Mayoman68

There's plenty of pieces of shit before and after PewDiePie that have contributed to the popularity(or even existence) of Linux, just because they might be morally questionable doesn't negate their potential usefulness to a good cause.

This is one of those things where I think that purity might conflict with progress. I am currently using a VPS in a privacy-friendly country to host some stuff, and I am trying to move more of my needs there. I can easily try to host things at my house(and I do to a limited extent, I have a VPN I run through a VPS to connect my devices together to accomplish this), but dealing with the constraints of non-professional hardware management and a residential internet connection is frustrating. This frustration has in the past prevented me from reducing my use of services where I know they are farming my data, and would probably honor illegal and warrant-less data requests from government agencies. At least with IaaS, I give them money in exchange for a virtual machine, vs SaaS where I give them possibly money but more importantly permission to do whatever they want with my highly structured data(far easer to data mine a easily searchable database of PII vs a filesystem of unknown structure).

Even outside of tech, I have often found that my sense of purity gets in the way of actually making progress towards my values. Use the VPS if it will get you to stop using worse things.

This might actually reverse firefox's decline in userbase at least in the business world. Any shop that already has multi-OS management could probably insta-switch to firefox, and i'm sure that MS locked-in places could too given enough of a push by IT.

I don't have any evidence for this but purely speculation on my part: racism can explain a good amount of that. Biden has in the 90s voted for "tough on crime bills", he is the definition of political establishment, and is a white man from Wilmington. Obama definitely is not textbook underpriveleged but he doesn't have those points that biden does

Its not idiotic, because democrats have had numerous opportunities to enshrine abortion and contraception into law, while controlling both the legislative and executive branch. Republicans are perfectly able to pass their abhorrent laws, but democrats seem to not be able to pass good legislation even when they control the government. Until Roe was overturned, this state of affairs was actually very beneficial to democratic politicians, because they could recycle abortion as a rallying point every single election.

Mate I don't think most russian people are reading an obscure, western primarily english speaking social media site, and the ones that are are probably more likely to be against the war.

A lot of transit can just be electrified with overhead wires

I am not talking about individual choices but rather the social factors influencing those choices, please read a history book

But their countries are only poor because of the imperialism of rich countries for centuries. You're saying they should be grateful for rich economies helping them develop, when those rich economies are the reason they are poorer to begin with.

I fail to see why you think helping corporations earning money will help individuals, especially with raising taxes on them. Corporations' interests are lower wages and higher prices, worker's interests are higher wages and lower prices. The only way to then increase wages is to force companies to do so, either through job disloyalty, strikes, regulations, or etc. Don't see how lower taxes will make them pay more.

I mean the opinions of the voting public are nearly always more complex than either Republican or Democratic party dogma. The problem is that there is no substantial way of politically engaging besides voting. I would argue actually that generally the public is way more left wing than it is given credit for, but a lot of people have no accessible ways to transform these ideas into action. And for this I don't have an easy answer. Disclaimer, am a leftist so I would obviously think this, but I do still think that we would see more diverse political ideas if our political systems were made to be more open.

I find the "raise taxes to pay for social programs" and "cut corporate taxes" to be somewhat contradictory. Reagan and Thatcher were textbook neoliberals if you need any examples, and they destroyed social programs and labor unions rather than supporting them.