Americans know nothing of hardship. They take their way of life for granted. And will continue to bury their head in the sand until the sand itself is poisoned.

The fact of the matter is Americans have been lulled into complacency. Both before and after the election. This should all be completely unsurprising.

The 1/3 of voters that can’t be bothered to cast a vote have abdicated their voice. Now they have to suffer the consequences of that choice.

Unchecked misinformation and algorithmic control of people’s eyes and brains will be the collapse of civilization before climate change does us in.

All that Americans have left, on both sides I might add, is the desire to see the other side suffer. Republicans have been doing this for a while. The Trump presidency will disenfranchise the Democrats to the same level, evening the playing field.

This is where America is at now. Just angry people with nothing left but to hurt some scapegoats.

The only question is is this a race to the bottom (bottom being a civil war killing millions), or will the public wake the fuck up?

Rural/urban divide is not unique to the US in any way whatsoever. Also, expect polarization to self perpetuate as blue voters move to blue states and red states to move to red states.

Stupid people standing on soapboxes saying stupid shit.

Back in my day, people had to dedicate years of their life before they were given the opportunity to stand in front of hundreds of people and tell them things.

This answer assumes a state of affairs where everyone living from paycheck to paycheck should be normalized. I think this way of thinking buries a much deeper issue which is that owners of capital continue to squeeze non-owners of capital.

Let’s assume we address that problem and ask the question again.

I would say, that choosing a riskier but higher average source of compensation is a perfectly reasonable, personal choice for someone to make.

Let me play devil’s advocate: who gets to say what is a human rights violation? And I am not talking about what happens on the ground, so put your pitchforks away. I’m talking about how it is defined in international law–what happens when a country like Russia and puppets defines gay rights as a human rights violation.

Point is, there is absolutely no way to get states to agree on any of this and if it was binding, then it is a power that can and will be abused for geopolitical points.

I think principles of law are only enforceable at a state level. Almost by definition of sovereignty. Above the state level, there can only be treaties and geopolitics.

You are not wrong, but joining NATO is the only way to ensure Russia won’t just declare war again. And we have to be realistic here: Ukraine has surpassed all expectations here already. We can’t expect this miracle to go on indefinitely.

I generally upvote when I see a comment that makes a good point I think is underrated. You could argue that this is a kind of agreement. But, in my view, agreement alone is not the only criteria. Stating obvious truths isn’t really worth anyone’s time, even if they are agreeable. I will also upvote posts that changed my mind or are close to doing so, or impress me (insightful, or funny).

I down vote spam and posts that misrepresent a position or argument (straw man).

I will not vote at all for most posts.

Americans are so obsessed with money, they forgot about actually living.

My dudes. Money is just a means to an end. It is not the end goal. Wake the fuck up.

Congratulations, you’ve discovered the only negotiating power consumers have ever and will ever have: voting with your wallet.

Let’s normalize real customer loyalty again by sending a strong message that continued business is not to be taken for granted.

Don’t apologize. That pain is exactly why millennials are so much more tech literate than boomers and gen Alpha.

Even dictators need public support. This is a fundamental truth about leadership, that even Trump can’t escape. Those that don’t tend to have a short life expectancy.

You are right, but I would go one step further: enshittification is specifically a subsidized (artificial, unsustainable) capture of a free market by a middle man, followed by a squeezing of both buyers and sellers in that market using bought leverage.

It’s just another variety of antitrust that happens to be legal because society has not yet outlawed that behaviour.

One narrative is about effectiveness of sanctions, specifically the ones levied at the start of 2022. Zooming out beyond 2015 doesn’t really change that narrative (no appreciable effect tied with a change that happened in 2022).

The other narrative relates to Russia’s big picture strategy. Undoubtedly by this measure, Russia is underperforming. We might conclude that the sanctions was effective only once, in 2014. Or just a bad economy for another reason that spurred war.

Arrogance: a tale in two acts.

Studying different perspectives is only a valid technique to arrive at the truth when all participants are participating in good faith.

The average story between a truth teller and a liar is still a lie.

Millenial and gen x skewed Harris more than any other demographic.

Nobody wants their transactions public.

This is a broad generalization that is easily refutable. Examples:

• Property titles
• Political campaign contributions
• Supply chain certifications, to fight consumer fraud and counterfeitting.

Frankly, you say you can talk for hours on the subject, but I don’t think that hours of thought has been given to the subject.

I’m thinking that a good jointer sled should probably be a perfectly adequate substitute in a small or low-budget shop. If those are not concerns, or a high volume of jointing is expected, a jointer is a great addition.