That’s the neat part, there isn’t!

But being more serious: I think I can express the feeling of things being particularly worse now in a way that isn’t just recency bias.

Sure, over time technology has improved and that’s generally speaking allowed for better standards of living, at least for the people at the right end of that technology. (Not so great if you’re being conquered because someone shows up with guns for example.) So you could look at the past and say it was worse because materially things like food availability and medicine have become better over time.

But key to this was that all of this was a struggle of humans over nature. To the extent things were bad, there were tangible things we could do to improve.

These days, so many of our problems are self-inflicted and technology and economic development mostly makes them worse. Climate change is the obvious big one, but then there’s stuff like:

• Weapons have become increasingly destructive and centrally usable. A small number of people can cause a lot more damage than they ever could in the past.

• Surveillance technology invades our privacy in a way that’s unprecedented in human history.

• Automation, communications, and transportation technology have made workers less and less powerful and therefore more subject to abuse and artificial poverty. This is one of the more messed up things about capitalism. Technology gets better and rather than getting the benefits of that progress, it actually hurts a lot of people.

• Advances in science and technology, particularly data science, allow the powerful to hyper-optimize the bad things they were always doing or enables them to do things they’ve wanted to do.

• A financialized economy creates economic catastrophes where people go homeless or starve without any actual changes to material conditions. The numbers got screwed up or the investors panicked and now everything sucks for no reason?

• More generally, we can produce enough of the necessities of life for everyone, but capitalism ensures that those necessities won’t make it to people. Capitalism depends on scarcity. If you had a house you wouldn’t need to pay a landlord. If you had food you wouldn’t need to pay food companies. If you had both you wouldn’t need to go work and put up with awful conditions. We’ve solved our most fundamental problems and yet because of the interests of the system and those in power, that progress gets held back.

In the past, even if things were rough now, you could maybe look forward to them improving. Now it feels like the walls are closing in. Unless we actively do something about it, things are going to get worse for most people as more and more wealth accumulates in private hands, as we become subject to increasingly powerful forms of control, and as the powerful destroy the environment we need to live.

Because the rich do a LOT to make it turn out that way.

• News is largely controlled by capitalists.

• Education has been gutted in a lot of places to make way for private schools.

• Corporations can contribute tons of money to candidates. Setting aside the possibility that these are effectively bribes, even if that weren’t the case, the candidates who get that money get to put out more ads and have more campaign infrastructure such as travel funds, staffers, etc.

• Various kinds of voter suppression.

• From the very founding of the country, the election system and government has been set up to hamper political participation. Obviously there was the fairly narrow franchise at the start. But even with that expanded, we have the electoral college, unequal apportionment, gerrymandering, first past the post, closed primaries, a court that’s specifically there to slow down popular will, etc.

• Just being a representative “democracy” puts a barrier between people and the policies they want. You rarely if ever get to vote on policies. You have to vote for a candidate. And the candidate is a whole bundle of policies, but also a record, a personality, etc. So there can be all sorts of political messaging about candidates which has nothing to do with what their policies are. Because of the duopoly party system that is all but ensured by the aforementioned voting system, you aren’t even going to have a candidate you can vote for that will represent your interests. And after all that, even if you manage to vote for someone who says they’ll do the things you want… then they get into office and you’re back on the sidelines. They go and do whatever it was they actually wanted to do, and you have fairly limited recourse for holding them accountable. The most you can do is decide to vote against them next election, but now you’re back to square one.

• Broader, more participatory forms of political organizing have been violently repressed. Just look at the history of union busting or the police violence during the civil rights movement or even now, etc. In the workplace, where you’re most likely to find others who share your class interests, your boss has a lot of control over you and it’s in their interest to make sure employees don’t talk politics and view each other as competition rather than potential allies.

• Along similar lines, racism has been used as a tool to divide people who would otherwise share class interests so they wouldn’t focus their attention on capitalists.

Moral of the story: There is a long history of people struggling against capitalists for a better life and an equally long history of capitalists using every trick in the book to keep them from that goal. The political landscape you see today is the result of that history. Learn from it.

Sure… but what use is that analysis? There’s no magic magnitude dial that scales the vote counts evenly. The vote counts reflect the reality of the situation. Who has easier access to voting? Who believes that there is a candidate worth voting for? Etc. Even if we were just talking about “both sides pushing harder” they’re not going to be equally effective at it.

I like how you briefly acknowledge that this isn’t a random sample, but then hand wave it away and act like the same conclusions can be drawn from it as though it were a random sample.

I bring you a bag of red and blue balls to sample from, but before this I let a guy who really likes blue balls take some balls out of the bag. After taking a sampling from the bag, you conclude that there are many more red balls than blue balls. Is this a valid representation of the population?

People are asses sometimes, but whenever these conversations come up, I wonder: What do you even want from us? How are random people on the internet supposed to hold random anonymous trolls on the internet “accountable?” You can call them asses, but so? What if they don’t care? They’re anonymous. You could get mods to ban them, but if it’s a free service they can always make another anonymous account. It’s even more confusing in the context of something like an online game as opposed to a forum. What are you supposed to do about someone being an ass when you’ve probably never seen them before and probably won’t see them again?

Clearly this just means that Silksong IS Half-life 3.

Not spicy. Everyone knows nuclear power is lemon-lime flavored.

I think there’s something to be said for the fact that the country has always had these tendencies. It’s a country founded on conquest and genocide and we just kept the wars rolling ever since. People are just numb to cruelty because it’s so “normal” living in an imperialist country. To complete the Nazi comparison, Germany, like most of the European states, was a decaying colonial empire. You spend centuries dehumanizing people around the world to justify colonizing them and it becomes pretty easy to turn that dehumanizing apparatus inward. The minds of the people are already set up to view some people as being lesser to justify oppressing them.

I think what you and others are experiencing isn’t a significant change as much as it’s becoming conscious of the violence that’s always been there. That’s good. People need to take that step to be able to do something. That said, there’s not NOTHING new about the various developments in the world. Technology always empowers those who already have the power to wield is to do things that they might have only dreamed of before. The industrial scale genocide of the holocaust wouldn’t have been possible without modern technology. Today, surveillance, data science, and automation allows the powerful to optimize their control over an increasing number of people with fewer and fewer people necessary to do it for them. What might once have taken a whole army of spies and police/soldiers can now be done by some computers and a guy controlling a drone.

But people don’t have the framework for recognizing these as the problems they are because they start from the assumption that the US is good and therefore the various violent things it does must be for good reasons. You can try to point out all evidence to the contrary, but the assumption that the “other” is the enemy is so strong that they can justify almost any action against others as being better than the alternative. And some people will try to resist, get others to see what they see, and then get called a hippy, conspiracy theorist, and/or a foreign agent.

Only have a beginner perspective, but in school I did really well in intro CS class that used Python. 2nd class was in Java and it almost broke me I was so confused.

Elden Ring. Although that’s only because I didn’t want to start a whole new character for the DLC. Does Nier Automata count? All the extra playthroughs are kind of just part of the complete experience of the story. Then there’s harder difficulties of roguelikes like StS.

Beyond that, I tend to not end up being that interested in a NG+ unless there’s something substantially different about it like new story beats or I can play a cool build.

Game mechanic patents are such an unbelievable joke it’s hard to understand how any court could take them seriously. “Yes your honor. As you can see, we own the exclusive rights to the idea of throwing a ball at a creature in a video game.”

“I know, I know, but it was this or we’d have to stop bombing brown people and tell the poors we’d give them food. It was the politically responsible thing to do.”

There’s a philosophical and a practical side to this:

Philosophically, the core of a democratic system is the peaceful transition of power. The idea that you won’t just try to force your will over people with violence and will respect the will of the populace. This is a fine principle in a proper democracy with a fair process and political outcomes that fall within acceptable ranges. If you wanted more money for the trains and someone else wanted more money for the busses, that’s a disagreement you can live with. And if the voting system is set up so you had equal chances both to introduce topics/candidates and vote on them, then great. By accepting the election and not trying to go outside the system to get your way, you keep the peace and allow for that process to be a viable vehicle for change.

If this is a requirement for democracy, then the converse is that if a system isn’t fair and produces unacceptable results (eg, Nazis and genocide), participating in it merely legitimizes it. Obviously nothing physically stops you from organizing, but symbolically you’ve shown that you view the system as the sole legitimate way to exert political power and garner authority. And people will then turn around and say you should vote instead of doing xyz actions. “I don’t agree with your methods.”

On the practical side of this: people put a lot of time, energy, and political capital into supporting candidates in these elections. It eats up the public bandwidth, crowding out other forms of political participation. In addition, once someone works hard to get their candidate elected, there is an impulse, an incentive, to defend them. The people who said to suck it up, vote for Biden, then push him to the left turned around and chastised leftists for protesting over things like the continued anti-immigration policies or the support for Israel’s genocide. US electoral politics is a team sport. People get psychologically invested in their team. They don’t like it when you criticize their team. This makes them resistant to change even on policies they nominally support. I think encouraging people to maintain that emotional investment in elections is harmful. It hinders organizing efforts. It hurts attempts to build class consciousness because it gets people to think about their fellow workers as the enemy and capitalists as potential allies. And the corresponding obsession with 24 hour news cycles turns politics into a TV show. Trying to talk to libs about any history older than like a week ago or maybe at most a presidential term is impossible. If it wasn’t on their favorite TV show it doesn’t exist.

We need to be drawing people’s attention to actual types of political participation. Elections don’t just distract from that, they make people think they’re doing the right thing. It’s a release.

All that said, that’s not to say there’s never value in any part of the electoral system, it’s just very limited. Bernie’s attempts at running were part of what got me more engaged in politics and shifted me from being a progressive-ish lib to being more of a socialist. Important to that though was not just the policy platform, but the structure and messaging of the campaign promoted the importance of mass political participation. I ended up meeting some local socialist groups in the process of going to campaign volunteering. However, most of the time and energy still went into the election only for the system to block us at the end and Bernie to give in. Tons of hours of volunteer time went into doing little more than getting people to sign ballot petitions. We weren’t getting those people into a union or a mutual aid group or anything. We basically just tossed our energy into the void.

For me: Voting represents support for both the process and the government that results from that process. By voting you are essentially expressing that you submit to the electoral process as the sole means for the exercise of political power. Even if you don’t like the results, you’ve agreed to accept it because the rules are more important than the results.

Some obvious problems with that: What if the process itself isn’t fair in the first place? We don’t really get to choose our leaders. We get presented with a set of options which are acceptable to capitalists and are asked our opinion on which we like more. You could write multiple books on the ways the US electoral process has been structured to disenfranchise people and reduce the impact they can have on their government, but fundamentally it comes down to the fact that the government doesn’t represent people and that’s a feature, not a bug.

So we end up with a pair of awful candidates who both have done and will do more awful shit. If the election randomly fell out of the sky without context, sure, you could argue about one being technically better than the other. But it didn’t. It’s this way for a reason. It’s this way because people are willing to cede their expression of political power to it despite the fact that it’s clearly unaccountable to them.

Voting is just supporting the system that’s deprived us of any real democracy while normalizing fascism to protect itself. Voting is a fairly low information form of political expression. You don’t get the choice to be like “Oh I’ll begrudgingly support this candidate, but this this and that are things I don’t like and want them to change.” You get two boxes. Each one represents EVERYTHING the candidate stands for plus the implicit choice of accepting the process in the first place.

If people want things to get better, they have to organize and take real, tangible actions rather than just begging capitalist politicians to do stuff for us every 2-4 years. People should be doing this regardless of who’s in office, but let’s put a fine point on it: People are worried that Trump is gonna be fascist, take away people’s rights, and end democracy. Are you just going to accept that because he won the election? Are the rules that bind the process more important to you than the results? If not, you should be willing to do what it takes to stop him instead of chastising that people didn’t show up to participate in a sham of an electoral system.

For what it’s worth, I actually did go to the polls to vote specifically on an equal rights ballot measure in NY. At least that has a semblance of direct democracy. There I’m explicitly saying “I support this policy specifically” instead of supporting a candidate who just says they support those things while also doing awful shit. It passed, so that’s nice. If anything I’m more pissed at Californians for voting against a measure to END SLAVERY than I am with people who didn’t want to vote for a person currently engaged in supporting a genocide.

Oh so the turnout last time was 100%? I guess someone should go fix the data then.

By “popular vote,” you mean the % of people who voted. I’m talking about the country overall. Which includes people who didn’t get off work, have a handful of understaffed polling places, no good public transportation to get them to polling places, imprisoned people, people screwed my voter registration laws, etc. and that’s not even counting people too young to vote.

Your view only makes sense if you ignore literally everything about the broken US electoral system and all the other systems that touch it.

If you completely ignore how the electoral system works, sure. Back in reality, we have elections which, largely due to voter disenfranchisement efforts, only at best only account for ~60% of the country, only about half of which go to the fascists. So less than a 1/3rd of the country, and even that comes with the caveat that their other option sucks too.

They only get power because the system is set up to favor them and the state needs to use violence to enforce the will of that minority on everyone else. We have the numbers to change things for the better, we just lack the organization to make that happen because of a century of efforts to violently repress those organizations and socially isolate people.

So you can keep being a misanthrope by pretending most of the people aren’t worth saving or you can recognize your fellow humans and work with them to do something about it.

Even if someone wins an election by a lot, the nature of voter turnout in the US means they at best represent like a third of the people. The fascists don’t outnumber us in reality, just in a political system that will allow them into power before even a social democrat.

50% of the time it happens 100% of the time.

Conservatives do well because their ideology is compatible with the interests of capital. No party that is a serious challenge to those interests can win any notable power through elections in the US.

As far as the idea of focusing on local races: If your main concern is immediate and substantial action on climate, what good would winning a local race do for you? Yeah maybe it would be easier to get a left wing candidate on a school board or whatever, but that’s because it holds no meaningful power.

Not that I think they have any particular chance of success at the national level. I’ve just found that “local races” argument… most charitably put, confusing, less charitably: bad faith or willfully missing the point.