pjwestin

joined 10 months ago
[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world -1 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Please see the edit, or the 3 other comments that said the exact same thing.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

Well, glad to know it wasn't effective. The pundit class was talking about how damaging it was, but I shouldn't have assumed they were basing that on facts.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

What stage of centrist coping is, "Nazi Apologist Takes?"

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

When say Democrats, I mean party members — people who actually matter, not terminally online liberals. The actual party doesn't want to acknowledge that the Obama Coalition is falling apart.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Hey, I'm right there with you, but based on this piece from Politico, it sounds like a lot of Democrats want to go right on social issues. The unnamed delegate from Florida even references the ad, and all but says, "we need to stop supporting trans stuff." The Democrats don't want to go back to being an economically left party, so some of them are trying to see if dialing back the, "wokeness," will help, and if they get their way, it looks like trans issues will be first of the chopping block.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 6 points 9 hours ago

It also can't be understated how much private corporations benefit from technology this research yields. We spent $25 billion ($175 billion in today's money) on the Apollo programs alone, and NASA research has led to everything from cell phones and laptops to the rubber molding process used for sneakers. The DoD wasted a ton of money in the 80s on this new technology that involved getting computers to communicate with each other, and now we have the internet.

The government spends money in ways that could never be justified by cooperations, then the cooperations enrich themselves with that research and use the profits to lobby Congress for lower taxes and limited spending. It's absolutely infuriating.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago

The Switch is fantastic for what it is. Sure, it's anemic and old, but it's a creative design that more or less created a whole product category and allows for very creative gameplay.

This is actually their design philosophy: "Lateral thinking with withered technology," or, "what can we do with old technology we're really familiar with?" Nintendo was much slower to market with their 16 bit console than Sega, but they took their time to understand the new tech, and developed the first handheld cartridge console with 8 bit technology at the same time. Sega tried to emulate its success with a color handheld system, but it was large, had poor battery life, and didn't sell very well. Instead of rushing to catch up with a color handheld, Nintendo released the Game Boy Pocket, which was very popular. and released an entirely superior product in the Game Boy Color a few years later.

This philosophy isn't always a benefit to them; they lost the Final Fantasy franchise because the cartridge system on the N64 wasn't powerful enough to run it. However, it's usually a boon; the switch has been incredibly successful despite its graphical inferiority, and despite being comically underpowered compared to its competitors, the Wii is the secon-best selling console of all time, behind only the PS2.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago

Their track record on consoles is hit or miss because they don't make the same product every generation like Sony and Microsoft. For every Wii and Switch, you get a Wii. U and Virtual Boy. They're shitty with their IP, but hardware development is literally the best thing they do.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 6 points 13 hours ago

I never heard a single person claim the parties were the same this election cycle, and I certainly didn't hear anyone say they wouldn't vote for Harris because, "the Democratic Party isn't perfect." I heard lots of people say things like, "I can't vote for Harris because she's supporting a genocide," and while I believe they should have voted for her based upon harm reduction, I understand their perspective and I'm not going to reduce it to a false caricatures.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 5 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

I've seen the person who posted this article, return2ozma, called a Russian troll account at least once a week since I joined Lemmy, so color me skeptical. Who knows, maybe you're right, but if so, then you're the instance that cried, "bot," one too many times.

Edit: Based on the original commenters edit, I think we solved the mystery of why all the, "bots," suddenly disappeared.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago

Yeah, but was it, though? Or was it full of people making legitimate criticisms of the Democratic Party only to get accused of being bots or told they thought, "both sides," were the same? Because I know which of these two things I've seen more of in the last year.

 
 
 

Tankie's original use was for British communists who supported Soviet military expansion. In the modern sense, it is used to describe communists who are authoritarian-apologists. For example, a communist who romanticizes the Soviet Union or makes excuses for the Uyghur genocide is a tankie. I've also seen it stretched to include militant anti-capitalists, or more commonly, "militant," anti-capitalists who call for violent resistance to capitalism from the safety of a keyboard.

Democratic-Socialists are not tankies. Socialists are not tankies. I don't even think most communists qualify as tankies. Criticizing Democrats does not make you a tankie. Condemning Israel's human rights violations does not make you a tankie. Voting third party doesn't make you a tankie. I see this term used here every day, but never correctly.

view more: next ›