I get why he rubbed some people the wrong way, but I enjoyed him. I think we had a lot in common in terms of life history and interests. Definitely one of our Posters. Shine on you crazy diamond; see you on the other side of this madness, maybe.

"Pidgin" is a linguistics term for the hodgepodge new language that emerges when you throw a bunch of people with no common language together. It's a cobbled together pseudo-language made out of words from all the "real" languages spoken in an area that people use to communicate across linguistic boundaries. If it solidifies to the point that people actually learn it as a native language, it becomes a creole.

I disagree with the Inciting Decision, but even more strongly disagree with Carcosa stepping down over it. They have shown time and again that they're an excellent leader and admin, and the site will be diminished if we lose that. A mea culpa about how the decision was made is fine I guess, and self-crit is always great for anyone with any power, but losing one of our most competent and caring admins is not going to make this better.

If that's not the reason, then I'm totally puzzled by what the argument even is. I'm all for changing the name, but if we're not worried about post quality, why exactly are we closing the comms?

Locking these comms was a mistake, and trying to ban "low effort" posts will kill the site long term. We're a shitposting social media site descended from a shitposting subreddit. Shitposting is part of our culture--a big part. If you ban low-effort posts, you're not going to get more effort posts--you're just going to get fewer posts. A lot of people come here in part because they can post some essay or take by an esteemed Elder Statesman or Media Thinker and say "look at this dumb shit." Not only is that important to site culture and participation itself, lots of deeper engagement comes along with that activity.

Reopen dredge, and change the name of the other one.

Why are we against "low-effort" posts? That's the bread and butter of a social media site, which is what we are. Shutting off outlets for shitposting isn't going to result in more effort posts--it's just going to result in fewer posts. 100% behind the name change idea, but I think removing the functionality of those comms will hurt the culture and participation level of the site.

Non-violently enforcing consensus community standards does not make you a cop. That's like the opposite of being a cop.

Yeah, I was astounded that we passed it and CA didn't.

I've strategically deployed this line a few times since yesterday, and it's like a slap in the face. It wakes people the fuck up.

Yeah, the place to be smug is here on Hexbear when we're just talking to each other. If we're trying to actually reach people and change their minds, its really essential that we restrain the natural urge to dunk. Remember that these people are heavily propagandized, and that many of them were voting for Kamala because they genuinely thought it was the only possible option for producing a better world. Believing that doesn't make someone bad or dumb when they've been told it their whole lives by everything they've ever consumed. Rubbing their nose in it now is just going to alienate them from the left even further and make it easier for them to shift blame off of where it belongs and onto us. The goal is to bring new comrades into the movement, and we won't do that by making people feel bad--we'll do that by giving them hope that there's a better way.

The real story here is that Trump won the popular vote. That signals an enormous shift in sentiment and culture, and should be the subject of any serious analysis here. This is nothing less than a catastrophic failure of the liberal project and liberal vision--a total implosion of the do-nothing "centrist" political consensus. Democrats have shown over and over and over again that they have nothing to offer the majority of Americans. The Harris campaign was just the apotheosis of the trend: courting capital and neo-conservative ghouls while jettisoning any talk of policies that might help people. This is not a winning election strategy. That should be screamingly obvious now. People are angry, hurting, and looking for anyone that even suggests they understand that pain and might do something about it, even when the suggested solutions make no sense. The only sane response to this result is a SWEEPING reexamination of the neo-liberal consensus. Liberalism in its current form has failed most people, and the Democrats have failed to articulate any message or position that appreciates that. Until someone in the United States starts articulating a positive vision with policies to engender some hope for the future--healthcare for everyone, housing as a human right, SERIOUS action on climate change--the far right will keep winning. They're the only ones with ideas.

Now is the time to reach out to your liberal friends to help them understand that this is not a fluke, but the system working as designed. This failure by the Dems didn't come out of nowhere. Lots of us on the left saw this coming a mile away, and can help make sense of it. They're flailing and looking for an explanation. We have that. Help them understand. Help them see that we don't HAVE to live like this. We don't have to put up with only being given a sliver of political power every 4 years, with the threat of fascism hanging over our heads. The people at the top--the donor class, campaign managers, and beltway lanyard bros--aren't worth your time. But your mom or friend who voted for Kamala and is devastated and confused by the loss of the popular vote definitely IS worth your time. Those people can be comrades. Give them a chance. Reach out and listen to their frustrations and concerns. Don't be smug--be sympathetic. Talk to them about why they think this happened. Offer your perspective. Ask them why the Democrats raised over a billion dollars and still lost the popular vote. Ask if those might be connected. Ask why progressive voter initiatives--protecting abortion, sick days, wages increases, etc.--outperformed the Democratic presidential candidate so much in so many places. Ask what they think that means about the state of the electorate; does it mean most of America really is irredeemably evil? Or could it maybe mean something else? Ask if they really think Kamala Harris and "nothing really needs to change" is the best we can do, or the message most people need to hear. Help them see that it isn't. Help them see that a better world is possible. Help them get organized. This is your chance.

We had a constitutional amendment protecting abortion on the ballot, as well as one abolishing slavery for prisoners. Both passed, and Harris lost.

Yeah it would not surprise me at all if they took exactly the wrong lesson from this, but I think doing so would make it crystal clear that they're not operating in anything like good faith. The percentage of Republicans who voted for Harris was totally unchanged from the percentage who voted for Biden, and the traditional Democratic base just didn't vote for them. The rightward shift overwhelmingly hurt their electoral performance. If they move even further to the right, that's just an indication that they actually believe in those policies; they won't be able to hide behind the fig leaf of "strategic triangulation" anymore. Most of us here on Hexbear are aware of the fact that they actually want to feed immigrants and poor people into a meat grinder, but I'm at least hopeful that this might be the beginning of more ordinary people waking up to that fact.

I don't really see this as being the other side of the coin at all. Their voter base collapsed precisely because they failed to articulate any kind of positive vision or embrace any policies that might help the vast majority of Americans. People will not turn out to vote for you when you explicitly tell them you're not going to help them and that they should stop whining.

The real story here is that Trump won the popular vote. That signals an enormous shift in sentiment and culture, and should be the subject of any serious analysis here. This is nothing less than a catastrophic failure of the liberal project and liberal vision--a total implosion of the do-nothing "centrist" political consensus. Democrats have shown over and over and over again that they have nothing to offer the majority of Americans. The Harris campaign was just the apotheosis of the trend: courting capital and neo-conservative ghouls while jettisoning any talk of policies that might help people. This is not a winning election strategy. That should be screamingly obvious now. People are angry, hurting, and looking for anyone that even suggests they understand that pain and might do something about it, even when the suggested solutions make no sense. The only sane response to this result is a SWEEPING reexamination of the neo-liberal consensus. Liberalism in its current form has failed most people, and the Democrats have failed to articulate any message or position that appreciates that. Until someone in the United States starts articulating a positive vision with policies to engender some hope for the future--healthcare for everyone, housing as a human right, SERIOUS action on climate change--the far right will keep winning. They're the only ones with ideas.

I really enjoyed the book, honestly. It's somewhat less rad than it could be given that the problem eventually gets solved by the UN doing weird crypto banking shit to create "market based incentives," but yeah the Children of Kali do incredibly based stuff. The plot of "we might have secretly infected some number of cows with a prion disease--you won't know which ones or how many until it's way too late and people start dying, so you might as well just stop doing large-scale beef farming" is a badass idea.

I quit "real" academia. I teach this stuff at a university-attached high school for super smart kids now.

Yeah, this is correct. You'd need to dim things a lot more than what's possible with aerosol injection like this before photosynthesis failure would start to be the dominant problem.

This is the kind of scenario I expect, honestly, though I'd be mildly surprised if it turned out not to be a member of (or a multinational corporation/billionaire) making the first move as a result of deciding it will hurt their rivals more.