Of course, What is more humanitarian than defending the head of a genocidal colonial regime? It is common knowledge that the most moral way to deal with undesirables is to kill them. Democracies are so great that they get at least three free genocide passes.

Crimes of opportunity are not need based, they are want based. People take something because they want it and are unconcerned with the potential consequences of taking it. Even the cop quoted in your linked article admitted that 'Cars stolen for the purpose of committing another crime are not what's behind the majority of thefts. '

I agree with you, but it is worth noting that most election laws are done at the state and not the national level. If US Congress required states to use RCV, you would have a weird mismatch where national politicians and state politicians were elected with a different system. The US federal government only has the legal authority to change election laws for national politicians not state politicians.

I imagine that would cause some confusion when your state politician is elected by FPTP and your national politician is elected by RCV.

Represent.us is an non-partisan organization working to help push RCV on a local and state level. I just found it from lemmy earlier today.

I imagine the idea of it is trying to prevent scraping of the content. It seems like it started a couple months after the 3rd party app debacle. By blocking IPs associated with cloud providers they hope to make it harder to scrape their content like openai did when training chatgpt.

I understand your justification for your beliefs and even share some of your moral beliefs. It seems to me like you didn't really answer in the way I meant to communicate it. I'll try to rephrase my original question to what I mean clearer. What causes you to rank your own values in the way you do?

Why do you think access to guns is more important than your beliefs on abortion? Or why are they more important than not getting overcharged on everything from housing to education to healthcare?

Yeah, you're probably right to some degree. It may not have been fully intentional on the part of the designer.

However, since the elites of the time controlled the government, the government would tend to favor institutions that elites think will benefit from.

You are looking at it the wrong way, Because the market has traded mostly sideways for a while that means that the market is underpriced compared to what it should be. That is when you should be more willing to invest. I know it seems counterintuitive. This article explains the concept better than I can.

Since ~2019, the SP500 has gone up 45%. That is the equivalent of a 8.5% compound interest rate or 11% simple interest rate per year. If you're portfolio accounts are under performing that by a big margin than you might want to switch Funds and/or account providers.

There are always gloomy articles and headlines meant to convince you to sell. Because they want to buy your stocks on the cheap.

First of all, since you never defined what you mean by fascism, I'm going to assume you are using as an insult as that is how it is commonly used.

No, I'm not concern trolling, just looking to have a discussion on how reductionist calling wanting to appeal to both sides of a political aisle as being third positionism or 'fascist' is. I never mentioned or disputed your points on Sarah Wagenknecht since I am not informed on that.

I guess, I take issue with the implied idea that everyone that says "both sides bad" or "both sides have a good point" is a third positionist and therefore a 'fascist'. Appealing to both sides can be a way of consensus building and needs to be encouraged IMO. Real world issues are rarely black and white and assuming they are is why people are so divided.

You can acknowledge that certain groups get one idea or policy right without agreeing with them on everything or 'enabling them'. It is called compromise. Just because some of the groups in history that used the term were authoritarian fascists does not mean every group that claims 'there is a third position between capitalism and communism' are authoritarian fascists(Wikipedia source for third positionist's claim).

The third positionist's claim is a true claim as evidenced by the fact that the most successful economies are mixed economies with both public(socialist) and private (capitalistic) enterprises. It is just a claim that has historically been used by bad actors(authoritarians) to gain power.

In rhetorical terms, you implying all third positionists bad or 'fascist' is an example of Genetic fallacy – a conclusion based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.

Maybe in this case, Sarah Wagenknecht is fascist. Maybe not. I am not familiar enough to make a judgement call.

But calling all populists or third positionist's 'fascists' is as misleading as calling all US democrats 'communists'. It is judging someone before you actually know what they stand for.

The other point: This article mentions she calls herself a “left-conservative”, which is an oxymoron

Left-conservative makes sense to me if you interpret it as left of economic issues while conservative on social issues.

Economic Policies ARE Social Policies

I tend to disagree with that thinking. Economic policies are concerned with the allocation of scarce resources in a society, while social policies are concerned with the distribution of welfare(basic resources or needs). They are interrelated, but they are not identical. Economic policies focus on productivity and growth while Social policies focus on health and inequality.

I can easily envision a society that is left economically while also being right socially. It would encourage worker coops and state run enterprises but on the other hand tacitly endorse traditional social values like racism and sexism via restrictive immigration and endorsing women as homemakers instead of in the workplace. I'm not saying that is ideal, but I am simply saying it could easily exist.

Note: Populism is IMO a very correct way of looking at the world. According to wikipedia, it "presents 'the people' as a morally good force and contrasts them against 'the elite', who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving."

In my experience, When regular people act immorally they are held accountable. When powerful people act immorally, they are much less likely to be held accountable.

Sorry, if I went too in depth here. It's kinda hard to keep it succinct when discussing broad ideas.

reality isn’t real

It is worth keeping in mind Hanlon's Razor with this. "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by neglect." They are running on emotions and accepting being wrong hurts so they simply don't accept their emotions.

One way is to just lie and say you only have a flip phone. There are probably millions of old people that refuse to use smartphones because they don't understand them and there no reason you can't pretend to also have a dumb phone.

The only thing I got from the newsletter was a link to the website. I posted my thoughts in the title and post contents.

While, I am not affiliated with them, I can see how this could be interpreted an ad. My intention was to highlight a potential way to use this service as a way to help with budgeting or income. It is certainly a type of service based around your personal finance that is novel and imo relevant to this community.