Banning ownership becomes a game of catch. Use whatever you have: 7.62x51mm, arrows, rocks, ect.

Wanting an end to needless slaughter, healthcare and working equipment sounds reasonable. I am glad there are reasonable voices on Lemmy.

I am probably missing a lot of information on Israel, but continued learning is important. I recently learned about the USS Liberty incident in 1967. I am not sure how Israeli’s could mess up that bad. There are still individuals maintaining the incident was deliberate. Who knows? Troubling history abounds.

People have different reasons for being on Lemmy. Examples are looking to feel validated or to pick a fight. I think these folk also existed in ye olde times. Maybe the attention economy is amplifying specific behaviors that would not have been amplified in the olde times.

Being fair, I usually come to Lemmy to argue. I am probably part of the problem.

The vote is worthless outside of swing states. May as well vote your conscience when fptp and Electoral College enshrine disenfranchisement.

Informative. Well written. Seems like the short version of my Intro to American Politics class at Uni. I classified myself as a social democrat back then. I was told I would get more conservative when I was older. Now I classify myself as an anarchist. Not sure what went wrong.

I am grateful local debates are posted online. Instead of listening to music at work I listened to the debates. Living in a one party state is unfortunate. The opposition tends to have similar political convictions to the incumbent.

Agreed. Voting shouldn’t be the only activism we are involved in. My comment was about solidarity against the oligarchs that can decide to make life harder for people they deem icky.

Republicans and Democrats were unable to stop legislation from the Judiciary with Roe v. Wade and later Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Super PAC’s donate multiple lifetimes of dollars to Presidential candidates in a quid pro quo system protected by the first amendment under Citizens United v. FEC. Americans outside the oligarchy will never exhibit their influence.

If oligarchs find your existence icky, they have the power to remove your “right” to exist. You lack the power to prevent it. Instead of thanking anyone, I suggest we take the power back. Punch up.

The function wcstol appears to be missing. Cross platform C is difficult.

Woody Gutherie, Utah Phillips… I guess I am asking what divides county from folk.

I have a lot to learn. I appreciate the insight. I listen to Aesop Rock. I remember his work being with Rhymesayers.

I agree with the music industry problems. Luckily I have found some great hip hop and country recently.

As an anarchist, voting is fine. In addition, build community and help others.

Becoming familiar with other ideas is beneficial. There is nothing wrong with being a Democrat, Social Democrat or Libertarian. Real people hold these political ideas. My transition over years was Democrat since I opposed hawkish Republican imperialism, but I rejected corporate power, so Social Democrat, but I rejected hierarchical power, so Anarchist. Through reading I know Pacifism meshes with any of these ideas. I have never been a Pacifist, but I applaud anyone that takes the time to explore politics even if we do not agree.

Being able to have conversations with people around you is important. Reading theory from other politics helps. Most people around me consider themselves conservative. They say talking points like “I’m for small government”. Having read Libertarian texts like Nozick’s “Anarchy, State and Utopia”, I can discuss the minimal state as a Libertarian idea. I can then transition to “Nozick’s minimal state is not small enough”. In my area this approach opens conversation more than banging a drum about being a Democrat, Leftist, Communist or Anarchist.

Learning to explain math to a computer has been a major blessing.

I agree that united we can push back. Creating horizontal power structures provide the push. Ideally, dismantling hierarchical power over merely scaring it.

Voting does not change the whims of the powerful. The powerful continue to push their will. Currently that will is massacres and genocide. Genocide Joe does have a nice ring to it. Vote or don’t. The powerful will get their way.

Voting is easy in my state, so I will. My current amusement is voting against incumbents. Preference is Third Party > Democrat > Republican.

Beyond the entertainment of voting: keep building mutual aid networks, be a good neighbor and use a pokeball if 2025 gets ghastly.

I referenced a news story in which the parachute on an air dropped aid package failed to deploy crushing people underneath.

Genocide is not ethical. Voting for genocide, but less, does not change the ethics of genocide. Part of the coalition that elected Biden in 2020 will not vote for him again due to his support of genocide.

The options for such voters are:

1. Being complicite in genocide
2. Voting third party or not at all

I understand the two party system created by first-past-the-post. I understand third party candidates are unlikely to win. I understand Democrats are rightfully nervous. If Democrats are nervous enough, they should do something to change the minds of voters that will not vote for genocide.

There is a flaw in making a collective choice individualistic. Helping others is a moral thing to do and I was there in 2020 even though peanut butter sucks. Individually, I will get a sandwich, probably with peanut butter.

However, this crate landed on Palestinians. Helping the people under the crate seems important.

I understand needing to eat the sandwich. I also understand making a collective first-past-the-post choice individual is a flawed argument.

However there is an individual component to saying I really can’t eat peanut butter. The decision then becomes stand your ground (no peanut butter), compromise (just a little peanut butter) or protest (full peanut butter; see you in the ER). The claim is the compromise is best.

How do we reach a point where we no longer need to compromise on peanut butter?

Offering a sandwich with more and less peanut butter when I am allergic to peanuts still means I will be sick. I’m hungry and I want a sandwich with no peanut butter. There are third party candidates providing sandwiches with no peanut butter. I am sorry demand decreases for the sandwich with less peanut butter, but I am unable to stomach peanuts.