Most of us vote for the candidate that best upholds our interests no matter the letter on the lapel.

This also isn’t true. Hypothetically, rational voters would vote their own self-interest or using other rationally explicable criteria, but those are hypothetical voters. Those “thought exercise” voters are just as hypothetical as the “invisible hand” that magically makes markets fair, or the hypothetical economic rational actor in the economy that always has perfect information and behaves rationally to maximize their own self-interest. They’re more fictional than the “spherical cows” involved in introductory physics problems.

A lot (or maybe even most) of the people that vote Republican vote against their own interests. That’s why Cory Doctorow talks about them being “turkeys voting for Christmas”.

Farmers that vote Trump are voting against their own interests. People from small towns with decaying infrastructure and social security recipients that vote Trump are voting for a circus clown that will not do anything to improve their life a single iota.

If you have to type fifteen responses complete with diagrams about your ideology, then everything I’m saying about it not being straightforwardly definable is 100% correct and you’re proving it right now.

Gallup found that voters who identify as libertarians ranged from 17 to 23% of the American electorate.

Exactly, “identify as”…do you really think 17-23% of the American voting populace actually has consistent, definable meanings about what it means to be a libertarian? I’m willing to bet that they do not. Relatedly, I have never seen the Libertarian Party get 17-23% of the vote in my lifetime. So, sure, you have a bunch of people that “identify” as libertarian (as I once sort of did in college despite always voting Democratic) but in reality, they are not part of the organized party at all. The Libertarian Party gets up to the low single digits in national elections which is a pathetic showing and is why they do not even get to debate the candidates of the two main parties.

They show up every couple of election cycles, take their “conscientious objector to the ‘duopoly’” single digit voter percentage, occasionally cause spoiler effects, and then fuck off back into the wilderness. They’re basically the “Green Party” equivalent for right-leaning people, exactly as I was saying above.

American politics is akin to the aisles in the grocery stores here: lots and lots of different labels and colorful packaging, and very little actual choice.

I read the linked article, and noticed that verbiage: “considered by some”. That’s exactly my point. Nobody has the ability to define what exactly libertarianism is in this country because there are so many little feuding factions, and it’s a 1-5% movement in the first place.

It’s essentially a thing you can pretend to be when the Republican candidate is too repulsive to openly support and that’s about it.

Are you going to change the definition of pacifist or are you going to call me a violent non-pacifist.

If you and all of the other pacifist movement people are really violent then I’d say the same thing about your movement, you’re running a naming scam.

In this particular case, it’s difficult to even call libertarianism a set thing, because the “movement” spends much of its time discussing what is and isn’t libertarianism, and I think that has a lot to do with the fact that individual liberty versus collective responsibility is largely a more difficult balance to strike than they’re pretending, and there’s no clear and fast way to cut it for every scenario. Pacifism, on the other hand, is much more straightforward to define.

they’re just using that moniker because it fits whatever they’re really trying to accomplish.

That’s what Libertarianism is. The same naming con also applies to the so-called Green Party. I don’t know why we are so easily fooled by names of things, especially when we live in a country full of scams where people constantly try to fool you like this. You’d think we’d develop a tolerance considering it’s a constant thing, but nope, we’re still just as stupid and naive as we were decades ago. If anything, we’ve gotten more naive.

So, we’re not doing Section 230 anymore ?

That’s a part of a US law, and as such doesn’t throw a shrimp on the bar-b in Australia, mate.

I also sub to a few channels on Odyssee, and a couple on Rumble. If you’re good at searching for stuff, PeerTube can also work, but I personally haven’t found anything I really like there.

Good on you because the goal of getting off of google is definitely good but…these names sound like things that a writer would come up with as fictional social media platforms on a comedy show.

deleted by creator

This is the self checkout of learning. Requires the same amount of employees with the same skills as before, but wait, now it’s also worse!

I like how the “why don’t you just” people have now moved on to armchair psychology.

Yeah, a streaming service with the hit songs like “Zyme Bedewing” from everyone’s favorite artist “Calorie Event”.

So you’re saying a niche platform with a lot of tech guys who are actively facing layoffs daily nowadays isn’t representative of society overall? I’m super surprised.

But relatedly depression levels have risen across society over the years, it’s gonna impact the posting.

Finally a use case for AI.

Big xylophone is gerrymandering the alphabet.

I think something that is missing in the minds of the “but you could just…” posters here is that the mindset of the OP doesn’t always come from laziness, immaturity, or the inability to understand how to pack a sandwich, it sometimes comes from crippling or barely functional depression.

I work from home and the thought of even making a sandwich most days in the middle of the day is just too much. I don’t want to make a sandwich; I want to go back to bed for eight to ten years and I agree that lunch is the fucking worst.

(But so is breakfast, and dinner, and all of the meetings, and work, and life generally speaking, etc.)

I find you can’t even get a sandwich anymore for less than $15.

(Fast food may be slightly cheaper. I wouldn’t know because I don’t frequent fast food chains.)

It remains funny to me that futurism.com became mostly about covering the dystopia we live in.

I maintain my insistence that you owe me a business model!

How is that a privileged point of view?

Leveraged buyouts specifically should be outlawed.

EDIT: And billionaires should be taxed on the money they receive as loans.

The “buy borrow die” tax strategy should either be completely outlawed or the government should be able to get portions of those loan payments back as tax money.