Michael

Lincoln would have likely gotten my vote, regardless of his white supremacist views - which were common at the time. It wouldn’t be a resounding yes from me, but it still would’ve been a yes.

Lincoln wasn’t a Zionist giving a religious ethnostate weapons to genocide and ethnically cleanse an occupied population with US taxpayer money. Israel made their ambitions for Greater Israel known prior to the election - they had no intention of stopping at Palestine.

I didn’t vote for Biden in 2020 because of his Zionism. I knew what Zionism meant long before Oct. 7th and the genocide. Pointing out Biden’s Zionist views got me harshly downvoted and accused of antisemitism, no matter the timing or how much I wanted a Jewish man to be president.

There would have been no genocide if Bernie Sanders won in 2020 and the primary wasn’t rigged against him. Zero. Zilch. Bernie had my vote, without a doubt.

Zionists or those complicit in genocide will never get my vote. There needed to be a primary because there were/are plenty of people principled against Zionism and genocide. Including the many disenfranchised Muslim/middle-eastern Americans who would never vote for a person slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people of their religion or ethnicity - with no signs of stopping.

If Kamala ran on not giving them weapons unless it was to defend themselves from e.g. Iran, that alone would have been a winning policy. Who the fuck cared about her not running any other substantive or progressive policies - that was all it took for her to earn my vote.

Instead of pushing for a primary, people like you accused me of being a single-issue voter and a purity tester for not wanting US taxpayer money to fund a genocide. Unfortunately, it’s not just a single-issue - it was many issues that were ready to be set aside considering the circumstances. Kamala played chicken with the country and drove it off the cliff, without a single thought in her mind to brake - because she is insulated from the consequences i.e. she had a parachute.

She still hasn’t admitted why she lost - the real reason, she just comes out of the woodwork every once in a while to blame everybody but herself. She isn’t a serious actor.

Your principles result in mass suffering and death, as well. It’s just more neatly tucked overseas and out of sight. The US economy notably relying on child slavery? No big deal if nobody acknowledges it and the courts don’t give a fuck. Large amounts of undocumented immigrant labor? Who cares if the Democrats never lift a finger for them? An open Zionist committing a genocide? But he’s tirelessly working towards a ceasefire! Not to mention Ukraine, which Biden largely abandoned before leaving office… keep telling people to be less radical and to fall in line harder. It’s working super well.

This country is a fucking joke. There is nothing feel good about voting, it is the absolute opposite of a representative democracy - while people like you settle more and more every cycle.

What are you doing to depose Trump now? What did you really do prior to the election? Did you try to shift Democrat policy? Did you try to get Biden to address or reconsider his open, long-standing Zionism? Did you unquestionably support the Zionist in 2020 over Bernie? Did you push for a primary in 2024? Or did you mostly just sit online and shame people back then too? It’s time to switch it up, in my opinion.

But I see you’re busy calling anarchists tankies - your energy is directed towards fringe people online and not focused toward your preferred party and people who can make a positive difference in said party. It’d be fun to see you demand accountability from everyone equally, but there’s no shame coming from me… just confusion…

There were historically people calling Lincoln’s abolitionist ideas not radical enough, so bite me.

You’d likely unquestionably vote for a self-proclaimed Zionist committing a genocide, and that was your point in reality - to shame me for having principles in general and in particular in regards to how I vote. You are free to push the Democratic party to the left or away from supporting genocide at any point instead of attacking me - I don’t vote for genocide and my vote must be earned through representation.

It’s basic democracy, the Democrats don’t automatically earn or own my vote because they play at being socially liberal when it suits them.

I could imagine you arguing to Lincoln that he actually should be less radical, that he should compromise on his principle of seeing slavery as being wrong. Just allow a little slavery Lincoln… c’mon man.

I’d like to believe that I would be arguing for the abolition of all social, race, and class-based hierarchies, among other things, but this isn’t then and I wasn’t born in that time period.

Suppose I were born at that time, had access to a very good education, and possessed roughly the same spirit as I do now; I’d likely be politically active and influencing people like Lincoln as best I could.

Nobody is entitled to another’s vote though, and I’ll just leave it at that.

Edit - I thought on it and I feel it’s necessary to amend this for those curious why I would respond in such a way:

During the 1858 debates with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln stated that the “physical difference between the white and black races … will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality”. He added that "there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

If it came down to it, I’d likely vote for Lincoln. Regardless of some of his statements, he showed deep principles:

“I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong,” he stated. “I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel.”

Very few involved with politics in the present day are even 1% as principled and vocal about what they believe to be right as Lincoln - he was so incredibly ahead of his time.

“Ending” slavery

Slavery only increased under neoliberal policy. Where does our lithium come from? Slaves and child slaves. Our cocoa? In part, child slaves. Where do most of our goods come from? Sweat shops and exploited third-world countries. Our prison labor, which has absolutely exploded under neoliberal policy, is also by definition slave labor. Before Trump, over 40% of our agricultural labor force were undocumented immigrants - modern slaves.

I’m sure if you looked hard enough, you’d see how much suffering and exploitation went into every single item around you.

suffrage, the New Deal, income tax

Ancient history, and none of these things besides suffrage truly represent the left, which is commonly associated with socialism and egalitarianism - the left was historically coined to describe socialists.

Capitalism is fundamentally opposed to egalitarianism, liberal and leftist ideology, and democracy. And it’s worth mentioning Democrats are further right than most European center-right parties.

gay rights

You could even be a bigger fascist and authoritarian than Trump, including being a Christian, and be in support of gay rights. See Peter Thiel, self-proclaimed right-libertarian, who is the opposite of a libertarian in practice.

Democrats flying the rainbow flag is just as gross and meaningless as corporations doing it: it’s branding. Except now the branding requires that we sacrifice trans people to appeal to centrists Republicans/old-school conservatives and try to siphon voters from MAGA. Meanwhile, gay marriage is likely going to quickly be dismantled like everything else, while Democrats stand silent.

But I did watch the Tea Party subvert and consume the republicans. It can be done to the democratic party as well.

Will this come in time to address the fresh water crisis? Will it come in time to address the climate crisis? How many trans people will die by suicide because it’s “too radical” to support them even a little bit? How many people will die because of preventable disease? How many people will forego higher education? How many people will be laid off and rendered homeless until we establish UBI? How many child slaves will be sacrificed in the mines so we can have new iPhones every year? I could go on and on and on.

It has to be in tandem with regular wins, like how the conservatives did it.

Progressives have been playing ball way more than you suggest. Enough. It’s become a game of dodgeball where progressives can’t throw, only take hits from the Democrats and everybody else. Shifting to the right is not an effective strategy for Democrats, not even a little bit. 1/3 of the country doesn’t vote, why the fuck is nobody looking at that group?

Saw your edit:

*I can’t believe I left out Roe v Wade

A Supreme Court decision. Which was never codified into law by Democrats…

The country never moves towards the left or anything closely resembling egalitarianism in any meaningful way. Gay marriage has been one of the few major wins in recent history, but that’s not “ratcheting the country to the left”. You could be the most staunch supporter of capitalism and “free markets” in the world, literally the opposite of egalitarianism, and still support trans and gay rights/be socially liberal.

Progressives aren’t satisfied with ratcheting the country to the left. It’s all or nothing.

The Democrats aren’t satisfied until the country is completely to the right and they aren’t interested in winning elections or seriously fighting MAGA - their focus is firmly on suppressing the left.

Progressives do not hold significant power in elected office or in the DNC. Bernie Sanders had two primaries rigged against him, and David Hogg was recently ousted from his position as Vice Chair of the DNC for gender diversity reasons because he was pushing progressive primary challengers.

Ken Martin also ensured DNC officer neutrality in future primaries this year, in order to neuter David Hogg not long after he committed to funding these challengers (which is likely why David Hogg refused to run for re-election). Democrats only have a problem with rigging primaries when progressives are the ones getting support.

Progressives are unpredictable and difficult to control, may be of the socialist variety, and disincentivize major donors - which the DNC and Democratic party rely on.

This nonsense about burning down the world over a single issue is performative crap we don’t have time for.

It isn’t a single issue. It simply isn’t. Regardless, telling trans people and their allies online that fighting for their rights is “nonsense” amounting to “performative crap”, seems like transphobia to me.

I’m not sourcing every single claim. I promise that I am not purposely misrepresenting any key facts or spinning anything in regards to indigenous land being impacted in so-called democracies. I have a libertarian socialist bias and I feel strongly in my belief that capitalism is incompatible with democracy - that’s my opinion and there is no source for that.

If there is anything specific that you would like sourced, because it is unbelievable or difficult for you to verify, feel free to ask. It’s my opinion and belief that if there is a spill, there is damage, too.

Otherwise, if you are interested, I strongly invite you to investigate not only my claims but these indigenous land disputes in a general sense.

We can sit here all day and night arguing political theory and definitions, but these are real issues with permanent consequences. Mines tend to have environmental effects on a greater scale than most are willing to admit.

It’s not working.

The DAPL was built, leaked multiple times, and damaged indigenous land (including their water). The people organizing the protests were fined more than $660 million through the court systems and many indigenous individuals were arrested and some charged - again through the court systems. The arrests happened under Obama, who appeased the tribe upon leaving office after deafening silence, which was short-lived as this was subsequently very quickly overridden by Trump. The courts were silent to their pleas, from start to finish.

The democracy in Sweden, which you loosely tout as a gold standard, is similarly deaf to their local indigenous population and other concerned individuals, including other locals, and they are running out of legal options.

It’s the Sami’s land that they are constructing the mine on, but the Sami have to fight to stop the construction of a mine that could damage their livelihood and harm the environment, including their water? Make it make sense. Courts favor capitalists in capitalist economies - you need capital as input and legal action is very expensive.

This is an authoritarian move by Sweden and the only democratic process is for the Sami to go broke fighting this. When it’s inevitably approved, their only real option is to see their land be taken, have their sovereignty/land rights impacted, have their water contaminated, and see their food and financial livelihood affected significantly. The damage will be permanent, even if some time down the road, an appeal or other democratic process rules in their favor.

If they do anything outside of the law to respond to the mine, including enforcing their land rights themselves, their personal freedom will be impacted and their “strict obedience to authority” will be enforced and subsequently maintained.

But right, Sweden isn’t authoritarian - not even a little bit. I’m so convinced.

A relevant example in Sweden is the pending Kallak iron ore mine, which is opposed by the indigenous population because it threatens reindeer herding. Sweden is exerting violence, albeit under the guise of legal frameworks and processes, to maintain the rights of capitalist resource extraction over favoring true democratic processes and considering indigenous or local livelihoods.

If all this gets approved and the mine becomes operational, even local protestors or affected indigenous communities will be removed if they interfere or block operations. There is certainly an element of violence in a state enforcing property rights.

We see this with the Dakota Access Pipeline more starkly, organizers of the protests against its construction recently faced a lawsuit with harsh financial penalties, and protestors (including indigenous individuals) were dispersed with violence (with the use of LRADs, rubber bullets, sprayed with water in freezing temperatures, or were arrested) so construction could proceed.

You can’t have two definitions of authoritarianism

Right-libertarians or anarcho-capitalists would say the same thing about libertarianism, a word historically coined to mean mostly the opposite of their ideology - a word they later co-opted to dress their preferred ideology (capitalism) up with language that implies freedom.

I’ll remain steadfast in my position: capitalism is economic authoritarianism by nature. Many thinkers agree that authoritarianism is a continuum or spectrum.

The good thing about dictionaries is that we don’t have to follow them strictly regarding political theory, which is fluid and evolving by nature. But regardless, “favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority […] at the expense of personal freedom” seems to be a core principle of capitalist institutions. Regulation cannot meaningfully address core internal authoritarian structures and hierarchy present in capitalism.

The only examples of capitalism being compatible with libertarian or democratic governance would be in a direct democracy, with stronger regulation than anywhere on the planet, or in examples like worker-owned cooperatives (if that concept was enforced or widespread) - however, it would be closer to market socialism at that point.

Even in Sweden, contesting the violence (inherent in the enforcement of private property) of capitalist institutions would be met with violence.

Let’s flip that around: Is Sweden libertarian? No.

Our definitions of authoritarianism clearly differ. Traditional definitions are limited in scope - political democracy does not inherently eliminate or override economically authoritarian mechanisms.

So to answer your question: Is Sweden authoritarian?

Sweden is a capitalist state that operates with soft authoritarian features, or at the very least, leans authoritarian - all embedded within a democratic political framework (including socialist elements).

Authoritarianism isn’t black or white; it’s a spectrum. Capitalism does not exist in a vacuum - it requires authoritarian structures to enforce itself, either through state power protecting capital, or private violence used to assert and maintain ownership.

Ultimately, capitalism is economic authoritarianism, even under the best-case, most-idealized form of political democracy regulating it.

How is capitalism not authoritarian by nature? Explain.

The US Department of Justice recommends that Google break up its advertising business, but the company argues in the filing that this isn’t ideal because it would “only accelerate” the decline of the open web, “harming publishers who currently rely on open-web display advertising revenue.”

Sounds like Google is making threats.

Advertisers and advertisement companies don’t keep the web open - it’s a business decision to restrict access, and many websites (such as online news sources) have already long moved to restrict access en-masse.

FWIW, I would happily donate to more services to keep their lights on - as long as they provide a good service, treat their users well, and keep user data private.

https://i.imgur.com/mb8911t.png

From the OP post image. It seems like things are vulnerable due to their update/patch frequency, and putting AOSP on the back-burner by skipping multiple scheduled updates (the latter of which directly affects custom ROMs).

I did pose my question in good faith for people to answer, so I’m not an expert or anything, but 4 month delays for patches sounds awful - especially if partner previews are a thing. It almost seems like this is Google providing exploit windows…

It’s all very concerning.

I did concede and I do largely agree with your responses. There’s any number of barriers stopping average people from switching, as much as it pains me to admit.

For the tech-inclined, there are plenty of alternative email providers and setting up email forwarding is a breeze, just as there many cloud photo services, CoMaps is likely going to see improvements in navigation, IoT devices/apps aren’t always reliant on external services, there are likely viable assistant alternatives around emerging, and hopefully inexpensive, private smart doorbells sprout up.

I personally never invested heavily into a phone. I just never found them particularly impressive, even with higher-end hardware. I tinker more than most people in a general sense, but my phone only gets used like how an average person would. I do a couple things on it, I don’t use anything special, and I’m not too picky. I just tend to avoid using the thing unless I get a phone call, message, or I want to check out the weather or social media.

I’m sorry that you can’t feasibly make the switch - thanks for sharing.

You prove a point though, and having two phones seems to be the play. It’d be cool to have a Linux phone and display/control the Android phone indirectly for convenience.

Perhaps there will be a way to emulate or proxy Google Play Services in scenarios like Waydroid. I’m not holding my breath though.

So, all Android users are more vulnerable to commercial exploit companies and governments (especially those on custom ROMs like GrapheneOS)?

If these exploit companies continue to stay in business and thrive, it really says a lot about Google’s security. In contrast to my perspective, there isn’t a thread where people aren’t talking up how good Google’s security is, no matter how relevant it is to the discussion.

I don’t really care how much Google spends on security, how many people they employ - if people are making a business out of exploiting their operating system… their security must really fucking suck.

You can run a lot of Android apps with Waydroid or similar solutions on postmarketOS. If a business does not support running their app in such a way, use a web version of their app if the functionality is sufficient, discontinue doing business with them, or encourage them to change.

These compatibility layers can be improved to such a point that mirrors Wine and Proton, where the only incompatibility is caused by a business decision.

It’s absolutely heart-wrenching to see human potential being snuffed out, to see this level of suffering.

Truly, the only things we stand to lose by incentivizing positive action is our dysfunction. Good riddance.