brianary

I don't understand the "we were to small to matter" argument I've been seeing. If that's true, why on Earth would you expect to matter enough to move the Democratic platform, or to shape society after leftists "burn it all down" (whatever that means)?

Dan Dare by Art of Noise

It's the same argument I've heard about the "complexity" of Mastodon: too many choices, which is I guess why people largely stopped going to websites outside the major social networks. Monopoly over competition, it's like everyone is pining for a monarchy.

How are you dealing with those people? Converting them is incredibly time consuming, and has to be done individually.

Maybe, unless the replacement is immediately worse based on who seizes control. It's the devil you know vs the one you don't.

I'm thinking more about the plurality of Americans that aren't on board, for whatever stupid reason. Until they are convinced, destroying the system won't really stick, if it's even possible.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/one-third-of-americans-agree-with-trump-s-poisoning-the-blood-comments/ar-AA1suf7p

Any solution that starts with purges is bad.

If you say so.

Democrats aren't authoritarians. It's a bad comparison. Democrats are always fragmented, it's virtually a defining characteristic. Post-Biden unity has been quite unusual.

The fixation is because there is no clear line of succession. If he fails, who steps in? They'll splinter and fragment. They'll still be deplorable, but less effective when not united behind a single authoritarian leader.

I guess the chicken and egg may have appeared at the same time.

It's an explanation of Wilhoit's Law, really, which will always resonate with misanthropes.