She was an old woman in the democratic party. That’s three things a lot of people on the internet hate. Since most agree she was a politician not fit for her job anymore they can go all out with the insults without getting too much backlash.
She essentially embodied the suppression of leftist and progressive movements in the Democratic Party. That is why a lot of leftist and progressive people may not be hurting over the news.
The time she flew a Confederate treason flag outside the SF mayors office to court racist Democrats is part of it. Even had she done nothing else wrong that’s enough for me to search every corner of hell when I get there, find her and piss on her.
Partly because of her voting record/neoliberal bullshit, and partly because she was senile and should’ve retired. There might’ve been other issues on top of those two things, but as far as I’m aware, those were the big ones.
I think “she was senile and should’ve retired” is being profoundly gentle. She should have retired decades ago, and she should have spent her most recent term in hospice. She’s an even more potent symbol than Mitch McConnell of how pathetically, worthlessly, disgustingly, pointlessly geriatric our government is.
Presumably she kept getting re-elected every 6 years, no? I know that’s not a good enough reason for her to justify running, but what’s a democratic solution that isn’t also ageist?
If someone has freak genes, or sufficiently advanced technology to remain in perfect health physical and mentally at (ex.) 150 years old, we wouldn’t want laws that say, “sorry, people past 80 are generally senile, so you’re not allowed to run”.
I feel like if the people don’t want a 90yo senator, then they shouldn’t elect an 85yo candidate, and we can’t do much better than that. This is also why we have so many redundant representatives, one bad one shouldn’t be capable of sinking the whole ship.
I mean, that’s the essence of all science fiction, virtually all of which are increasingly relevant every year.
But it’s not even necessary for you to understand my argument. There’s nothing that necessitates that a human loses their mental faculties beyond a certain age. To arbitrarily draw a line would be the definition of ageism.
Beyond the fact your brain becomes feeble with age, there’s also the practical fact that there are people in congress who haven’t set foot inside a classroom since the fucking Eisenhower administration. Some of them graduated high school before plate tectonics was discovered or the transistor was invented. Here’s a question for ya: Should high school diplomas or college degrees expire?
Beyond the fact your brain becomes feeble with age
Again, not a fact. People can and do live beyond 100 without losing any mental faculties. What you mean to say is that, at the current time, as humans age, there is a high probability of them developing illnesses that result in mental degradation. That’s not the same as saying “it is a fact that your brain becomes feeble with age”.
there’s also the practical fact that there are people in congress who haven’t set foot inside a classroom since the fucking Eisenhower administration
I agree, that’s much more relevant.
Here’s a question for ya: Should high school diplomas or college degrees expire?
Maybe, maybe not. Either way, if the goal is to maintain a democratic system that isn’t designed to induce bias or favoritism of any class over another, then level of education should never be used as a legal requirement to run for political office. That is called an aristocracy. That’s not to say the job doesn’t have any minimum requirements; the voters are the ones interviewing and hiring for the position, and if education is important to them, they should prioritize it in the voting booth.
IMO if a democracy fails because the voters are too stupid, then it just wasn’t meant to be.
Remember kids! It’s not the fault of the consumers/voters/people, it’s the evil, uh, capitalists/Boomers/whatever. We need systemic change that forces personal responsibility and choice!
Then lemmy tells me the same people can topple capitalism and all get along as communists. And then they whine about how old people run everything because they vote.
Reminds me of my fatass friend standing at the bottom of the stairs hollering for a doughnut because it hurt her to walk upstairs.
we wouldn’t want laws that say, “sorry, people past 80 are generally senile, so you’re not allowed to run”.
I do. We have laws that say “Sorry, people under are usually stupid, so you’re not allowed to run” Not everyone under the age should be denied the right to run/vote, but we decide as a society when someone has lived enough to make choices. Why is it so hard to do the same for an upper age?
I think you accidentally an age, but I get your point.
The difference is that we have scientific evidence that demonstrates categorically, without any outliers, that humans below a certain age do not have fully developed brains. On the flip side, we don’t have any scientific evidence that necessitates that a human loses their mental faculties after a certain age. Anecdotally, my great grandmother lived to 104, was living in her own house the entire time, and could hold a coherent conversation about the early 1900s no problem (up until the last year or two). In her 90s she legitimately said, “what’s wrong with me, all of my friends are dead, why am I still fine?”
Meanwhile, not only has life expectancy been constantly rising over the last few hundred years, but scientists are actively trying to slow or even reverse aging in humans. It’s perhaps unlikely, but not impossible for humans to unlock immortality at some point in the near future.
Point being, you can’t say anything is necessarily true about all adults after a certain age, just like you can’t say anything is necessarily true about /insert race/. So it would be the definition of ageism.
What you really want is some kind of aptitude test to verify that they are still minimally capable of doing their job, but for the same reason that’s not used to admit people to vote, you can never be certain that the test doesn’t introduce a bias thereby disenfranchising people. So I really think the best we can do is a democracy…something better than first past the post would probably help though.
Edit: btw, i think I see now how you missed an age. Apparently things in angle brackets just get deleted :/
The solution is the dissolution of the private corporations deciding how the main (read: only) two parties in our country operate. Dianne only won because she was the Democratic candidate, and she got that because the DNC made it so. If there were more rigorous competition, I’m quite sure she would’ve been replaced a long time ago.
There’s nothing I can say to disagree, I think this answer is spot on. It serves as a perfect example of the difference between a functioning democracy and where we currently are.
Not just mean. Dismissive, rude, condescending. It is disgusting that a politician can do this to a bunch of kids looking to brighten their future. Disgusting. You could just see the hope disappear from those kids’ eyes.
Seriously, all she had to do was make a bunch of supportive noises, pose for some pictures and then have her staff usher them out - she went out of her way to shit all over those kids and the adults/teens that were with them, with her only real argument being “fuck you - I’m a politician, i don’t have to do shit you say”
Yeah her asshole reaction to those awesome kids was truly awful. I already had problems with her stance on a number of other issues (domestic surveillance, for example), but the way she treated those kids made me lose all respect for her.
She isn’t hated by the far left any more than any other neo-lib.
She’s hated because she needed to retire decades ago. Senate Judiciary confirmations have completely stalled because she hasn’t been healthy enough to attend hearings. Trump stacked federal judgeships with unqualified partisan hacks and democrats have been unable to respond. The senate needs her vote to maintain their majority, and her health issues effectively loses the democrats majority. She is clearly senile and confused at all of her recent public appearances.
They literally wheeled her out into Congress like two weeks ago. It was friggin sad. Do these people take a blood sacrifice to stay in office until they’re dead or something?
So, don't get me wrong, she sucked in many ways. I've wanted her out for a long time. But this is actually a problem for us as I understand it. The Dems got any judgeships because of her decrepit self and her seniority in the judiciary committee, and I believe the committee now devolves to Republican leadership, meaning no more judges at all.
Since you’re getting troll comments from right wingers I’ll try to give an actual answer
Feinstein was no longer mentally fit to serve in office. She was essentially the pre-cursor to a weekend at Bernie’s setup. She was not cognitively present enough to vote on legislation or even hold a conversation.
People are glad she passed because it means her seat is open to someone who can actually work on policy and benefit their constituents.
Liberals are not exactly a fan of letting the elderly die in office after the RBG situation that ended up with a stacked court when she had the option to retire under Obama.
Also Lemmy has definitely been having more right wing trolls recently and it’s making me want to use the platform less.
They weren’t making a point, they were parroting a cliche that they’ve used so many times before, that they don’t even wait for the proper context before reusing it again.
Sir, you can drop the personal attacks, I already said I’m not a rightoid or anywhere near there.
I have a personal friend, grew up on a cattle ranch, best friend was a black kid that worked with him. He voted republican all the time because he (wrongly) thought they represented his way of life.
Some loser like you comes along and calls him a racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam does absolutely nothing but undo years of work trying to drag him to the light. You’re acting as ignorant as he is.
At this point anyone who still willingly voted for the Republican Party is explicitly endorsing those ideals. Ignorance is not an excuse. If you vote for American republicans you’re outwardly and explicitly condoning those behaviors.
It’s not my job to make them feel comfortable. If they support those policies they’re not worth the breath it would take to try to explain it.
Let me repeat it. Ignorance is not an excuse.
Also the only one resorting to personal attacks is you
No, because that’s all false generalizations. But you know that and aren’t looking for conversation, you just want some gotcha moment.
Drag is not inherently sexual, and family friendly drag shows are not sexual at all, despite the lies you e been told.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at. We’re all very well aware the dnc is as corrupt as the rnc, but one side actively works against the interest of minorities and one doesn’t.
I feel nobody should own guns and we’d all be safer for it. There’s no reason anyone needs a gun except to defend themselves from another gun, which wouldn’t be a problem if we had any kind of common sense gun laws.
Given that we (unfortunately) exist in a two party system, it’s either one or the other bud, and I think we all know which answer is actually true to your beliefs lol
And before you respond with “I was just mocking the guy above me”. The fact that your whole post history is mocking democrats, and never Republicans says all you need to know lol
I mean, there’s not a lot of repubs to engage with on this platform. But you’re right, we exist in a two party system and both parties are too far right for me to vote for either.
Doesn’t stop me from calling out conservatives that vindicate themselves by voting D.
As someone who leans left and hates the GOP, you’re absolutely right. Lemmy is an echochamber full of a lot of nonsense that limits it’s potential and just causes more division and problems.
There’s a difference between discussion with differing opinions and simple trolling to rile people up. Posting things as though they are settled fact without willingness to be argued against is bad faith trolling. We should ban/exterminate X class of people is also trolling since it puts an impossibly wide brush to a group based on some singular characteristic.
Edit: I may have confused this with another asking about finding ‘correct non-MSM sources’ and posting stories about ‘vaccine bad’ and ‘masks cause brain damage’, but I’ll leave it in case those are still up elsewhere and say if I did mix it up then mea-culpa.
I’m willing to take the notion that there’s an honest intent. The major problem I would see is that in looking for ‘non MSM’ sources isn’t in looking for alternative views, it’s in looking for a confirmation bias fulfilling source. Scientific reporting becomes ‘mainstream’ through a consensus on facts pushing the reported version to the front page.
You would be hard pressed to find someplace that says asbestos, lead paint, and cigarettes are good and healthy things for anyone, but I’m sure if you look really hard some ‘non-MSM’ source would put together a story of why they in fact make for a fine breakfast cereal. Things such as one of the first posts you made regarding ‘masks kill brain cells’ fall into the same category. Somebody with a personal ax to grind will inevitably find reason to claim they are bad, but the overwhelming normalization of their use in medical facilities by people far more knowledgeable than you or I, very well educated people who’s very profession is to study these things, makes any such claims as you made sit out in the lunatic fringe side of conversations.
Unfortunately, there are a good number of people out there gullible enough to be baited by such things, for example see the whole ‘QAnon’ fiasco, and putting such things out there is a net bad for society. Social media for all it’s uses also allows followers of absurd theories to reinforce each other’s beliefs where previously such things would be left to die in darkness.
Don’t you know, proof is optional for the republicans?
They’re trying to impeach without proof, they’ve lied through their teeth every single day they’ve been in office. Proof doesn’t matter, and despite their favorite saying being “facts don’t care about your feelings” they don’t need facts
Actually their belief in inversely proportional to proof. The more proof you have, the less they believe it. The less proof you have, the more you believe it.
I got banned from there for posting a verbatim Trump tweet with no words of my own included. Never seen a bigger group of melting snowflakes in my life than the "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd.
Oh and like it was any different going into r/politics ya joker. Preach to your crowd, you’re still surrounded by groupthink in your safe space don’t worry.
She was also more of a neoliberal centrist, and had some moments that were, at best, terrible optics. She condescendingly admonished some kids asking her about her stance on climate change. As mayor of San Francisco, she defended flying the Confederate Flag as part of a monument to American Historical Flags. Then when a black man climbed the pole in a Union uniform to tear it down, she replaced it the next day. So he climbed the pole the next day and took it down again, and he was arrested. She put it back up the third day and posted guards to keep it up. She later “evolved” on the issue of flying the Confederate flag.
As mayor, she was violently anti-punk music, and was considered far more conservative than her predecessor. She became mayor after her predecessor was assassinated by political rival and former police officer, who also killed Harvey Milk in the same shopting. The assassin was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and served 5 years in prison. Her administration was notably friendlier to police and real estate development.
Did I mention she made millions of dollars in real estate and investments? After the 2022 death of her third husband, her net worth was estimated at around $90 million, making her one of the top 5 or so wealthiest Senators. I say “or so” because it’s really hard to pin down how much Senators have or what they earn, and there are alarmingly few regulations regarding disclosures of investments in the Senate. Feinstein sat on the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
In 2013, she blamed the Sandy Hook shootings on violent video games.
And when it became obvious that she was no longer in control of her mental faculties, she refused to step down.
She’s not. She’s hated by the Far Left, because she wasn’t far left enough. Don’t rely on Lemmy to give you a balanced, accurate picture of the political landscape.
our Overton window has gotten shoved so far right that anything vaguely to the left of center is viewed as “far left” (conservatives are even happy to shove center-right in with “far left”)
On a global Geopolitical scale our(American) Left/Right perceptions have moved gradually right. What we consider the moderate right is closer to the far right in most other places. The same happens on the left. Our moderate left politicians are closer to the center of the scale, and the far left is more akin to liberal parties in other places.
The American scale has always been skewed this way, it’s not necessarily that it happened in the last 10-15 years, more that from the start it was shifted.
Overton window – not the actual politics shifting so much as our view of those politics has shifted – instead of sitting over a centrist position keeping both left-wing and right-wing in view, the American window is positioned over right-wing bringing far-right into the perception of being acceptable and moving left-wing into the perception of being extremist
I don’t really get what you’re saying. What right wing extremist views are more centrist now then say the 90’s?
I kind of get this feeling like you’re about to give me some rant about “alt-right” behavior talking points, but people were definitely more sexist, ableist, transphobic, and racist back then compared to now it’s not even comparable. People were also way more religious, which is pretty auth right compared to now. Am I missing something?
I think in the “real world” we’ve slid left for sure, but political discourse is more of a doughnut than a box now. Algorithms and engagement metrics have pushed content people read to be more extreme and enraging. People also like to join insular communities and hate bond over caricatures of their enemies. Reddit has many popular subreddits to that effect. Lemmy has a lot of left ones, but it seems like most of the right ones were driven off.
I don’t know, I don’t listen to Tucker Carlson. Maybe you should go to his house and start screaming “down with the bourgeoisies!” until you start realizing you’re not relevant.
You made an idiot statement, I’m sorry for assuming you got it from Tucker and co.
Nobody on the left was complaining that she’s not far left. Everyone pissed at her was because she refused to retire despite being a husk of what she once was
I mean, it’s pretty clear to me from reading the negative comments in the posts commemorating her death that they took issue with the fact that she wasn’t 100% progressive in all respects, that she believed in working with conservative politicians to get things done via compromise, and that she didn’t think corporate suits and cops were all evil. In other words, she was a moderate Democrat.
So, from what I can tell, that’s the why, but the who really does matter, because you were specifically asking about the comments you’re seeing here on Lemmy, and Lemmy is disproportionately representative of Far Left Anarcho-Communists (i.e. whack jobs with a lot of passion, but little intelligence). You wouldn’t see these kinds of criticisms of Feinstein in a more balanced political forum as they’d get drowned out by the sensible people.
Edit: Here’s a good article detailing her complicated relationship with the gay community, which also sheds some light on why she wasn’t the perfect liberal.
In video games, NPC characters have pre-canned responses to stimulus. If you say something, they do a specific thing. If you walk past, they do a specific thing. They’re like robots. They’re programmed with a small set of responses.
On tiktok, these creators pretend they’re NPCs with precanned responses. Give them an ice cream gift, they pretend to eat it. Give them a rose gift, they pretend to smell it. And those gifts make them money.
Why do people enjoy it? I have no idea. Some control kink? Some weird fetish? No clue.
To be fair, there’s one guy on TikTok who does the NPC gimmick, but he’s an actual blacksmith pretending to be a Skyrim blacksmith. He responds with Skyrim quotes and everything. That’s moderately entertaining.
Since this community has been pretty inactive I just gotta say, this is the perfect question for this place, imo. Ask more! I only knew about these weirdo NPCs from a random podcast that happened to mention it. Otherwise I would have never known about this dystopian cash disposal system.
But what does it all mean? How does it work? How does paying affect the stream? It baffles me how this kind of thing is entertainment for some people. I must be missing something about it
It means that, from our perspective, there are a lot of people with more money than sense. I agree that it entirely stupid and I would never consider throwing money at a screen this way.
During live streams you can send creators messages. If you pay to send a “special” message the creator will do what the message says. That’s it.
I was reading an article about a streamer who can make 10k a night by streaming her sleeping. She doesn’t do anything other than sleep with the lights on and people give her money.
outoftheloop
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.