The point is to make it harder for “those people” to vote and participate in society. If you came up with a magical, iron-clad, mechanism for everyone to have ID, the conservatives wouldn’t support it because that’s not what they want. They want minorities to suffer.

That’s not the point. The point is people spend most of their day under an authoritarian regime. Taxes and services are irrelevant to this.

It’s funny because the US is usually like “rah rah democracy!!” but also loves private corporations, which are extremely authoritarian.

Many people are kind of stupid. Not ignorant. But like, incapable or unwilling to evaluate what’s a good source and what’s nonsense. Also incapable of drawing plausible conclusions even when given good sources. It’s all emotional. It’s how you can have stuff like “the outgroup have all the money and power, but they’re also poor and taking all our welfare” at the same time. Feels truthy. Anti-vaxxers get the high of bonding with their anti-vax friends and feeling like they’re part of the in-group.

There’s not really an answer. Invest in public education for 100 years, maybe. But we’re going always going to have authoritarians shitting life up for everyone.

This is bad. I’m so tired of people doing bad things. Stop undermining public education you donkeys.

I mean, yes, you’re right that it’s a simplistic take. However, falling for that kind of nonsense is not a sign of intelligence. Being able to assess “Is this a good source?” and “Are other people in fact people?” are signs of intelligence.

Your brother is an fool and shouldn’t be allowed outside without supervision, nevermind voting and operating heavy machinery.

Many people are bad at delayed gratification and long term thinking.

That’s just how people work. Belief is social. We all value input from people we see as members of our in-group more than outsiders.

But those bots don’t have any intersection with my network, so their trust score is low.

If they do connect via one of my idiot friends, that friend loses credit, too, and the system can trust his connections less.

The trust level is from my perspective, not global.

Sometimes people’s priorities, needs, and desires are bad.

The way I imagine it working is if I notice a bot in my web, I flag it, and then everyone involved in approving the bot loses some credibility. So a bad actor will get flushed out. And so will your idiot friend that keeps trusting bots, so their recommendations are then mostly ignored.

but I’m pretty convinced that Linux is not close to being ready for normies.

Yeah. I consider myself somewhat tech savvy (I do software development for work) and I had a really bad time installing mint on my desktop. I got it to work after a day but that was far more than a casually interested person would put up with.

It definitely changes the options available to overcoming it!

A small club has a bylaw saying they serve no hard alcohol at parties. That’s a real rule that is enforced. But they can change it with an agreement, or just ignore it from time to time.

Something like acceleration due to gravity is going to happen no matter what.

The people that work at twitter could just shut it down. Not like he knows how to run a complicated website.

His security team could also just, I don’t know, bring him to an undisclosed location and not bring him back.

Sometimes cultures have really toxic ideas on them. Probably all cultures have something. Like in the US there’s a lot of “the only emotion men are allowed is anger”, for example.

How do you fix that? Is there a general solution? Because sometimes it’s like enforced by the very people it’s harming.

But it’s all social. Made up. It’s not like physics. We can’t all decide that acceleration due to gravity on earth is now a nice round 10 m/s². But we could just decide working long hours is bullshit.

I’m going to guess it’s the same origin as “the cruelty is the point”. Some people just don’t want other people to be happy.

Also some people aren’t fact driven. Working fewer days feels like it should be less productive, so it must be.

Snake case, usually. Some perhaps unfounded fear that something will blow up on a dash in a file name kicking around. Or I’ll do a weird typo/premature enter and part of the file name will be treated like a -flag of some sort.

They are consistent that all that matters to them is power, supremacy of the in-group and binding of the outgroups.

I appreciate the lengthy and well written response. But I don’t really agree.

When the current state of things is bad, pushing to conserve it is also bad.

Sometimes things can seem good from the perspective of the hypothetical conservative, but actually be pretty bad from a more zoomed out one. For example, someone might want to “conserve” their suburban lifestyle. They might not realize the racism that went into establishing it. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Color_of_Law is a pretty good book.) Worse, they might support the racism. “Our parents fought to keep people of life ancestry together. That’s just how the world is. Those people should live somewhere else.”. There are countless other examples. “My dad employed children in his factory and my golly I want to do the same.” Something being a tradition doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

Conservatives do not have a lock on keeping good laws. Progressives do not want to change things for the sake of change. No progressive is going to look at a law that says you have to be 18 to work dangerous machinery and be like, “This is a good law, but we can’t leave it as-is because then we’d be a conservative.” Progressives would also support a law against dumping mercury in the river, because the underlying values (“don’t poison people for profit”, i guess?) are progressive values.

I think the underlying value system of conservatism is hierarchy. The world must have hierarchy. You see this with like monarchy and nobility, you see this with the rich being treated differently than the poor, and you see this with racism. Other ideas like “Oh, we should preserve our traditions” are mostly paint jobs on top of “There must be outgroups to bind and ingroups to protect”.