Partnered dance class.

You gain an attractive skill. You get regular exercise, if you practice outside of class, practice outside of class. Pick the correct dance class and you meet people with similar tastes to you. At all the dance classes I attended there was a shortage of leads, don’t be weird¹ and you’ll be in demand. Exercise, music and dancing is a formula for happy people, the people you meet are already in a good mood.

Just don’t be weird¹, practice to get the rhythm in your body without thinking. In the “free dance” time at the end, get around the room ask anyone alone looking at the floor for a dance. Dance, talk (don’t be weird)¹, say thank you, onto the next one. Eventually you’ll make friends.

¹Be wierd later, or be just under your partner’s level of weird. Focus on being a good partner, part of that is having people be comfortable around you.

I’ve been doing my best to approach discussions with empathy lately (I’m not naturally good at it). The people interested in mudslinging get bored I don’t rise to it. People not interested in mudslinging but expected it get drawn into a conversation instead

I hear you, your conclusion is valid given your axioms. We agree on these points. But, have you considered someone with different axioms would come to a different conclusion. Neither of us are irrational, incorrect, or invalid. We’re mostly the same, just differ on a few key points.

Does wonders

Just real quick. If someone were to say:

Genocide is a hard line for me. I did the best I could but regardless, Trump got in. I accept some small measure of blame in this"

Would that be “fine”? Heavy quote-unquote there. Not that you agree, they should have voted blue, I get that.

In essence, is this primarily an accountability thing? Another commentator in this post was complaining that everyone is blaming everyone else, and well… “yeah, did you read the post?”

But, it got me thinking. We’ve both said a lot, but as I kept coming back to “I blame leadership for everything, always”, you kept coming to “obviously, but don’t the (non)voters have some culpabilty too?” And well yeah

The blame game as I see it is: R leadership > D leadership > 3rd party Leadership > R Voters > | The debated order of dem voters for supporting supporters of genocide (weasel wordy “supporting genocide” feels more hostile than I’m intending), 3rd party voters for not supporting R’s main rivals, and non-voters for not showing D leadership their vote is attainable but for the correct platform.

Perhaps ‘R voters’ go before ‘D leadership’, I’ve been pretty consistent that I blame those with lots power over those with little bits of power, not really the crux of the argument to follow so I’ll concede it if you want to push back.

There’s so many on the left of the pipe to be blaming, by the time at at the pipe I’m at “really negligible” amounts of blame. Perhaps, it’s because we all agree that R/D leadership et al are all cunts, there’s nothing to debate. But the order on the right is prime mudslinging territory as we’re mostly all in there, non-US Citizens excluded. I’d prefer the ‘are R voters more to blame than D leadership’ debate though, if we must have one.

I thought ‘is this a US individualism thing?’, not that the UK isn’t individualistic, just the US is famously extremely so. But, there’s plenty of US peeps blaming D leadership for all their woes. Also, you’ve explained to me why you blame the individual voters. So it was definitely an arrogant over generalisation on my part.

I dunno the ‘why’ of the divide. Like, I think I’ve got the ‘what’. Everyone agrees genocide is bad, that’s not the ‘what’ of the divide, though people present it as the thing. Everyone (here at least) agrees trans rights are human rights, gay rights are human rights, concentration camps are bad… All of these are agreed upon. It’s just the ‘blame’. Who gets it, and how much… I don’t think that it is agreeable. Worse, I don’t think it’s productive, I called it ‘divisive’ I think. I think I stand by that.

Perhaps, I’m way off and it is the priorities: republicans are the greatest threat to the country. Genocide is bad, like unsupportingly bad. What do you care about more discuss fight. But the blame thing keeps coming back around and around. Even my parent comment of punch up not down was “you’re blaming the wrong people” or at least “you’re emphasising blame on the wrong people.”

It’s tricky. Even then understanding the conflict may not get us closer to a resolution. In a “I don’t agree, I can’t agree but I understand and respect your decision.”

Perhaps it’s too fraught:

I don’t think a vegan would ever consider me, an omnivore with many leather products, to be on the same ‘team’ as them. Though I think both they and I care about animal welfare, they don’t think I care about animal welfare at all. The meat industry is inherently cruel. The nuance of levels of cruelty merely serves my own conscience. The animals still suffer for my enjoyment.

That wasn’t quick at all. Sorry to unload on you. Actual reply tomorrow, well today. But that’s where I’m at.

I’ll try reply to all these points in the other thread, but later it’s 00:05.

No, the argument of “Vote Blue no matter who” is that the Republicans have degenerated into an openly fascist party and it is necessary to oppose them for the health and safety of minority groups.

Why do you have to specifically vote Blue though? Is it just politics that it has to be blue. That’s the political landscape.

You absolutely used your moral judgement and made the best possible choice you could. I don’t disagree, I see how you saw it as the best possible choice. The situation was shit, you did the best you could to at least not support it getting worse.

Can you not see why someone would see not voting for genocide as the best possible choice they could make? Not that you agree with them, you don’t, I get that. But for them, with their moral outlook the situation was shit and they did the best they could to at least not support it getting worse.

The meat industry is inherently cruel. Again, why would I be annoyed that I said I am an animal cruelty activist and someone pointed out I support an industry that’s inherently cruel.

I could see it sparking a cognitive dissonance “but I’m not pro-animal cruelty” then I’d listen to 'em. They’re right, acceptable levels of animal cruelty laws are just there to make me feel better. They’re not really there for the animals.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d still support more animal cruelty laws. I wouldn’t stand in the way of a total ban on meat as I continued to buy it up to the day it’s outlawed. I’m not blaming vegans for anything, I’m self reflecting.

As for blame. I agree that all involved share blame. And you, what culpabilty do you accept? (I’ve tried to word this civilly, it just doesn’t read as anything other than hostile, it isn’t meant as such, take the following as the bad orator that I am). Someone deriding purity politics wouldn’t suggest they’re pure in the situation. (Again, not intending to be a dick… I just can’t figure out a better way, seems like something to put into an llm and get it reworded… I dunno)

I’m suggesting the culpabilty you accept (I suggested at the time and now) was getting angry at the vegans, constantly hate posting against them instead of pushing leadership to plan with, for, or around them. In effect, I’m pointing out you punched down, not up. The vegans have less power than the animal rights group leaders, if you can’t make the leaders close the puppy farms, at least make them stop supporting puppy farms.

You can’t force voters to take blame for something they don’t want to (look what a bear of a time I’m having with you). Certainly not with memes. It takes an involved, and I hope like this one, empathetic conversation to do that. That’s just people… They don’t play the ultimatum game the way the game theorists said they should, that’s just people. some people have hard lines and genocide isn’t an unreasonable one, that’s just people.

Again the anger is misplaced.

Why would you, a hypothetical animal rights activist, blame vegans and not the animal rights group for being shit.

“It’s just politics” is literally the argument of vote blue no matter who:that’s just what you have to do in politics. Sure they’re imperfect, technically true but not how I’d describe someone pro genocide, but you gotta vote for them.

“Don’t look at me, I’m pure, I voted democrat in the general” Purity politics is a meaningless term, vegans aren’t purity politicking (politicing sp?)any more or less than you are, they have a moral outlook and they act on it same as you. Voting republican is abhorrent, voting dem is self defeating (I hope we agree voting pro-genocide is self defeating to an anti-genocise outlook) so what’s a sucker left to do? Not vote, vote something else, bring out the guillotines… It’s all a bit shit, and to get angry at them for it is ludicrous.

Dem leadership made the vote what it was. Dem leadership ignored how people actually play the “ultimatum game”. Dem leadership is who you should be hate posting about.

I, an omnivore, don’t get annoyed at vegans posting about how cruel the meat industry is, because they’re right. I do get annoyed at how cruel the meat industry is as I’m supporting them though. I punch up at those in power, not down.

Not really. In this analogy I know this group exists and plan for, with, or around them. If vegans found an activist group that better aligned with their goals why would I be surprised or upset they went to that one?

None of this is surprising, or at least it shouldn’t be. We know how people actually behave.

Furthermore in this analogy the animal rights group isn’t campaigning to stop puppy farms, they’re campaigning for puppy farms. Of course people that care about animal rights didn’t support them.

Ok, again, I mostly agree. Except Dems did go right this election. They had Republicans advocating for them. They lost. The most damning thing an election campaign can experience is losing. Dems may learn from that courting republican votes lose them elections. Their bank accounts will suggest they do the same thing again.

Secondly, I don’t see the “no genocide” vote being a left Vs right issue. There’s plenty of genocides to go around lefties like myself can “no true Scotsman” but history is riddled with genocides.

I don’t know how much I can tell you this, or how I can get it through to you. Blame the Leaders. We don’t blame Steve from the factory floor for Boeing’s doors falling off.

We know how people actually play the “ultimatum game” and it isn’t how game theory says they should. You have to give them enough for them to accept your offer. Offering a penny out of £100 makes them reject your offer even though you’d both be the better for it. That’s the world we live in.

I mostly agree. Fight with the tools you have but this now, as I told you back then, isn’t the tool you’re looking for. Sowing devision keeps us divided.

On this occasion the ‘no genocide’ people happen to be right. Imagine an animal rights group that constantly and perpetually hate-posted about vegans.

Punching DOWN isn’t the correct tool. Punching UP might be.

I answered the question posed to me. In order to make this a DIscourse and not the morally superior MONOlogue it always seems to be please answer mine.

I couldn’t get through to you last time. Perhaps we can have a more productive discussion this time.

In the vain of good faith though: how is centrist democrat policy changed? A mega donor asks Kamala to support fracking and she does.

Dems were willing to let Nazis in. Dems wern’t willing to deal with the Nazis when they had the chance. Now Dems are willing to vote with the nazis. Punch UP not DOWN. We blame leadership in all things except politics it seems.

You’ll find trans people in the post. What are THEY saying.

I don’t know how to get comment links, else I would do the work for you.

But to answer your question. I don’t think Pug is punching at me at all, I’m not American. I also don’t think trans people are punching at me much either, I’ve read their comments.

It appears you misunderstood my comment. Punching down was referring to people not in power to change the dem platform. Punchin up was referring to people in power to change the dem platform. Which way is Pug punching in this post?

If the “online lefties” were so powerful a block perhaps Dem’s leadership should have courted their vote. If they were so minor a block that “online lefties” should be ignored then you’re targeting the wrong people.

But you know this already, I told you before the election that way to win the “no genocide” vote isn’t to try convince them to vote “yes genocide”. It’s to try convince the leaders to stop supporting genocide.

This post is the same punching down shit you were doing before the election.

Immediately after the election for several months lemmy was full of people blaming how shitty things turned out on anyone but themselves.

As opposed to this post that is taking accountability for what happened?

The thing you’re complaining about, this post is that thing.

Take this for the uninformed opinion it is.

But, does panhandling ever lead to someone getting off the street? I thought of panhandling as pure survival resources.

I am unable to provide shelter, I could donate to one of the charities dedicated to temporary shelter to provide that. Arguably a better donation than panhandling, as those charities offer pathways off the street.

Jobs, permanent shelter, etc aren’t achieved via panhandling, but through other means (local charities, what not).

But, food/water/entertainment I can provide, like right now. So on my way into the fast food place/shop I’ll offer to grab something.

For the same reason republicans won’t: They’re on the list, their friends are on the list and their donors are on the list.

No OP being a bundle of sticks?

Someone doesn’t know the folly of extending straight lines graphs into the future.