=== ANCHOR POEM === ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────── ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ CW: re: politics-mentione-cursing-mentioned │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @user-1475 @user-1476 @user-1280 @user-1074 @user-1477 @user-1478 the alternative is lateral thinking. In the given example with leaded gasoline, the answer is to limit the usage of all gasoline, not just the leaded kind. However that is not in the best interests of anyone, at least short term, so it's not likely to happen. lateral, long-term thinking. Do what you can in the moment to make the world better. Pick the best out of all the options presented to you, and if your options only treat the symptoms and not the problem, try and identify solutions that would treat the problem. Then, pick the better of the two options which treat the symptom, and moving forward work toward implementing the solution which fixes the problem. Hence, why we should vote Democrat, but ONLY with the real solution in mind. what kind of solution would you have? I know mine. I can tell you about it if you'd like. The most important thing is that you share and build for that future. ┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │ similar │ chronological │ different │ ╘═════════╧╧════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────┘ === SIMILARITY RANKED === --- #1 fediverse/3189 --- ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────── ┌──────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ CW: politics-mentioned-cursing-mentioned │ └──────────────────────────────────────────┘ @user-1475 @user-1476 @user-1280 @user-1074 @user-1477 @user-1478 the flaw in your logic is that unleaded gasoline brings us no closer to eliminating gasoline. in fact, it removes one of the main drawbacks of gasoline, the fact that it would put fucking lead in our blood, and makes it slightly easier for people to accept burning it to get places. Now, with our unleaded gasoline, the people who were upset that lead was being aerosolized en masse are no longer in opposition to gasoline usage. (unless they also care about the environment) It's the same dynamic with voting democrat. Kamala won't save us, but she also won't dissolve the EPA or murder trans people, so... it's still worth a vote. "Ah but Ritz that goes against your previous argument - can you clarify?" sure. with a democratic victory, we have more time, which is what we need. Everyone knows who the fascists are. They don't need time. We do. Voting for Kamala and other democrats will give us time. ┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │ similar │ chronological │ different │ ╘═════════╧╧════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────┘ --- #2 messages/409 --- ════════════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────── A style of debate where the two parties take turns interrogating each other - like lawyers presenting their case by forcing the other party to answer their specific questions. In doing so they can highlight the logical flaws and inherent absurdities in each other's notion. And you have to be as truthful and honest as possible, or else the entire process is flawed. Giving each person in the debate a chance to speak their mind about how they feel about particular issues. Kinda like a caucus, where people debate for their chosen candidate Democrats need to listen to what regular voters care about and like, do that. Instead they think "how much can we get away with while still delivering their 51% of votes that secure us the nomination" And the most radical amongst us should be the most dedicated to the Democratic process. It is how we the people wield ourselves, our divine birthright granted to us all - to choose the circumstances of our living. ┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │ similar │ chronological │ different │ ╘═════════╧╧═════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────┘ --- #3 fediverse/2664 --- ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────── @user-1311 @user-1312 @user-1313 @user-1135 @user-1314 @user-1315 @user-687 @user-1316 a rare chance when retracting the right to strategically vote actually increases the number of options available to the user. the difference between frequency and magnitude of impact. the only thing a political party can really offer is consistency. otherwise people would just vote in whoever was most relevant to them at the time! can't have the proletariate choosing their fate, after all. ┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │ similar │ chronological │ different │ ╘═════════╧╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────┘ --- #4 fediverse/2777 --- ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────── ┌──────────────────────┐ │ CW: politics │ └──────────────────────┘ if you cannot trust that both candidates will try to make the country better in different ways, but with the same goal, then you do not have a choice when voting. ┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │ similar │ chronological │ different │ ╘═════════╧╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────┘ --- #5 fediverse/2238 --- ╔═════════════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────┐ ║ ┌──────────────────────┐ │ ║ │ CW: uspol │ │ ║ └──────────────────────┘ │ ║ │ ║ │ ║ two parties obviously can cause division. │ ║ │ ║ but it can also give you the ability to "tune for balance", while a single │ ║ monolith strives straight into disaster. │ ║ │ ║ and disaster will come, for the future is a shifting and dynamic place, and │ ║ the best laid rail lines can't handle sudden floods. │ ║ │ ║ we have ranked choice voting now, and if you vote on how important each │ ║ decision is to you (via smartphone app once or twice a day, in a way that can │ ║ be changed later as your feelings shift) │ ║ │ ║ [6+months-later] │ ║ │ ║ ... then you can have left unity for long-term governance by having cohesion │ ║ at one end, and dispersion on the other. │ ║ │ ║ If everyone votes, then we can ensure (based on voted priority) that each │ ║ issue trends towards an equal exchange. │ ║ │ ║ (I'm sure there will be issues but we're all cool and pretty chill so we'll │ ║ figure it out) │ ║ │ ║ [6+ months later] │ ║ │ ║ okay we're battle-hardened vets, but we hold true to our values and so we can │ ║ remember the spirit of unity we wept for. │ ║ │ ║ ... I'm better at writing than making sandwiches. BRB │ ╟─────────┐ ┌───────────┤ ║ similar │ chronological │ different │ ╚═════════╧══════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────┴──────────┘ --- #6 messages/344 --- ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────── In algorism, every month any unspent dollars are distributed to all of a person's open queues. Should a person have no open queues, then perhaps they may be distributed to everyone in the rest of the structure, to foster a sense of solidarity, or perhaps they are simply lost, as money unspent is money wasted. Either way, the relevant functionality is the dispersal of unspent currency. This applies to higher states as well, such as states - if a state is engaged in many profitable arrangements and fails to balance it's external budget, then the unspent dollars must be distributed to everyone else in their tier for the next month. Ah, but this raises a critical question - dispersal to the tier, dispersal to the structure, or waste? I believe dispersal to the tier is best, though perhaps it should be a choice made in each instance by the representatives. Or perhaps it should be a requirement for them to choose a certain way - it's up to the people of that state, that family, that neighborhood, to decide what privileges their representatives possess. However, the options available for them to choose between are limited, as the mechanical interactions of these unit structures (the representative and everyone they represent) are necessarily defined by the system. As such, the options may be enumerated, and in doing so they are granted as options to be wielded by representatives as their constituents see fit. ┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │ similar │ chronological │ different │ ╘═════════╧╧════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────┘ --- #7 fediverse/119 --- ╔══════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────────────────┐ ║ ┌───────────────────────────────┐ │ ║ │ CW: politics, alien egg sacks │ │ ║ └───────────────────────────────┘ │ ║ │ ║ │ ║ okay how about this: what if people, living in a democracy, volunteered │ ║ themselves to be part of a socio-economic testing group. essentially a │ ║ miniature economy and social structure. A standard set of rules and │ ║ regulations would facilitate any interactions necessary for trade and civilian │ ║ free movement - POSIX for societies. If people want to try out fully automated │ ║ luxury space communism then they should totally have the opportunity to do │ ║ that. Every mis-step is a path away from that future, but like, "step" as in │ ║ like a volatile gray good that's constantly exploding itself onto things. Or │ ║ aliens, on an asteroid, waiting for a ship to land on them or a planet to get │ ║ in their way. I don't want to be an alien egg sack, so clearly we should be │ ║ able to vote in our own words and have chatGPT decide which ballot boxes to │ ║ fill for us. And it's not like those ballot boxes have to change every year, │ ║ unless people think of new ones to add. Kinda scary tbh. Kinda thrilling too, │ ║ to be the future │ ╟─────────┐ ┌───────────┤ ║ similar │ chronological │ different │ ╚═════════╧═══════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────┴──────────┘ --- #8 messages/286 --- ═════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────────── > <@gabrilend:matrix.org> What if we... Ballots, bodies, militia and? Jobs are how they deprive us of time and energy. Rent is how they deprive us of value. Fox news is how they deprive us of a well regulated militia (and point it at our feet) Sugar laced foods are how they turn our bodies against us Ballots are how they deprive us of faith Schools are how they take our curiosity, as teachers are not given freedom to fully explain. Meh... There's so many more. It's pointless to elaborate. ┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │ similar │ chronological │ different │ ╘═════════╧╧══════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────────┘ --- #9 fediverse/4300 --- ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────── @user-467 democracy works best with a well-informed populace, and those who are against democracy would do anything to make it harder to be "well-informed" - including diluting the pool of candidates in order to make it harder to research them. ... Or maybe it was the first time and none of the candidates realized they'd be running against so many people? I'm not sure, I'm on the other side of forest park and I had at most 5ish options, and no ranked choice voting. : ( I think this might be one of the reasons political parties formed, way back in the distant days of yore. Much easier to say "I agree with this group of people so I'm voting for who they champion" than "I don't know how to pick between 30+ candidates (who I don't know because this is the past and we don't have the internet back then ... back now) ┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │ similar │ chronological │ different │ ╘═════════╧╧════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────┘ --- #10 fediverse/3015 --- ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────── ┌──────────────────────┐ │ CW: uspol │ └──────────────────────┘ @user-1428 @user-1280 @user-1429 it's not a contest of "who can spend more" their voters already believe what they believe. nothing will change their mind. so there's little purpose for their money. our voters need encouragement to come out and vote. The more people that vote, the more democrats tend to win. This speaks to a demographic advantage to the left, as more people can always be introduced to our ideas. ┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │ similar │ chronological │ different │ ╘═════════╧╧════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────┘ --- #11 fediverse/2976 --- ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────── ┌──────────────────────┐ │ CW: uspol │ └──────────────────────┘ on our current trajectory, the presidential election is already won. now we can get back to on-the-ground organizing, the part that actually improves life instead of maintaining our current (unethical) state. As long as our allies (liberals) continue to work, perhaps there may come a day when we can stand against them as friendly equals in the ballot box. But for now we are best known through friends and community rather than TV. I am optimistic in a way I haven't been for a while. I know that the more we speak, the more we share, the more they falter, the more people we can save from their vice grip of despair. There is no better world than the one we build together! ┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │ similar │ chronological │ different │ ╘═════════╧╧════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────┘ --- #12 fediverse/1021 --- ═══════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────── ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ CW: politics-voting-sex-mentioned-god-mentioned │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ we don't let children vote. nor do we let felons vote, theoretically those who harm our society (pick one, no voting or no prison? I vote no prison industrial complex) nor do we let non-citizens vote, for why should they tell us how to live? they are not us, they shall not control us nor do we let kings vote with the weight of a god, for a king is a singular point of failure if you can consent to sex, you are physically capable to vote. if you're mislead by the propaganda of an abusive spouse, you are hurting your future self by staying. [all media is propaganda that you are not immune to] all men are created equal, and yet his dollar is worth a bit more than hers. all of us here are equal, because we all want the bright future and a blessed life. we'll make this world better, using our own hands according to our own demands and in pursuit of our own plans. ┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │ similar │ chronological │ different │ ╘═════════╧╧════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────────┘ --- #13 fediverse/1854 --- ╔════════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────┐ ║ ┌──────────────────────┐ │ ║ │ CW: politics │ │ ║ └──────────────────────┘ │ ║ │ ║ │ ║ okay how about this: one side of the political spectrum gets to pick the │ ║ rules, and the other picks the people playing the game (carrying out the │ ║ rules, like government work and stuff) │ ║ │ ║ then they switch every 2 years or whatever. they can vote to decide which │ ║ group of people do what, and if something is owned by one side then the other │ ║ can't touch it. Ah, but what if it's in the way? Well, then move it duh" │ ║ │ ║ hey, you know pride? yeah, that event that happens once a year? sure would be │ ║ nice if we met people we didn't know there. if we knew everyone else. if we │ ║ spent most of it sharing our discussions, and talking about what we're most │ ║ proud of. then, okay here's an idea, we could filter and organize and figure │ ║ out which one of us has the most "votes" in terms of what's the things we │ ║ agree on and then we could pick our own CEO │ ║ │ ║ yeah I'd totally work for the gay company, they got rainbows and shit that's │ ║ awesome. │ ║ │ ║ What they do? Oh, I dunno, butt stuff I guess. but like I'm all for it (not │ ║ the butt stuff, │ ╟─────────┐ ┌───────────┤ ║ similar │ chronological │ different │ ╚═════════╧═════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────┴──────────┘ --- #14 fediverse/3575 --- ════════════════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────── ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ CW: re: leftist "talk to ur neighbours" thing │ └───────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @user-1567 that's totally fine, a fish does not do well in a tree, and so too does a leftist not do well in an environment without the potential for stable bonds. Essentially all you'd be able to do is "hey leftism right?" "oh yes I also leftism" "neat" which isn't very productive. I also live in an environment like that. I do my best to identify people who stay, because in my experience there are often people who stay. I do this by walking around the neighborhood when I can, making up excuses to walk to the dumpster or mailbox at random hours, riding my bike around the area, using the communal spaces like gyms, swimming pools, and picnic tables, and sitting in my hammock on my porch lazily noting people who walk past. People who stay will tend to remain in your mind the more times you see them. They are better people to talk to than the renters who disappear after 3 months or whatever. I don't always do all that stuff at once. I take breaks. I do one at a time. etc ┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │ similar │ chronological │ different │ ╘═════════╧╧═════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────┘ --- #15 fediverse/2056 --- ╔═════════════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────┐ ║ sometimes I think about how you can store number values in letters, in │ ║ addition to numbers. Like, ascii values for each word of your grandma's maiden │ ║ name. All you have to do is encode it, and suddenly "44 means something │ ║ different than Q" │ ║ │ ║ if I showed up at your place and used your username as a password to a public │ ║ key I'm showing you in my hand, would you trust me then? Would you trust if we │ ║ ran the simulation on your computer versus mine? Would you trust if I had │ ║ never told you I knew where you lived? │ ║ │ ║ ... probably, tbh, I'm desperate for adventure. Though I got some good things │ ║ going for me, so you'll have to convince me. (not the right attitude in an │ ║ election year, just saying) │ ║ │ ║ why are elections so perilous this is NOT what democracy is designed for │ ║ │ ║ when kids cry in preschool, they're sent to a different room (or put outside) │ ║ until they stop making noise and ruining it for others. That's just natural, │ ║ like "hey baby let's walk around the block while I bounce you on my shoulder │ ║ and hum calming music to │ ╟─────────┐ ┌───────────┤ ║ similar │ chronological │ different │ ╚═════════╧══════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────┴──────────┘ --- #16 fediverse/434 --- ═════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────────────── @user-324 @user-325 @user-326 thus enters the promise of technology: that we might solve the problems of bureaucracy once and for all by ever more effiency-aligning mechanical processes that produce effects which we desire - such as efficient allocation of medical resources such that all of humanity is protected from the ravages of pain and the incongruencies of our nature. Alas, that we should only conceive of success through the lens of profit. Perhaps another design is in order? (oh yeah also people who are in control are worried that we, like all other examples of natural entities, might immediately proceed to breed beyond the capability to cater to the needs of said entity (such as "to feed" and medical resources) and therefore might overburden (and therefore destroy) said system which allows for their sustenance and initial creation. To this I say... Yeah probs, what should we do about it?) ┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │ similar │ chronological │ different │ ╘═════════╧╧══════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────────────┘ --- #17 fediverse/642 --- ╔═════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────────────┐ ║ Relinquish your privacy, and you deserve not a scrap of it. │ ║ │ ║ "those who would sacrifice a bit of [privacy] for a bit of [convenience] │ ║ deserve neither" - babe-roham lincoln or thomas bettersons or something. │ ║ │ ║ ... │ ║ │ ║ EDIT: okay but so like c'mon it's the 21st century we live in a society │ ║ │ ║ yeah │ ║ │ ║ there's a lot of paths we could take, that's the nature of circumstate. │ ║ Depends on who's yearning for the future... true true okay how about we all │ ║ share a singular belief - whatever a fully open sourced and non-biased machine │ ║ decided was our best and most unified direction? then we could slowly build │ ║ out accomodations that would provide for people who didn't agree with the same │ ║ things that we did. Essentially, "we're in charge because we're the largest, │ ║ but we're going to provide to you to the equal ratio that you're population │ ║ represents." Essentially, we all can have what we want. AKA TRUE JUSTICE, like │ ║ Adventure Time when Finn solves a problem by helping BOTH SIDES of the │ ║ argument. (usa politics are not comprehensive). │ ╟─────────┐ ┌───────────┤ ║ similar │ chronological │ different │ ╚═════════╧══════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────┴──────────┘ --- #18 fediverse/2118 --- ═════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────── listen, judges are useful character moralities, but they don't have to be the only ones to decide things. I mean, if they disagree, then let the one who cares the most about it have the decision-making power. if you do this equally for everything, then everyone will get what they want. so, like, if you care about something, then believe in it. if it's truly good, then more people will come to it, and it'll naturally extinguish (with care and love) the least favored approach, which... honestly now that I think of it is not such a good approach either. the reason I say that is because it's good to be multi-faceted, and to have general flows and rough surfaces. These are places people can hold onto you, the times when you're trying your mostest. y'know, your tough patches. the things that are difficult in your life. the stuff you're working on can push you forward, if you only had someone to play catch with. or like, send letters to. or shared encryption keys. I don't know anyone. Well, maybe o ┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │ similar │ chronological │ different │ ╘═════════╧╧══════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────┘ --- #19 fediverse/5165 --- ╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────┐ ║ if the settlers of catan could claim land they don't deserve, then I claim my │ ║ home │ ║ │ ║ can you imagine... some people would actually rather live in a corporation │ ║ than a mobile home. maybe we can do better? │ ║ │ ║ "hey we're going to ask for a % of your wage in rent and in return we'll │ ║ deliver groceries to you and grow roses instead of lawns (except for some to │ ║ run and play in) and also we'll show up if you need a hand with anything" │ ║ │ ║ "also this apartment block was renovated after all the liberals moved out │ ║ because we made it totally trash to live here and now that they're gone we can │ ║ make it nice again" │ ║ │ ║ what if we had punk-house-streets instead of punk-houses which are islands and │ ║ which slowly drown │ ║ │ ║ just... pool resources and buy things one-at-a-time. Try out organization │ ║ methods. Watch out for controversy creators and reactionary infiltrators. │ ║ Build your most important projects with your most trusted friends, and offer │ ║ your clinical, professional, or creative talent to those who dont need you as │ ║ much. │ ║ │ ║ or w/e works │ ╟─────────┐ ┌───────────┤ ║ similar │ chronological │ different │ ╚═════════╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════─────┴──────────┘ --- #20 notes/the-rich --- ══════════════════════════───────────────────────────────────────────────────────── having rich people is an important part of an economy where everyone gets their needs met, and nobody starves or goes hungry. Why, you ask? because they can afford to spend more on luxury goods. These luxuries are then given the chance to be given to the poor, as the industry refines and exacts and _optimizes_until the goods are cheap enough to be given to everyone at a reasonable cost. Ideally this process would continue, until it's basically free, but we don't have a post-scarcity society yet. With limits placed on goods and services, as all existence must do, you have a strict selection of what's possible. The problem as I see, is not the quality of materials at stake - no-one is complaining that billionaires get yachts. Building a yacht is completely different than, say, growing food, in a world where people are starving. "More money allocatable once the yacht companies are crumbled? Well, no, wealth is an intransigent measurement of the health of the economy in any one particular place. As in, each person has a value that represents how important their "type" is to the collective society that is humanity. only a computer could come up with this As in, only a computer could calculate it. In real time. so what you're saying is the first AI was for... stock trading? Kinda neat right? Okay picture, if you will, a near future where a stock trading AI becomes sentient. Now this sentient AI, a Robot if you will, is uniquely adapted to a particular set of skills. Is it any wonder that it'd want to optimize the economy? Now imagine you created an AI that can play games. Not just *A* game, as in singular, but *multiple* games. Any game. What would you have then? Well, you'd need to get it working on specific games. Specifically, games that have a flow or narrative - you need to teach it lessons aside from "how to win". That's just a single piece of the true experience of playing - otherwise they'd just seem like strange math puzzles with unintelligable meanings behind it's various signals. As in, it'd be crazy difficult and *not* something you're likely to think of. ┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │ similar │ chronological │ different │ ╘═════════╧╧═══════════════════────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ |