Instances are websites. Federation just means that they can automatically communicate directly between multiple intakes, and share information without requiring user interaction.

All this happens via APIs. Any website that implements ActivityPub APIs properly can federate with other sites as part of the fediverse.

Pretty good analysis, for sure.

I agree that just dumping progressive policies on top of that is a recipe for failure. I don’t know the best way forward, but I’m sure a better way forward is possible, and I’m also sure that existing Dem policy platforms haven’t managed it… I suspect the answer lies in embracing and communicating different core values, but I’m not sure which combination would work with (or against) America’s crazy slant toward individualism…

FWIW, I DO think the brat vibe was a good thing to try, even if it didn’t pan out. I wonder if it might have with a man (e.g. dark Brandon vibes)…

Haha, yeah, it’s way beyond what could currently do - I have barely used a router. I was thinking you could trace the line for a spiral jig by having a a peg the right diameter in the middle, wrapping some non-stretchy string around it, and tying a pencil to it. But yeah, actually cutting it neatly would be a bitch. I guess a jigsaw and a lot of patience and clean up.

But yeah, probably way more suited to CNC :)

I think you meant to say chapter?

Don’t ask me why not

Seems like this is something the democrats really need to put a lot of work into figuring out. But it doesn’t really seem like the mainstream of the DNC is all that interested. It seems like they think they already have it worked out, and that people should just follow along…

Re: “progressive” and “socialism”, sure, I get you. I think that there’s potentially a LOT of scope for simple reframing that would resonate though, like Gary’s Economics’ “tax wealth not work” frame. But I don’t think the DNC would pick that up, because too many of them are wealthy, or mates with wealthy people…

Yeah, for sure. It’s been gamed before, but it’s been gradually improving over the last few decades

What do you think WOULD make more people turn out for the democrats, if not more progressive policies?

Perhaps. Personally I think the causality is the other way around. If the left within the Dems had more influence, the party would be more inspiring, and more people would get out to vote…

But yeah, either way, unless you’re inside the dems making that happen (and that’s hard, because the neoliberals within the dems have lots of money and power), then you don’t have much influence over electoral politics. Better and easier to get involved in other forms of politics, IMO. And work on the voting stuff when you’re near an election, if you want.

Mmm… I would have voted democrats, if I was american (we have a similar situation here in aus).

But I’m under no illusion that they will save us. Both of our centrist parties (Dems, Labor) are still completely on board with neoliberalism and are still expanding environmentally destructive industries. Yes, they are clearly less fucked than the right wing parties, but they also aren’t going to save us. We need to do more than just vote.

Cooool. Now do one with opposing spirals!

Good point

I wasn’t suggesting anything was black and white. I was just giving an example of a chain of thought. OP is free to come up with their own chains of thought.

What, like backwards?

I think with some things (like reading or skydiving), there are pretty fast feedback loops that tell you if you’re doing it wrong.

Why?

I live on the east coast of Australia, so I guess I’m a pacificist and didn’t even know it.

This is good, but I’d add that you can get closer, and you can get closer faster, but truth will always be over the horizon.

Suggesting therapy (or any course of action) for someone based on a couple of lines the posted on the internet seems a bit hasty. You know barely anything about them. AND you’re making umsupported assumptions (they said nothing about their own sexuality).

No way, that’s just science, baby! (Edit: OK, and philosophy)

I think those questions need to be followed through with a chain of reasoning and questions, not denial. There’s usually lots of options.

So for that “gay people are deviants” question, a “no they aren’t” answer isn’t helpful, because it’s faith based, which leads to a shutdown of thinking and curiosity.

Another line might be: if they are, then does that mean that the tens or hundreds of other animal species with documented existence of homosexuality are also deviants? Can an animal be a deviant? Seems unlikely… Does that mean that maybe deviance is a dodgy concept? What does it actually mean? Does it mean a thing is fundamentally bad, or does it just mean that it doesn’t fit with a particular value system? If that’s the case, and I personally know a bunch of gay people who are really lovely people, is it possible that it’s the value system that’s the problem, not the gay people?

There’s usually plenty of other chains of thought that will get you to a place like this. Doing this kind of thought exploration also means that when you come up against someone making that argument in public, then you have a better idea where you stand, and you can potentially engage constructively with them, if they seem open to it.

It’s obviously a joke though. Trump’s a fuckwit, but let’s attack him on the substantial things, it’s not like there’s a shortage of them.

Considering the value of a comment on the internet ONLY in relation to the person the comment is in reply to seems weirdly blinkered and bizarrely individualistic.