If the Ukraine was so Nazi, why didn't Russia go to the UN and create a multi-country coalition to remove the Nazis and save the people?

And why would these Nazis elect a Jew?

In the United States, "lack of transparency" or "not transparent" is mostly used. Although "opaque" is sometimes used in some circles of people.

China suffers from the same problem the USSR did. When you have one party rule, it does not matter how democratic the constitution says a country is. If you can only elect people from one party, and the party determines who can run for office, voters can only select from a list of candidates that are aligned with the party and its leader. This effectively transfers power to the party leaders and away from elected officials and the people.

*Says a new word. Quickly files a trademark.*

The fediverse mostly has two types of people: people who don't want to be part of surveillance capitalism, and those who got banned on centralized social media for bad behavior. Unsurprisingly, the second group causes the same problems here as they did on centralized platforms.

These bullies are going to ruin the fediverse.

@ronflex said:

The problem with left leaning individuals on the internet is we have a lot of drive and conviction behind our ideas which is a good thing, but that should translate into real life activism or doing something that will combat the current political system and promote change. But we are beaten down since that’s basically a total pipe dream, we realize what the problem is and feel powerless to fix it.

In many ways, that's what they want you to believe: that you have no hope to change things, so most people never try. That leaves the powers-that-be in charge.

But the reality is that people have the power to transform the country, and it does not have to be through the government. For example, if you are socialist or communist, you can establish your own communes, cooperatives, and employee-owned enterprises yourself, and it is totally legal! And, there are plenty of them already in existence.

People like to complain that someone else should fix their country, but the reality is, they can do it themselves, even when they have no political power whatsoever. But it takes hard work, and that is something most people aren't willing to do.

As long as you never say anything even remotely political or controversial, you are fine.

But that comes at a cost of self expression. Conform or be cast out (blocked).

@Blaze (he/him) I heard someone mention Blacksky a couple of times. I forgot who, but apparently they are trying to set up alternatives for Bluesky on the AT protocol network.

They both use ActivityPub, so the two platforms can communicate with each other. I think it is just a matter of promoting your community.

That's the problem with labels. They often mean different things to different people.

@mortemtyrannis It is pretty simple, really. Don't screw over other people.

So that means I am against big business, monopolies, unfair trade practices, surveillance capitalism, hoarding wealth, etc.

I am also against big government, corrupt officials, police brutality, law enforcement overreach, government surveillance, tyranny, and dictators.

I think we should have free speech, but at the same time, I don't think we should allow harassment, doxing, slander, libel, or intimidation.

I think that people should get paid fairly based on what they contribute. Contribute more, get paid more. I also think that there should be a safety net for people who are struggling.

I think that we should have health care reform, but I don't like the choices that are being presented. Option 1: big business and big health care. Option 2: a government monopoly on health care. There is a middle route where you get rid of both big government and big business in health care. It would require some fundamental changes on how we handle health care, however.

I think we need less big business and less big government, and more small cooperatives, small businesses, and small non-profits. Smaller entities means it is closer to the people and they can chose who they want to deal with. Regardless of whether it is private, non-profit, or government-run, if you only have 5 choices or less, you really don't have much of a choice at all. Because if you have less than 5 major players, they all start to collude to keep policies and practices in place that benefit them and not the consumers or taxpayers.

I can go on. I may be an independent and politically non-binary, but I do have principles.

I said moderates. This includes left-leaning centrists.

You probably have not talked to moderates much. They don't like talking about politics because they get attacked by both the left and the right. But they are the swing voters, and they oppose the hate they hear everyday.

@emeralddawn45 It depends on whether we are talking about the hateful far right or conservatives.

Some things frequently talked about by conservatives, classic liberals, and centrists include:

1. Limitations on government power, including how to prevent a politician from becoming a dictator. This includes checks and balances on power, separation of power, and the dynamic between the states and the federal government.

2. Protecting peoples civil rights, including the rights of minorities. Opposing police brutality, protecting free speech, protecting the right of association, protections against illegal search and seizures, etc.

3. The right of people to own firearms, as allowed by the second amendment. This includes minorities and black people, who have the same rights under the Constitution as everyone else.

4. Health care reform. They want health care reform as much as the left does, but they usually disagree on how to reform the health care system. For example, the left usually wants to create a government monopoly, while the right usually wants to break up monopolies and distrusts the government.

5. How to give the power back to the people, since corporations and the elite seem to have taken over this country. Like #4, they agree that things need to change, but often have different ideas on how to change it.

I could go on.

Don't confuse the hateful right with the moderate centrists and right-leaning voters. Most people have the same concerns the left does, but have a different perspective on it. And most people aren't hateful. Maybe misinformed, but not hateful.

I find it interesting that some people are saying "the right is this" and "conservatives are that" and then saying horrible things most people would be opposed to. How would you know if you never talk to them and just assume what they think?

I think most people assume the extreme right is the entire right, just like most people assume the extreme left is the entire left. It's actually a spectrum. Or more accurately, a Nolan chart.

Most people I know are in the center, and they oppose racial segregation, oppose racism, oppose oppression, oppose monopolies, and oppose corrupt officials. But since they are not communists or socialists, some people on the left lump them in with the far right, which the center doesn't like either.

And if you attack the people in the center by falsely accusing them of being the right, all you are doing is alienating people who might agree with you on a lot of things.

I am an independent and politically nonbinary, but people like assuming, almost always incorrectly, what I am thinking. The people on the right think I am left, and the people on the left think I am right. Apparently it is all relative, and the attitude of "if you disagree with me, you must be evil" is way too prominent, both on the left and the right.

I like listening to a variety of viewpoints because I can learn something new about human nature, even if I disagree with their opinion. It allows me to spot patterns that others don't see.

It also allows me to better understand and respond to flawed thinking and dangerous ideas. For example, giving power to someone who is power-hungry is dangerous, no matter what propaganda they are spouting. And there are opportunists and snakes in the grass all over the political spectrum. Just because they say the right things does not mean they do the right things. People don't always like it when that is pointed out. They confuse the leader for the cause.

The problem with remaining in an information bubble surrounded by like-minded people is that you start assuming that everyone thinks like you, which is usually not true at all. Both the right and the left fall into this trap sometimes. And people who have not experienced other cultures also fall into this trap. It creates an unrealistic and inaccurate view of the world. It also results in a shock when they realize that people on the other side of the world or from a different background think completely differently than they do.

It is one of the reasons why the Democrats lost the election in the U.S. They assumed they were the majority because they surrounded themselves with people who agreed with them and they repeatedly blocked or canceled anyone who disagreed. As a result, they shifted further and further away from what the people wanted, abandoned the working class, embraced unpopular views, and then wondered why they lost the swing voters, thereby giving the election to their arch enemies.

Cultivating and remaining in an information bubble is like shooting yourself in the foot and blaming the other side. The more you isolate yourself, the less reach your ideas have, and the less influence you have over society.

To be frank, some people are actually hoping both the far left and the far right becomes increasingly isolationist. It would mean they disappear from the mainstream consciousness since they silence themselves by blocking anyone who disagrees with them. That way they talk to themselves instead of bothering the mainstream middle, who are the actual majority.

The fact is, you don't hear much from the people in the middle because they get attacked from both the right and the left, and most people don't like the drama. Instead, they just go to the ballot box and vote against the politicians they don't like.

In an idea world, we could talk about the issues and come up with some non-partisan solutions. But society has become so polarized, I am not sure that is even possible anymore.

I just thought of some good examples of crazy. (I don't call them crazy, but other people do.)

Stance 1: Anti-Immigration (don't let foreigners in).
Stance 2: Open Borders (let anyone in with no checks, including criminals)
Stance 3: Immigration Reform (allow immigration and make the process easier, but weed out the criminals)
Stance 4: Status Quo (allow immigration, but it is difficult and time consuming)

Many people think that stances 1 and 2 are "crazy." I just think that they are counterproductive and ineffective. And the anti-foreigner thing is racist.

Most people's grievances right now are the economy and inflation. And they want change. They want the elites to have less control over their lives.

Sure, the right has some crazy ideas. So does the left. But the middle decides elections because they are the swing voters, and the middle's main grievances are the economy and that they feel helpless in a world where the wealthy control everything.

There is what the public thinks they rejected due to propaganda, and there is what is really going on.

In this case, the propaganda said that Trump was fascist and Harris was leftist.

The reality: both parties are market capitalists, and cater to their wealthy donors, and disregard what the public wants if it conflicts with what their wealthy donors want.