoners are housed in America. Interactions with police and arrests are very common here.

I'm ok with this, as long as it's systemic. Otherwise it's just another way for people with means to get a leg up on people without means. If it's, "we delete all crime stories after N years", then fine, especially for low level, non violent stuff.

The punishment for crimes should come from the justice system and people should be able to pay their dues and move on.

Packaging and commodifying Black and queer cultures for sale to people, while not actually engaging or giving back to those cultures is a pretty time worn tradition, tbh.

Of course, it ain't right now and it weren't right then, but I'm not in the least surprised it happened.

Plenty of independent, valid reasons to dislike the guy. Some of them are purely political. Some have nothing to do with politics. You might not agree or value these, but that isn't the same as them being invalid:

1) he's an anti-trans right winger. If you aren't, you might dislike him.

2) he's boastful and prideful, which some people find irritating.

3) he lies, constantly about the capabilities and timeliness of his companies. If you are excited about EVs or space or tunnel boring you might dislike the hype->reality->hype cycle.

4) guy is... kinda just an asshole online?

5) if you believe billionaires are fundamentally people who got their money exploitatively, you'll dislike musk.

6) you might disagree with his stewardship of key technologies in space or evs. He's made prioritization decisions one might disagree with.

7) he made high speed rail in California more difficult through the hyperloop nonsense

8) he's anti worker and anti union, and many people here are workers or union members and find the way he treats his employees as unethical.

9) he's has a history of having many children out of wedlock, and kinda ignoring those children and women

10) he has positions about birth rates that could be just esoteric or could be great replacement theory racism and it's unclear which is true.

Probably many reasons beyond these. If someone believes one of these, they might leave a pretty tepid comment.

If someone believes multiple of these, odds are good they'll see Musk as a villain.

I think it's an information diet thing. Once you accept Fox News as being truthful, you move on to at least giving some thought to what folks like Alex Jones are saying.

And the first thing fringe folks tell you is, "you are right, you are smart, you are clever. You've seen that they are covering up the truth, and you are wise to start questioning everything."

Once you get isolated by a bunch of media that tells you how impressive you are and tells you that anyone questioning you is trying to hold you back, you get separated from those who care about you. Once your loved ones give up on you, you turn to forums and chat groups of others in similar situations. They also tell you that you are smart and clever.

It's a classic abuser playbook, and unfortunately it's really really hard to unwind after a certain point. And we value freedom of speech too much to cut off the early on-ramps to this path. But we don't fund the education or the high quality information sources enough to help provide alternatives or defenses.

I was also around then, and even then it had a reputation of being trash, not really anarchist, and probably dangerously poorly put together.

The rocket equation doesn't participate in capitalism -- moving mass to orbit takes delta-v and that takes fuel.

If you are going to imagine a hypothetical future where starship has made technological leaps forward sufficient to be the cheapest possible option despite being significantly heavier and larger aerodynamically, you have to imagine someone else could also improve their rocket. A smaller rocket requires less fuel to fly.

The US is not the only place flying rockets, and spacex has a lead, but if the industry takes off, there will be other contenders. Once rockets start getting more similar as they all start contending with physics, a smaller rocket will necessarily be cheaper.