While I'm sure there would be a net positive, it's also a completely absurd hypothetical. To get rid of hateful and rightwing propaganda networks, you'd have to completely change the political donor system in the US. You'd have to change the political landscape, you'd have to change the population, the rules on election and numerous other things.
You can't just get rid of something that's so beneficial to those in power. You have to completely remove that power in its entirety.
What are you talking about dude? Have you read anything regarding the shooter?
Need a source on that or I'll just assume you're lying through your teeth. As literally every major news outlet is reporting he made that donation
Yes, I get that, but at what point do you start considering future children over the current children? Accelerationists are not deontologists, they are consequentialists. A child lost now is valued against the amount of children saved at some calculated point later.
No, the best way to convince an accelerationist that accelerationism is not the right play is to show that there will be no decently positive outcome. Which I'm inclined to agree with, since I can only imagine the continual election of populist figures such as Trump will only increase the divide between voters of the two parties. This'll create more violence, possibly destabilize the US, and could destabilize large parts of the western world due to policy, military vacuum, and emboldening of alt right groups. Now measure all those consequences against the possibility of an improvement in the political system and multiply that by likelihood. This, to me, seems like a very low gain, for the high likelihood of increased losses. So it should be preferable for accelerationists to go with Biden, since he's likely to bring about accelerationists goals too, but with less risk, but much slower.
Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that it's incredibly hard to vote earnestly rather than strategically.
Ok, from what I can tell, most of what people care about regarding the current conflict doesn't really involve around belligerents. So I think we can safely put that on the back burner. At least for the current wave of side taking. My one question after reading most of the comments is this, how many of Israel's violent actions against civilians directly target civilians vs targeting Hamas and have civilians stuck in the crossfire? Because I've heard of Hamas using civilian areas as staging grounds as an attempt to ward off enemy fire. Is Israel going and killing civilians outside of these instances?
Slightly unrelated question, are many people taking sides in the general occupation of Palistinian land, or is this newest wave side taking mostly focused on the civilians in Gaza vs Israeli force.
Idk if I'm back on the accelerationist train or not yet. Not that I can vote in the States, so it doesn't matter. Regardless, I feel like it would be hard for anyone that even slightly cares about the future to vote for either of these two earnestly. As a progressive, you'd have to weigh the pros and cons of the value of the Dems possibly reevaluating and restructuring if Trump gets back in, vs the absolute abysmal reactions and policies that Trump will cause if he does, especially outside the US. But then if you vote the Dems in again, the neo-nazis around the world will feel less empowered, and there will be less terrible decision making in the short term. All at the cost of Dems not having to change the status quo, and effectively being the lesser evil for the foreseeable future.
Actually, I don't envy the American voter. And I certainly wouldn't want to vote in this election.
There' plenty of reasons, most of which have to do with the human psyche and error. I imagine it's largely due to convenience. And then one may rationalize that initial thought by assuming that most of their potential audience uses Discord anyway, so they won't consider other options due to just how damn easy to setup and monitor their community via a Discord-like app is. They may not consider searchability, or information access at all. They may give very little weight to the fact that their entire potential community is subject to Discord's whims. They simply may not be aware of how beneficial other options are.
Humans do not act based on reason. They act on a mixture of emotion and intuition, and only reinforce their initial position with reason, of one form on another. There is no point of attempting to apply logic to why the people (generically) do anything because of that. On the other hand, attempting to look at this scenario from why something should be done a certain way, as opposed to why it is done a certain way, has merit, as it allows us to influence a decision before it is made in the instant it is conceived.
I don't think participation is the problem. If you think about it, you wouldn't want just anyone to post something on a platform without first engaging in said platform. That can only have a neutral or negative effect. People asking stupid questions or people cursing out users. The act of signup ensures that the would-be poster has to signup first and rationalize their post during that process.
Therefor, the problem must be something else, it is the information gateoff (amongst other things) that makes Discord and similar apps unfavorable for community management and information distribution.
I hate pacifists, man. They always try to publicly shame you by making it seem like violence is never justified... stupid deontological thinking