Populism Updates @PopulismUpdates Tell me your most radical position that cannot be placed on the left-right political spectrum
Admiral Snaccbar @Chris Mench Serving shrimp with the tail still on when it’s already mixed into something (pasta, rice, etc) is insane.
You must log in or register to comment.
When driving you are making things more dangerous and less efficient by waving people in. If it is your right of way take it.
Be predictable, not polite.
Almost got into an accident last night on this. Car 1 stopped at a 4way to my right, Car 2 opposite me stopped, then I stopped. Distinctly. Whole ass seconds between all stops. Me and 2 are waiting for 1 to go. It’s 11:00pm. I can’t say for sure, but I just KNOW Car 1 was waving his hands at us, who can’t see through his windshield because that’s how night time works. Way too much time passes, and me and 2 are like, fuck it and start going, then 1 flashes his brights and goes narrowly missing both of us. Was he just really wanting to be an a car accident? Is he drunk? Who knows, but half the accidents I’ve narrowly avoided involve a 4 way stop and an idiot.
I point this out to my kids on a regular basis. My oldest is 15 and about to get his license. I tell him that cars being polite are being dicks to those behind them.
Your quote is the exact quote I say to him.
I fucking hate this because it creates ambiguity, usually at times when things need to happen very quickly. It always seems to happen at busy intersections when I’ve got mere seconds to get through, usually a left hand turn. I’m waiting because I need to make the turn, there’s a person across from me going straight who will have the right of way and I can’t go til they go, but I’m looking back and forth waiting for an opening for when that person will go (and then me). The opening comes… and I wait… and they wait, and then I see this fucking person is looking at me like a jackass like they were doing me a favor. The favor would’ve been them following the goddamn right of way, then we both could’ve gone to where we needed to go, now I have to wait again.
Drivers that want to queue in single file when you should use all available lanes and then merge at the front.
REEEEEEEEEE!!!
Edit: I really want to know the thoughts of the people that downvoted this lol
Simple, orderly zippering when a lane actually ends is the way. Wasting that useful pavement to create slower traffic and more traffic jam is insane and should be ticketed.
The most infuriating are the wannabe policeman that straddle both lanes to stop people passing.
Like, if you wanna sit in a queue for no reason then good for you, don’t stop people passing that have actually bothered to read the highway code.
Yeah. It isn’t about cheating, fairness, who got in a lane first. Isn’t territory to defend. We don’t have to enforce rules on each other. The traffic planners and road crews went through a bit of effort with like signs and cones and shit to tell us where they want us to merge. Zippering helps everyone go faster. Kinda why the planners want us to do it.
Got into that with my MIL once.
When confronted with the idea of leaving an emergency lane in a traffic jam, she also vehemently insisted she’d never done that.
That woman shouldn’t drive.
In my city there is a very popular good samaritan trap on the main drag into town, and I am waiting for the day something nasty happens at that particular parking lot entrance, so then they maybe redesign that section of the street or something.
I first thought you were talking about waving to pedestrians to cross when you stop to let them go. Which (edit: stopping and waiting) is a correct and expected behaviour, afaik
Stopping for pedestrians at cross walks is correct, but you should never be waving at anyone to go.
When you wave at people to go they are less likely to check that the other lanes are safe for them to cross. You stop and look right at them so they know you see them and wait until they go on their own.
That was about what I meant, but thanks for expressing this, sorry I was vague.
Misunderstanding “right of way” is half the problem.
Right of way is ability to make a road, or the road itself by extension. You can’t have the right of way - it’s usually the government’s - and you can’t give it away. This is why wording is consistently who must yield the right of way, and not who has the right of way.
If it’s a driver’s turn to act, they are obligated to act. It’s not their option or right to act.
I’ve usually heard “right of way” used in terms of sense 3 of the dictionary. I’ve never heard it used to refer to the ability to make a road – that just makes me think you have a skilled construction crew on speed dial.
Dictionaries list common usage - even if incorrect. Look up the definition of right of way for your state or other government and I’m certain it will be the thing on which you travel or the right to create and manage it, not your “rights” while traveling on it.
I couldn’t find a list of all definitions by state but the three states I checked all use that.
It would be weird if they didn’t, since that’s been the term since before automobiles existed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_way
Am I out of touch? No, it’s the dictionaries that are wrong.
Looks like someone looked up their state definition and was annoyed at being wrong 😉
Indeed, in the boating world, the words are “stand-on” or “burdened” vessel, which makes it clear that the vessel that should continue its course has the obligation to do so under the collision regulations. The “give way” vessel should alter its course or intentions to “keep clear.” Nobody — nobody! — has the “right of way.”
There’s actually no legal definition for “right of way” in the UK. Despite it being a widely understood concept, if you go to court to defend yourself in a road traffic accident and your defence is “it was my right of way, your honour”, you could find yourself in trouble.
Weird. I found one in seconds on Google and it’s about whether you can use the way, not the rules governing turn order while driving.
https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/use-public-rights-of-way
Did you look it up before making that comment?
Ok. I was referring to the commonly known and understood “right of way” in regards to road traffic, I thought that was obvious but perhaps I could have made it clearer, but thanks for letting me know of the term in regards to access to land and public rights of way.
deleted by creator
Every bathroom everywhere should have a bidet.
Absolutely. I got one for my house and having to use the shitty 1-ply paper in public bathrooms sucks so much. It feels terrible and doesn’t clean nearly as well.
A simple spray hose next to the toilet is so great. Not only for use as a bidet but also for cleaning
Not only does pineapple belong on pizza, ham & pineapple pizza is the only pizza that is consistent in all three states: fresh and hot, cold, and reheated.
I despise when people are food traditionalists. If we listened to them, we’d still be eating like British people.
I grew up in El Salvador listening to people insist that only beans, cheese and pork go in pupusas. Otherwise it’s a sin! Well the young people now make them with everything you can think of from shrimp to sweet potato and it’s incredible.
You don’t like pineapple on pizza don’t eat it
To add my personal opinion. New York/North American pizza is better than Italian pizza
The reason why it’s good when reheated is the moisture in the pineapple. It keeps the dough from becoming a rock formation when reheating.
For non-pineapple pizza, adding a bowl of water into the microwave has the same effect.
That said, the argument is not whether pineapple is good on pizza or not, ofc it is, everything is good on pizza. But is it the best topping? No, that’s anchovies and capers (olives are good too).
I like pineapple and bacon pizza but you and I are not allies lol
The good thing about liking pizza that everyone finds disgusting is that you never have to share.
You’re absolutely right about that
Hmmm while I agree about Hawaiian pizza, I will say that cheese pizza shares the properties of consistency of all 3 states.
I also love some pineapple on pizza, but a plain cheese pizza is my favorite
Olives. Green, black or Kalamata.
You lost me at olives!
All of you are vile heretics.
So burn me at the stake, like you did to you taste (for pizza)
I don’t need to. The Italians will.
They’re welcome to try!
I’m gonna add more pineapple, my heresy cannot be stopped.
Videogames should go with inflation and get more expensive instead of trying to cramp in in-game purchases and deluxe editions and whatever.
I don’t want to own a “license” to a Game, I want to own the Game
Turning off Servers for goods you bought without offering a replacement should be illegal.
Hicks and Newt had to die in the beginning of Alien 3 in order for the film to thematically even be an Alien film.
At their heart, the films are about Ripley being alone, more in common with the titular alien than with her termporary allies. She’s an outsider in her crew. She’s a civilian among marines. She’s a woman among convicts. She’s lost her child, she’s lost 57 years of her life. The Alien is her only real touchstone now, and in a way that is very expressly shown in the films, that becomes a kind of “relationship” in itself. She’s closer to the alien than she is to the people who surround her.
If Hicks and Newt survived and were part of Alien 3, it takes that away and makes it an ensemble cast, which thematically doesn’t fit, and (I think) it’s one of the reasons that a lot of the new Alien films just don’t feel like Alien films; they’re missing that key thematic ingredient. Ripley is a tragic character, doomed to battle alone against the only thing she has left in her life.
Aliens also didn’t thematically fit with the first Alien. As the title indicates, there are many aliens not an alien that was alone. Burke was also a civilian, so Ripley was not the lone civilian. And at the end of the movie she was not alone unlike in the first one. Well I guess Jonesy made it out ok, so she wasn’t alone at the end of the first one either.
Aliens was not thematically consistent with the first one and that’s what made it great. There really isn’t a mystery about the Alien and how dangerous it is after the first one so trying to recreate it wouldn’t work. So instead of working class people being forced into a situation they didn’t understand and weren’t prepared for, we see a group of well armed soldiers going into a situation they were briefed on. This time the humans are going to kick ass! Except no, they get their asses to them. And themes about motherhood can be added (both for Ripley and the Aliens).
Alien 3 wasn’t entirely thematically consistent either. I do remember it exploring some themes about religion (it’s been a long time since I watched it tho) which is something the previous movies didn’t go into. Also Ripley dies at the end which inconsistent with the theme of survival.
To me story is more important than themes anyway. If Ripley has to be alone at the beginning of every movie it makes the story of her character really boring.
Alien was a horror film and Aliens was an action film.
Are Ripley and the alien in a situationship?
The Xenomorph has been the only constant in her life throughout the entire franchise. Everyone else is temporary. So basically…yes…in so much as a nemesis can be a situationship.
Lives.
I mean they made a baby together in Alien Resurrection…
I defend this position. Still, they should have given those characters better deaths.
they should have given those characters better deaths
That I absolutely agree with. They did 'em dirty with how they took them out.
Execute this man as an enemy of the state.
The QWERTY-type keyboard is a dated relic, especially in the electronic era, where there aren’t physical mechanisms to jam because you pushed the buttons too quickly.
This is particularly applicable to touch screens, where the format is particularly ill-suited, and ought to be replaced by something more suitable and intuitive.
None of the doom and gloom really matters, every human in history has lived in a time of crisis. How we handle the challenges at hand determine the challenges for those that follow, but panicking about it is a waste of energy.
It’s really hard to accept this these days. Before new media, people often had no idea what was going on outside their town or villiage. Must have been bliss (Except for the entrenched poverty, filth, disease and oppression of course lmao). Now it’s hard to avoid learning about who got killed in what gruesome way today.
Right?? I love shrimp but I hate eating things with my hands. No matter the dish, I pull those tails off and I know how to do it without losing any meat. I can’t stand tails on shrimp as I’m trying to eat
Souls games should have an easy mode and it’s fine if only the original hard mode is a well balanced experience. I just want to have fun and enjoy the view.
When someone does not like garlic bread, Allah Willing, they shall know no happiness, and shall not live long.
Same with meat on the bone for me. Like… I love a biryani, but it’s so much better when the chicken/lamb is boneless. I get that the bone imparts some flavor, but I don’t think it’s worth the effort and mess.
Anything I can’t eat with my hands, should not be covered in a sauce that I don’t want on my hands.
Fried shrimp with tails = fine. Bone-in chicken legs = fine. Bone-in chicken in biryani = not ordering. Shrimp with tail in pasta = sin against god and crime against humanity.
Buffalo wings violate that rule and I’m not prepared to give them up.
For me, the rule would be: if it’s a dish meant to be eaten with utensils, don’t include inedible parts that have to be separated by hand.
Ribs. I don’t mind saucy ribs. I suppose if you are supposed to use your hands, maybe it’s okay if they get a bit saucy.
Yeah I think that’s the big thing: don’t have a dish that requires shifting from utensil to fingers and back… especially if there’s sauce.
I don’t really like buffalo wings. I know boneless wings are basically just “nuggies”, but I prefer them, especially if things are getting saucy.
A dry spice blend can make for acceptable wings, but I actually still prefer something like a spicy breading and a bigger piece of chicken, if I’m going to have to deal with bones.
But, I will admit that is a good border case, and isn’t quite the sin that shrimp w/ tail covered in cream sauce is.
I once had pasta with whole mussels mixed in. Could never be too sure my next bite wouldn’t have a big chunk of shell in it. Shit was expensive for what it was too, they definitely could have paid some guy just to stand there in the kitchen and remove the shells as it goes onto the plate for what we were paying. Not a radical opinion this just reminded me of it.
People who order and eat chili mussels (with shells) at restaurants are insane and are getting ripped off. it is the least practical dish, and by weight, half of it is inedible. I think it’s also a massive pain in the ass for kitchen staff to prepare.
We’re fucked. We’re probably witnessing the last decade of relative stability.
People have been saying this for thousands of years, though. In some cases, they weren’t even wrong to think it. But for a country as wealthy and well insulated and exhaustively policed as the average Western state?
Come on. We don’t even have COVID era crime rates, much less the lead /cocaine fueled crime bonanzas of the 1970s and 80s.
Relative to what? The Great Depression? The Civil War? The collapse of the Aztec Empire?
We’re a blip on the radar.
Climate refugees are going to turn the “migrant crime” rhetoric into overdrive. My opinion, but it’s clearly the Boogeyman that Fascism is rallying against. There are great swaths of land that are experiencing temperatures and severe weather that are incompatible with human life.
Fascists don’t have the foresight to think of consequences of climate change. They’re also in denial that climate change is a thing at all, since one of their sources of funding is fossil-fuel extractors, including a certain large Eurasian nation-state.
Their real motivation for being anti-immigrant is that they are racist scum who are always looking for vulnerable populations to victimise.
There always has to be the group to other, to perceive as both the weak to subjugate yet simultaneously the downfall of society.
My enemies are both strong and weak.
There are a few videos on the 14 characteristics of Fascism but these are my favorite.
Let’s talk about 14 characteristics, 10 stages, and where you are…
Let’s talk about Trump’s accomplishments
Bold of you to assume I hail from land of bacon and guns. If I come to your land I’ll be seen as someone who eats cats. So either way I’m in shit.
Blindly supporting the Two-Party System, and bullying those who don’t, is anti-American. It will only lead to fascism.
EDIT - @chaogomu provided quality information on how to actually work with US voting and how to make a difference. Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem and https://equal.vote
No one supports the two party system. We recognize it exists and work within it to change it. But it’s designed to not change, so it’s hard.
Stomping your feet and voting third party for president is performative at best, disingenuous at worst.
Local elections, vote third party if you want.
Is that bullying? I lost track of the line between facts and harassment.
Voting for and propping up bad politicians is support. You were doing great until you said, “Stomping your feet…”. That’s devaluation of a position you don’t agree with and defamation of the opinion haver all in one. It’s generally considered bullying. Just consider if everyone who shared your view voted third party instead of voting for a Republican in Democrats clothing?
Easy to be idealist when you never hold office. 3rd parties never have to show where they would comprise, because they are not running for these higher offices in a meaningful way.
The republican agenda is so profoundly awful, and the US electorate has not yet resoundly rejected it. Meanwhile, we’re too busy “trying to send a message” to recognize that the democrats are the only party even marginally open to progressive policies. Depending on where you live, there are a lot of groups pushing for election reform, and many places where that will be on the ballot. Get involved, help make that change happen…but you can do that and also flush the big orange turd.
How did I get dragged into this in a joke thread??
If you’re never given a seat at the table, then how can they talk about their compromises? I agree with a good portion of what you said. I wasn’t trying to fight people, but it did ask for “Radical Ideas” lol.
How can your third party ever have a seat at the table when they put all their resources and funding into national elections they can’t win?
I agree that only focusing on national elections is not good. A quick search will show that there are independent and third party representatives though, so while some candidates fall short, cough Jill Stein cough I would hope not all are discounted.
Yeah, it’d be great to see more 3rd party candidates in down ballot races. Should your first seat at the table nationally be the presidency?
It wouldn’t be the first seat. A quick search shows that there are independent and third-party representatives. I agree though.
It is literally to have a viable third party under First Past the Post. It boils down to Duverger’s law. Or more broadly Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem
We need to focus on the actual voting system before we can start generating and supporting Third Parties.
Specifically we need a cardinal voting system. It’s literally the only way to gain viable third parties that are not just extensions of the major two.
Sadly it’s too late to get voting reform on any more ballots this year.
But you can still get involved.
I know there is the Ranked Choice Voting concept which sounds appealing. I’ll read on this too. Thank you for the information!
Ranked Choice is an Ordinal voting system that fails Arrow’s Theorem.
In some rare cases, it can produce a result even worse than First Past the Post. There are a bunch of flaws in RCV, because it was invented before mathematical evaluation was as robust as it is these days.
Simulation, and some unfortunate real world examples, show that if you vote in and election with at least three somewhat viable candidates, and keep strategy in mind, you can rate your preferred candidate second and improve their chances of winning.
No voting system should be able to do this. RCV has more flaws in addition to this already game breaking one.
OK, Ill keep that in mind. I need to read more. Thank you for the education, I know it isn’t your responsibility.
No, that’s not how our system works.
In our system you never vote FOR anyone. You are always voting AGAINST the worst candidate. That is literally how it is set up. That is the definition of a two party system.
Voting against a worst candidate is not propping up that system. Because one of those candidates is going to win either way due to the electoral college.
If everyone, literally everyone, that was Democrat decided to vote Green, then they’d still lose. Again, electoral college. Nevermind the fact that getting everyone to do it is literally impossible.
What you described is also not how our system works. The Electoral College does what it pleases. See the elections from 2016, 2000, etc. I do agree that the EC is a major issue in this.
That too. Faithless electors are a train wreck waiting to happen. some states have laws thankfully, but not all, and that’s a huge issue.
Everyone should just ignore their actual incentives. Wow. What a wonderful solution to collective action problems; why didn’t anyone ever think of that before? Come on. I don’t believe you are that stupid.
They gave facts and you dismiss them with a label because of a little ridicule? Your ending suggestion doesn’t even do the job… we can grant you the impossible, sure all those people vote third party. Result, still a loss, and their least preferred major party wins. Whoops, all those voters we granted you picked different third parties. Because as little as they barely agreed on preferring one of the major parties, they agree on a ranking of the “third parties” even less. If you ask for us to grant the impossible, at least make it one that would work.
This is currently a multi-tiered 170,000,000 people system we are discussing. History and mathematics are against simplistic appeals for quick changes. Propose childish thinking, and it is little wonder you get ridiculed as acting childish.
Your post is a prime example. i didn’t dismiss what they said. I pointed out where I disagreed with their concept of support, pointed out what bullying is, and then asked a consideration. I don’t need you to agree with me. I just was asking for consideration of a concept. Your generalized dismissal is enough.
I presented a position on the topic. You ignored it in favor of discussing my comment’s tone.
As for the concept, I considered it decades ago. The math was the same then as now, and time has only added those decades of supporting evidence.
Ridicule of the ridiculous is warranted. And characterizing ignoring the reality of political systems as stomping one’s foot is the mildest of ridicule. It isn’t bullying. If you weren’t dismissing the facts in surewhynotlem’s comment, then I’m glad you accept them.
Your position was not ignored. You spent your first paragraph insulting me, that isn’t tone. I’m reading on the math you mentioned to better educate myself regardless of your “tone”.
Do people blindly support it? I live with it and vote accordingly but I also advocate for alternative voting methods. People voting third party do not fully understand that our first past the post system makes it so their candidate has no chance.
Ross Perot came pretty close… 30 years ago lol
Yea my bad. Blindly wasn’t the right word to use.
The problem is that all voting systems have undesirable corner cases and anomalies. The voting system isn’t really the main problem, it’s the political culture, corruption and the inconsistent application of rule of law.
There is a difference between undesirable corner cases and the garbage that is first past the post. Changing it to even ranked choice increases engagement and how politicians politic. So changing the voting system does indeed help a whole host of problems. There are obviously some other things that need to change like having publicly funded elections, increasing the House of Representatives and having multi member districts, making the Electoral College obsolete, etc.
Jesus, it’s always “bullying” when people get told the consequences of their choice. You don’t need to believe in politics, it will still fuck you over. A lot of people don’t have the luxury of not participating because they aren’t spoiled white suburbanites able to just hide from the consequences of ignoring how their country functions.
I think you missed the point of my comment. Detailing consequences is not the issue, losing the plot is. I’ll work on my delivery for the future. I agree with your overall statement though.
As far as I can tell the incrementalist argument goes like this:
- The two-party system is destroying the country.
- But one of the two parties will destroy democracy imminently, so we have to vote for the lesser evil this time, and then,
- …
- The two-party system is destroying the country.
- Resoundly reject the party that is actively pushing for a weird christofascist state. <-- the us electorate has not yet done this!
- Actively push for election reform <-- AK, AZ, CO, DC, ID, MT, NV, OR, and SD will all have ballet initiatives this November regarding election reform. VOTE!
- Get involved with organizations that are moving to further the causes you care about, and get active in politics.
Voting for president is the smallest part of civic participation, not the end-all-be-all
We need work to end the two party system, NOT work that demonizes people for making rational choices under current circumstances.
This is the future of US politics.
2024 - vote Democrat or the Republicans will end democracy.
2028 - vote Democrat or the Republicans will end democracy.
2032 - vote Democrat or the Republicans will end democracy.
2036 - vote Democrat or the Republicans will end democracy.
2040 - vote Democrat or the Republicans will end democracy.
And so on.
At some point, people will have to start voting third party because the two major parties will never give up the status quo.
The trick is to support ranked-choice voting in the meantime
And primaries are the “real” elections to get us there. General elections will continue to be major party A vs. major party B, with a “this is the most important election ever” backdrop, while primaries are where we have to try to get our important issues (like election reform) carried by generally electable candidates to get those issues injected into the parties.
And the amount of money spent on primaries confirms how influential they are capable of being.
And voting for Democrats or Republicans will accomplish that?
No not really, but you can do both. Ranked choice voting has already been enacted in several places in the US and they didn’t get there by electing third- party majorities
Given that the previous one actually did try to steal an election it actually has merit. I wasn’t worried about republicans before Trump. I just thought they were dicks.
the truth!
Absolutely! Also, I can’t stand ordering whole crab at a restaurant. I just want the meat without the hassle of cracking open the legs and body, getting my hands dirty, slurping all over, and dealing with the mess. Someone should handle that in the kitchen. I can boil a crab at home if I want to work to get the food out.
