I’m lucky to not have been too exposed to most of their tankie apologetics for authoritarians, but I did notice a pretty staggering number of them were under the impression that Trump and Harris were literally identical.

And no, I don’t mean in the “the democrats are center right and often vote similarly to republicans on many issues” ‘identical’ view, I mean “They both do an equally bad amount of things, just in different areas, and neither is worse than the other” 💀

You’ll never easily get through to those people. They hold idealism over material reality in many cases.

The best way I’ve found to get even some of them to at least stop and think for a minute is to ask if preventing people from doing things like:

1. Screaming slurs next to a preschool
2. Publishing deliberately false information to ruin someone’s reputation
3. Doxxing someone who was mean to you

…is justified. If they say yes, then maybe unlimited free speech isn’t perfect, and restricting Nazis could be justified. If they say no, then you’ll know they’re a lost cause.

To be fair, I do believe their research was based on how convincing it was compared to other Reddit commenters, rather than say, an actual person you’d normally see doing the work for a government propaganda arm, with the training and skillset to effectively distribute propaganda.

Their assessment of how “convincing” it was seems to also have been based on upvotes, which if I know anything about how people use social media, and especially Reddit, are often given when a comment is only slightly read through, and people are often scrolling past without having read the whole thing. The bots may not have necessarily optimized for convincing people, but rather, just making the first part of the comment feel upvote-able over others, while the latter part of the comment was mostly ignored. I’d want to see more research on this, of course, since this seems like a major flaw in how they assessed outcomes.

This, of course, doesn’t discount the fact that AI models are often much cheaper to run than the salaries of human beings.

Yes, unless that service is the kind of thing you think you might pick up later.

For instance, you might use LinkedIn to find a job, but that can still be something you might need in the future, because it’s unlikely you’ll hold that one job forever, and intermittently posting during your existing job could actually help your future prospects.

By contrast, if you used a random site to create a fancier resume, yeah, that account can go straight in the digital wastebasket when you’re done with it. You can always make a new account if you need to make a new resume, and it probably won’t rely on your old account’s data to get that job done.

Ah yes, the “mistake” of deliberately stealing an entire family’s belongings. Easy mistake to make.

Sorry, I wasn’t referencing textbooks specifically. I was moreso referencing the reading materials a lot of kids would want for things like ELA classes in middle/high school, many of which are often lent by larger libraries, since many schools can’t afford to maintain 30+ copies of individual books for each class, especially if that class is reading multiple books per semester, and changing books entirely every year.

Most schools now rely on digital interfaces for their local library like Libby, but of course, when physical branches are shutting down, you end up shifting all physical demand to digital demand as well, which exceeded most libraries’ capacities, since they could only afford to buy (on a subscription basis only) some of the ebook licenses that publishers sell in the quantities required.

I believe textbooks may have been implicated, but I don’t believe it was the bulk of the books that the Archive made available.

You mean as in everyone who owns a book could digitize it and contribute it to the library to be lent out one at a time?

Technically that’s possible, but the real argument being made by rightsholders (such as the publishers suing the Internet Archive) is that they don’t have the right to digitize it and lend it out, because that would be them replicating the work, and thus not just lending out the same copy, even if it’s identical in practice in terms of how many people can access it, and what its content is.

Under current copyright law, you’re going to be sued into oblivion if you try that.

Though to be fair, the main case being made in court that really holds water is that the Internet Archive lent out unlimited copies of digitized copyrighted works during the pandemic when many libraries where physically shut down and unable to offer books. Practically speaking, they did the morally correct thing by providing access to materials that would otherwise have been available, barring the extreme circumstances of the pandemic, but since the publishers thought they deserved to profit from that by selling every student who needed reading material in closed libraries a fresh copy of the book for $20, the Archive is now facing legal consequences, because that’s technically still illegal.

However, if you want a communal library, you kind of get that with things like Little Free Libraries, where you can contribute any book, and books regularly cycle through the neighborhood over time, groups like BuyNothing, where you can very easily have people request and hand off things they no longer want themselves, including books, and you can always technically just start a local group that gets books and lends them like a traditional library would, although some libraries just accept donations of your used books and can lend them out without any additional administrative effort or separate entity set up in your community. That depends on your local library though, if you have one at all.

Chrome is relatively limited in scope compared to, say, a user on an instance of degoogled chromium just using the same Google services along with all the other browsing they do. The extra data that’s gathered is generally going to be things like a little more DNS query information, (assuming your device isn’t already set to default to Google’s DNS server) links you visit that don’t already have Google’s trackers on them (very few) and some general information like when you’re turning on your computer and Chrome is opening up.

The real difference is in how Chrome doesn’t protect you like other browsers do, and it thus makes more of the collection that Google’s services do indirectly, possible.

Perplexity is still being pretty vague here, but if I had to guess, it would essentially just be taking all the stuff that Google would usually get from tracking pixels and ad cookies, and baking that directly in to the browser instead of it relying on individual sites using it.

The fact that we ever allowed kids to scroll instead of paying attention in class is absurd.

I’ve never actually seen a classroom where this was the case. (aside from after work was completed, sort of as a reward for finishing their assignments on time) Most teachers will immediately tell students to put the phone away and will confiscate it if they keep trying to use it.

When they’re talking about phone bans, they’re usually meaning things like taking phones away at the front and returning them at the end of the day, or requiring students to leave them in lockers/locked pouches.

It’s not just party policies and their direct actions that their position in power influences though, correct?

The party in power also influences how individuals can make changes the government is unwilling to. For example, the Trump administration wants to revoke the nonprofit status of certain charities, especially those working on the climate, and social justice issues.

If Democrats were in power, this threat wouldn’t likely exist, and thus these nonprofits wouldn’t have to fear their funding being put in jeopardy. These nonprofits often do substantially more work than the government on many issues, and even though the party isn’t directly implementing policy that supports their goals, it likely wouldn’t do anything to actively hinder their goals directly. Whereas in this case, we’re seeing Trump pursue just that.

While yes, I do think that if you have a party that’s more sympathetic to your cause, no matter how little, you stand a much greater chance at changing the party’s policies overall, I also think you have to look at the wider picture of how their policy impacts the ability of other groups and individuals to make personal changes too.

We’re at the point where either Democrats need to be forced to radically change their platform, or the party needs to be destroyed so we can get at least one decent option.

I doubt destruction is a viable option, simply because a one-party system is somewhat an inevitability of how our voting system works if you allow the consolidation and persistence we’ve seen down to 2 parties continue into just 1. If we got to the point of only one party due to the Democrats being erased, I don’t believe it would pave the way for a better new party, I think it would just entrench the Republicans.

That said, I do think a radical change within the Democratic party is possible if enough people demand it, but the problem is that without the Democrats even having a proper seat in office, how are they supposed to even pass any policy, no matter how leftward they go on the political spectrum? And if the left continues fracturing and refusing to vote for them because “both sides are the same,” then all that happens is they keep shifting more and more right to try and capture Republican voters, which is exactly what they did this election, and many elections before it.

You don’t make the Democratic party platform more progressive by limiting the voters they can rely on to those increasingly more and more on the right. You do so by voting for them, getting them into power, then demanding change that the Republicans would never even consider allowing you to call for, let alone actually implement.

It’s not a guarantee, but at least it gives you a chance.

I get that. The problem for me is that this is a systemic issue, and it’s something that’s going to happen whether or not you as an individual participate, but it will impact your ability as an individual to fight for change.

We have a two-party duopoly. We have two bad choices. One is worse than the other, but neither will save us outright.

But if I’m going to do any kind of action to change that, I’m going to want the most favorable possible party in power. If you want to, say, fund more social programs, you’re going to watch Democrats possibly let you implement it, while Republicans will actively strip away what already exists the same day they get into office, then bar any new progress for the length of their term.

If you want to implement a system like ranked choice voting, you don’t want a wannabe dictator in power, because he’s obviously not going to make that as easy for you.

I don’t think the Democrats will actually save us in any way, nor do I think they’re currently pushing us in a very good direction overall, but the last thing I want is to increase the chance of someone like Trump staying in office by acting as though the Democrats are exactly equal, because all that will do is make any movement against right-wing policy extraordinarily difficult.

If I want to give myself the best odds of making a change, I want the people most sympathetic, even if only a little more than the alternative, to my cause, and right now, that’s the Democratic party, as unfortunate and depressing as that may be.

Okay, I’ll admit my analogy was a bit flawed. (Oh the joys of staying up much too late and arguing online) Here’s a better one:

One is driving off the edge while holding down the acceleration, screaming about how he wants to go faster. The other is holding down the acceleration less, screaming about how he thinks we should go slower but isn’t taking his foot off the gas.

If you had to try and convince one of them to stop, or if you wanted to buy yourself the most time before going off the edge, which would you pick?

Again, your only recourse is “Trump did it too”

I make an extraordinarily clear point that Trump is just doing the same type of thing, but substantially worse. I’m not saying “Trump did it too,” I’m saying “Trump did it even worse.” If I want to reduce the overall harm in a situation, I don’t get that by calling every option identical when some are less bad than others.

When it comes to migrants and foreigners, their policies are the same

I don’t recall Democrats deporting people to foreign countries like El Salvador without due process while also completely ending the legal asylum seeking processes in this country.

So… it’s okay because he was doing what Trump was doing, but a little less per migrant?

It seems like you missed the part where I explicitly said it wasn’t okay, and that it was simply less bad than what Trump is doing. Read my words instead of assuming my opinions.

It was Biden who pushed the doomsday clock closest to midnight than it’d been since the cuban missile crisis. It was Obama who ramped up the drone bombing campaign, it was Clinton who ordered Gaddafi killed, it was Biden who drafted the 90s crime bill that made the US the most incarcerated population in the entire world.

Just listing off the bad things Democrats have done without mentioning a single bad thing Trump has done in order to justify your moronic both sides argument is ridiculous.

I don’t know how many fucking times I’ll have to say this. The Democrats are obviously shitty, but that doesn’t mean that the substantially worse party is identical.

You can’t separate your own emotions against the Democrats from the reality that the Republicans are just the Democrats but even worse, so you resort to saying they’re both the same, then provide no sensible solutions other than “the world should be this way… somehow.”

If you want to do good shit in this world, don’t make it easier for the worst of the two parties to get in power by claiming they’re the same as the lesser evil.

If you have two people, one dropping 500 bombs on innocent people, and one dropping 1,000 bombs on innocent people, but both of them could have dropped more, and the one dropping 1,000 says he wants to drop 1,500, then if my goal is to stop the bombs being dropped on people, I don’t go “both sides are the same because they’re both bombing people,” I go “I should do my best to ensure that the one dropping 1,000 bombs is the least likely to stay in power so that I can attempt to convince the people only dropping 500 bombs to drop less.”

Does it mean that the one dropping 500 bombs is a good person? Of course fucking not. Does it mean I support them as an individual? Of course not. But if my goal is to stop people being bombed, I’m going to prefer the people already dropping the least bombs, because they’ll be the most easily convinced/forced to change.

I’m tired of arguing with people who don’t seem to be capable of understanding any level of fucking nuance, so I’ll be ending this conversation here. Feel free to argue to the void if you’d like.

More like driving off with your foot on the gas pedal vs driving off with your foot on the brake.

At least one option has a chance of stopping you from going off the cliff. The other just wants to guarantee you get thrown off the edge.

Biden held twice children at the border at one time than Trump at his highest

In your own source it very clearly outlines that it was not due to a more hostile border policy, but rather an increase in the number of people actually showing up at the border in the first place.

Meanwhile, Trump is not only keeping those people there, but also ending the refugee resettlement program, deporting people to El Salvador without due process, actively spreading misinformation about immigrants, and black-bagging American citizens, including native Americans.

Did Biden do some god awful things? Of course he fucking did. But what Trump is doing (and especially what he says he wants to do more of) is infinitely worse than what Biden did.

I can see that weapons and money to Israel skyrocketed under Biden.

And here’s the secretary of state chosen by Trump actively expediting 4 billion dollars of additional military assistance to Israel while directly mentioning the fact that it goes against the Biden admin’s partial arms embargo.

If you wanted to reduce the amount of aid being given to Israel, maybe start with the party that did something to limit the aid being given to a degree, instead of the one actively adding on even more while repealing the limits.

“Since taking office, the Trump Administration has approved nearly $12 billion in major FMS sales to Israel. This important decision coincides with President Trump’s repeal of a Biden-era memorandum which had imposed baseless and politicized conditions on military assistance to Israel at a time when our close ally was fighting a war of survival on multiple fronts against Iran and terror proxies.”

I can see that Obama alone prosecuted more whistleblowers than the US had prosecuted in its entire history.

Yep, that’s awful too. Too bad your own source also mentions that “six cases were tried during the presidency of Donald Trump between 2017 and 2021.” and guess what? Trump is now actively trying to fire the head of the agency that protects government whistleblowers.

If you can’t see the pattern of Republicans just being Democrats but substantially worse, then it’s no surprise you pull this “both sides are the same” argument.

Does anybody like the fact that the Democrats are just the watered down fascist party? Of course not. But if you’re going to try and better this fucking country, you don’t do that by saying “the fascists and the less fascist people are identical, actually” and then ruin your own chances of having a more sympathetic administration by easily allowing the fascists to trick people into thinking they’re just like the Democrats, and so more Democrat voters should feel okay with voting for them and their substantially worse policies.

I’ve said it before to so many people on this platform, and I’ll say it again: You do not increase your chances of enacting beneficial changes to this country when you support the larger evil, or act as though the larger evil and the lesser evil are identical. All you do is make it easier for the larger evil to gain power, no matter how much you personally advocate for better policies.

Both

And yet one of them does significantly more to ruin the planet than the other.

If you want the highest possible chance of changing the world for the better, you want a party in power that is the least bad of the options available to you. That doesn’t mean that party is good in itself, but it’s certainly the best chance you’ll get.

If you want to save the climate, for instance, the party that’s open to developing more clean energy, even if they still support fossil fuels in some capacity, is better than the one actively dismantling climate regulations, halting clean energy development, and increasing our fossil fuel production to an even higher rate.

Nobody likes this duopoly, but when you live under one, you have to pick the side that will do the least harm in order to implement your own goals to reduce harm further.

This doesn’t mean the Democrats are inherently good, but they’re certainly going to give you a better shot at improving the world than the neo-Nazis will.

let’s leave it there

Sure, I’ve now got nothing left to say.

If you can’t see the difference between a centrist party and a far-right fascist one, then I hold no hope for your political literacy going forward.

They are also doing that too.

It depends on the person in my experience.

For instance, I’ll often use a question format, but usually because I’m looking for similar results from a forum, in which I’d expect to find a post with a similar question as the title. This sometimes produces better results than just plain old keywords.

Other times though, I’m just throwing keywords out and adding "" to select the ones I require be included.

But I do know some people who only ever ask in question format no matter the actual query. (e.g. “What is 2+2” instead of just typing “2+2” and getting the calculator dialogue, like you said in your post too.)