luciferofastora

It's a failure on multiple levels. We'd do history a disservice if we don't examine them all and look for ways to fix them.

Voter disillusionment is a thing, and the Democrats failed to properly engage enough voters. The worsening economic situation the Democrats failed to do enough about created an environment known to foster nationalist and supremacist ideologies.

Disinformation campaigns make it worse. All the "vote third party" spoiler advocates and "don't vote for genocide" anti-electionists didn't help. The electorate system making third parties spoilers in the first place hamstrung actual democratic representation. The corporate controlled media bias and refusal to call the fash out for what they are legitimised them.

Free Speech apologists defended the right to spew anti-democratic rhetorics. The "high road" numbskulls left the field to the dirty, but effective tactics of those willing to sacrifice all decency for power. A failure to clearly and understandably communicate the intention of complex proposals favoured the simple, emotionally appealing talking points of the right.

Yes, the voters bear blame too: Republican voters for actively enabling fascism, complacent non-/third-party-voters for failing to effectively and strategically oppose them (moral opposition is good and right, but it doesn't win wars - strategy and cohesion do). But only attacking the symptoms of a fucked up accumulation of problems doesn't solve the root causes.

We're not.

But then, who is, these days?

Forming groups is still important. We need it to find our place in the world. There is no single truth, therefore we argue and fight.

Absolutely. Forming groups defined by commonality is good. Discussions are important to check our own biases and misconceptions. Diversity is key to avoiding stagnation. Conflict can create opportunity for growth.

War, above all else, destroys. There are many great things we can do with each other that don't involve violence.

Not saying anything you said is wrong, btw. Just wanted to state why we still have this stuff.

Good point, adding nuance is important.

I think we - collectively, as humanity, not any particular subgroup - need to get over that greedy, jealous, tribal "us vs. them" mindset that feeds nationalism, turns demographies against each other and leads to that security dilemma in the first place.

It made sense when our individual survival hinged on competing for the best land, subsequently forming groups to further that claim and drive others from their land to increase your own margin of subsistence.

But with modern farming, logistics, administrative capabilities and real-time communications across the globe, I think we should be able to do better by working together instead of against each other.

Of course, that would require people who like power to stop reaching for more and more, and that is an issue I don't think I need to lay out in detail.

living in Germany

Your username and instance kinda gave it away, comfortable cushion ;-)

But I also like the saying "If you want peace prepare for war".

It's the cornerstone of the Security Dilemma: Increasing your own state's security by increasing military strength may be threatening to other states that don't know whether you're just improving defenses or gearing up for an offensive war.

Particularly in pre-modern times where land was more valuable (compared to developing the land you already have) and battle wasn't so destructive, war was more profitable, the threat was real. With the development of modern arms and mass mobilisation escalating the scale and destruction of war, the distinction between defensive and offensive militarisation is even harder to tell, and even though it's not as lucrative, we haven't outgrown the martial impulses so the issue remains.

So because you want to be safe, you improve your military. Because you improve your military, your neighbour fears for their own safety, so they improve theirs. This is why international relations and diplomacy are so important to prevent a runaway arms race.

Take the right pawn to reveal a check on Rome by your Army.

One time long ago, a guy on the train (whether tweaking or mental issues, I don't know) sat down across from me, which was probably the most spacious spot in a fairly busy train. I didn't register any unusual behaviour, nor was I - white male teen, at the time - particularly concerned.

He suddenly leaned in and asked me what I'd do if he killed me. Die, obviously. He then followed up telling me he could punch me in the face. He did neither of these things, eventually got off the train, and I never saw him again. The incident obviously left an impression, but I wouldn't say I am or was traumatised by it.

I think this exemplifies that difficult grey zone. I don't think it was motivated by hate, given I'm a fairly "safe" demographic. I also didn't take him for the type of bully that does it for the power fantasy, or the type of macho needing to establish superiority.

Was it a threat or just a rather unhinged musing on social restraints? Was there actual intent to hurt me, kept in check by some lucky circumstances, or was it just a brief outburst of intrusive thoughts? I did feel threatened and intimidated, but is what I felt enough to judge his actions?

Regardless of the legal question, he probably needed help - medical or social - rather than punishment. I'm not qualified to assess that, but that question has bounced around my head ever since. What led to this outburst? What could be done to prevent that? What could be done to help him?

It's not strictly relevant to the legal question - his actions are his own to account for, though his mental state may be a mitigating factor - but I figured I'd add it as context because I think it's worth considering.

Might be a joke?

He was a piece of shit. In his final moments, he was comforted by his kin.

Right, Trump's fragile ego voted him into office 🤨

There are a lot of contributing factors. Obama making fun of him might have seen him run for office, but without all the enablers along the way carrying him on he would have collapsed a few steps in, fucked off to go eat a gourmet Happy Meal and told himself (and anyone in earshot) how brave and strong he is for running in the first place.

Ridicule may have lit the fuse, but the powder was there long before.

Get me riled up and I can be quite fiendish

The state’s lawsuit claims that the Fish and Wildlife Service's listing requirements are "nearly impossible for the public to understand"

As in, the requirements for things to be put on the lists of endangered species? Yeah, no shit, those requirements are probably made by experts for experts. The "public" doesn't have the subject matter expertise to determine every topic, so there's a point where we have to trust these experts.

and give vague guidelines on what developers and landowners can do with their own land in the critical habitat.

I'm guessing the guidelines are pretty clear if you're not struggling to look for loopholes.