aleph

30 is way too many. Ideally, you want about 4-5 parties in order to maintain a healthy democracy without getting bogged down.

Either way, the two party corporate duopoly of the US ain't it.

Certainly from a mainstream political standpoint he appears to be fairly liberal with some progressive policies. However, the writer is using the term 'leftists' to mean socialists or left-wing "radicals" (whatever that means).

His stance of Israel is really what will be the clincher for leftists, as is the case with Harris. On the plus side, they are both taking a softer line in terms of how they discuss the genocide in public, but of course neither of them would ever utter the phrase with relation to the Palestinians -- that would be too radical.

Therefore, there's a lot of doubt as to whether either of them will break from Biden's policy of continuing to send bombs and military hardware to Israel, as both are apparently very much in the "Israel has the right to defend itself" camp.

The upside for Minnesotans is that this could lead to Peggy Flanagan becoming the new governor, and she sounds reassuringly progressive.

You can bet they have their polling data that says otherwise. Shapiro was a deeply controversial pick who could have killed a lot of the enthusiasm, and he only helps in one individual swing state. ~~Waltz~~ Walz has broad demographic appeal, so they presumably weighed up both and decided that he was the better bet.

As someone who has lived in Thailand, I get why Thais were pissed. The hotel, the taxi, the public transport all look like they're from 30 years ago. Yes, you do still find run-down buildings and tuk-tuks in Bangkok today, but it's generally a lot more developed and modern than westerners expect on first arrival. Instead of showing the reality, the creators of this ad went out of their way to portray an outdated caricature.

To an outsider it might seem like nitpicking, but Thais are fed up with being presented this way to an international audience.

Being profoundly ignorant on a topic has never stopped him from tweeting about it.

Because he is the owner of the very platform that helped to stir up the recent neofascist riots in the UK that led to POC being attacked and terrorized and properties looted and burned. His tweets are seen by millions of people, and greatly contribute towards online extremism and polarization.

I know that there is a tendency amongst people of Nutomic's ilk to view identity politics as little more than a bourgeois preoccupation. He said as much himself.

Pointing that out isn't chauvinism.

Yeah, that would definitely explain the hypersensitivity when it comes to any criticism of China or the USSR, valid or otherwise.

It still strikes me as counter-productive, though, as there are many people on Lemmy who have capitalism-critical views who could be persuaded to shift further left or become more interested in socialist causes. Banning them, or censoring them, or labelling them as idiotic liberals, only serves to undermine that endeavor. Socialism is dying fast enough in the west as it is.

Fair point -- having power decentralized certainly makes it more common for individual actors to act unilaterally in this way. However, in my experience the most egregious examples have been users being banned from Lemmy.ml for simply expressing a contrary opinion in a non-aggressive manner.

For a community that is so actively political, the tolerance for an open exchange of views is surprisingly low.

I swear, petty and vindictive banning is far worse on Lemmy than it ever was on Reddit, and particularly on ML instances.

If I were to indulge in a bit of armchair psychology, I'd say it is a side effect of venerating authoritarianism.