federated platform splits userbase into a million little fiefdoms, only somewhat interconnected, all differently starved for interaction

Yup, checks out

Probably would be better off with relatively minor adjustments to overarching standards over time, much akin to parking requirements, but probably that would look more like parking-protected bike lanes downtown, mixed-use zoning, making missing middle housing more available by getting rid of lots of zoning requirements on housing, or, like japan, making them much more comprehensive. None of that costs you anything economically. Parking protected bike lanes just require paint, and you can do that when you need to repave and repaint the main high traffic roads downtown. Eventually you may be able to justify an upgrade to a totally separated bike lane, or you might be able to justify shutting down main street to through traffic and routing things around.

Then you don’t really have to shell out for anything in terms of city transit, you’re just changing some regulations around, and people can walk or bike 2 to 3 minutes to the grocery store on their street corner, from their apartment, which is above a pizza place or whatever the fuck. Bike 3 minutes from the edge of downtown in their rowhome into main downtown where they can pick up groceries. Those people can also have jobs and be economically productive with the higher job density that such a development provides, and this all provides a much healthier and more stable tax base for the city since the utilities cost per person and per business is going to be much less. Course, you’re not gonna get heavy industry like that, but I haven’t really cooked up a solid approach to that sort of commute to a factory or industrial district that doesn’t involve a bus or passenger rail line that just heads straight there, like the USSR did.

The more significant problem with this isn’t so much that it’s some sort of like, totally impossible thing, it’s that any city doing that shit will probably be overrun by a shit ton of annoying gentrifiers, which is a harder problem to solve.

I feel like it’s pretty obvious that the main problem here is with the local NIMBY voters which might not like such a thing, and a significant lack of federal funding. There isn’t really a solid argument against any of the fundamental and somewhat universal planning principles which increase density, walkability, public accessibility, economic efficiency and productivity.

basically, the US is a one party system, but it has two parties

Yeah this place is definitely just like, getting canvassed hardcore. big rip

Do you have any actual argument other than just saying “Bullshit. your vote matters.” though? Anything more to back that up, with a basis in how the system actually functions? Do you think the democrats will legitimately provide a challenge to FPTP voting? To the electoral college? Do you think the republicans will? How would that get overturned, what would that actually look like?

They will do what people voters want.

https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/idr.pdf

In addition to that, I really think Dems want left policy.

ACA, or green energy, or EVs, or union empowerment (inb4), or student debt forgiveness, or Chips act, or Pact act, etc, etc

Romneycare, a 5% token movements towards a correct approach, and also private industry funding, a good single issue, a post-covid handout, and more private industry funding mechanisms.

Yeah, see, that’s why I asked you those questions about what your actual political affiliations are. What is your definition of “left policy”? Economic stimulation by approving more contracts for private industry is not “left policy”, neither are means tested, highly qualified welfare programs. What do you think about the democrats moving to the right on the border, and doing absolutely nothing to combat the insane slew of lies that the republicans have been spouting for, say, the last 30 years? And they are lies, indeed. All this bluster over 3.3%, or maybe 14%, of the population, which is according to every study on the planet pretty much better behaved and provides more in to the system than your average citizen. I have basically never seen a democratic candidate actually give out any statistics to counter that narrative. They have only shifted further rightward.

Yeah you’ve lost sight of the very mechanism of government.

No. I fully understand that outside of a couple gerrymandered swing states that vote for electoral college members which then go on to maybe vote for who they have been told to vote for by the public, votes do not matter. I understand that this is something which is by design.

What you’re doing here with endless questions is what I call fishing. You’re fishing for something that you disagree with me on so that you can comfortably ignore everything I say.

Yes. “This does not help your cause” -Guy who hates your cause

If you don’t agree with the core positions, then we probably need to be talking about those core positions more than we need to be talking about who to vote for.

Honestly you’re pretty much doing the exact same thing. So this will be my only reply. Peace.

Why even engage in the conversation in the first place, then?

The democrats have also drifted rightward on deportation in this election, saying that they’ll be harder on the border than trump was in 2016, which, again, they already had been doing. The cost benefit here is an argument over whether or not one or the other will be like, 5% worse, and some of us, like you’ve just been sent evidence for in the previous comment, aren’t even convinced that the democrats will be any better.

Perhaps there is a third approach here, yes? Perhaps there is something in the specifics of this lack of actual, tangible democracy that exists for people, that means your specific vote is mostly meaningless anyways, which means it’s freed up to be thrown at some third party candidate, yes? Do you live in a swing state? Do you live in a gerrymandered swing district in one of said swing states? Do you live in a state where your electoral college candidate has to obey your vote? If the answer to any of those was no, then congrats, you basically have free reign to vote for whoever actually aligns closest to your beliefs, because your vote doesn’t actually matter.

I think it’s actually mostly a product of the overton window kind of being split, but, not really split in the ways that you might think. It’s not so much that each party is getting more extreme in what their actual beliefs are, it’s just that people are getting more extreme in their rhetoric, more extreme in their isolation. This, if anything, encourages people they disagree with not to vote. You need only look beneath these kinds of posts to see the sheer amount of people that chirp up, disagree at any time, and then totally fail to be convinced.

No, much like underpantsweevil said, this is purely something that’s for the in-group, to make them feel good, to make them feel like they’re doing something productive, and more than any of that, it’s a way for them to work out ideological insecurities and reinforce pre-existing beliefs. Which further feeds into that rhetorical isolation. Keep that running for 30 years online (maybe more like 10 if you’re just considering web 2.0), and you shake out to about where we are now. Continue this for another 10 or 20 years and you’re probably directly headed for some absolutely heinous shit as the gulf gets wider and wider.

The actual incentive that they have should ideally be actual political activism that exercises some real and material form of leverage against their power. Seeing as these movements have all been totally deconstructed, mostly by the federal government, instead, you’ll find that the way you’re supposed to change the party is just by voting harder for them, and then just kind of hoping that they somehow naturally decide to swing left, after you’ve already handed them the keys to the kingdom. It’s pure cope, basically.

this is basically just a long ass history of saying that even when they give the left policy, the left never shows up, so it wouldn’t make any sense basically ever in the future for them to implement any leftist policy at any future point. we have to assume that they’re rational actors rather than idiots, and that they’re going to keep doing the thing that, according to you, makes them succeed. there’s no amount of local grassroots “just vote harder” -ing that is suddenly going to get those left wing voters to suddenly pop up if there isn’t any left wing policy proposals. so the democrats don’t go left because they won’t win, and the left wing voters don’t show up because there’s no left wing policy.

I also like the idea that actual populist, left wing policy implementations only ever cost them, only ever make them lose votes. also, this idea that they’d move left suddenly if they started winning, just, basically for no reason they’d start moving left, is awesome. very cool. by what mechanism would they move left? why? by what mechanism would the left actually have any leverage over them, in that circumstance? sure, they’d lose the votes, but then they’d actually have to implement left wing policy, which means they would totally be fucking over their much more important corporate and media sponsorships, and they’d also be basically eviscerating their own political power. you can see this in the very simple example of “no democrat will ever change the fptp system”, because then they would stop getting elected, because they benefit from that being the voting system. this is basically the same principle by which they won’t, say, do massive amounts of housing ownership reform.

also, what’s your opinion on serious housing reform? what do you think about that, what do you think about, say, eliminating massive rental companies, or nationalizing them, constructing a large amount of housing, and then providing it for free to people, thus making them less dependent on their job and more secure in order to take risks on, say, doing actual forms of political activism? what do you think about the same being done for healthcare? employment? can you see any reason why the people who are currently in power might not want any of that to actually occur? can you think of any possible reason why those people which are currently in power might not want that shit to exist precisely because they have been selected by those systems as a product of their reinforcement of those systems? to break it down more, perhaps, why do you think CEOs tend to be incompetent assholes? is it just because of some like, cosmic trick, or is there perhaps a system there that’s going to reward incompetent assholes over people who actually have beliefs?

also, I find it funny how you’re accusing the guy you’re talking to of having a narrow interpretation of history, that they’re construing everything to work around, but then you’re also turning around and saying “it’s just so simple: the left never shows up, so the democrats will never go to the left!”, and then retroactively giving an incredibly simplified and narrow retelling of history in order to support your point. any mention of the absolute slew of right wing legislation, that any of these people have pushed, which might be a reason why the left might not be showing up for them?

Time is a flat circle, except the cycle comes back around again every second. The same conversations over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Had at such frequency, with such vitriol, it is totally indistinguishable from pure noise. It’s like a root canal for your brain.

Someone brings up wanting to not vote, on some principle. Could be Gaza, could be them not so slowly capitulating to the right on every issue since FDR got out of office, to the point that we’re now running george dubya 2 as president. Then someone says, ah, well, you should vote democrat anyways, because they’re better than republicans. Then we get one of two answers, we either get, ah, well, no they aren’t, or, they aren’t better on this one particular issue that I care about, so fuck it, right. Which is not a super convincing counterargument. Or, we get the real argument, we get the deeper dive into the actual political process, which we all collectively understand to be completely fucked as to basically be unrecoverable, and yet still, somehow, this is a source of constant disagreement. Usually because people who don’t know any alternative have deluded themselves into cynically caping for the same broken system as some form of what is basically escapism.

Ah, not in a swing state? You live in a population center? Seems like your vote doesn’t matter, better luck next time. Ahh, you don’t live in one of like, twelve counties in those swing states? Ahh, well, seems like your vote doesn’t matter, either, because of gerrymandering, so, sucks to suck for you. Ahh, well, guess the electorate decided to pick someone different than what you voted for, so, better luck next time. The democrats lost? Ahh, well, if only the left had turned up to vote. You just gotta vote, and then we’ll be granted such an overwhelming victory that we will be able to implement all of the milquetoast reforms you’ve ever wanted! The democrats win? Ahh, well, time to pull to the right twelve more degrees, since we’ve won the race, and now whatever the voters care about doesn’t fucking matter at all. The democrats win, but then the supreme court decides to veto the recount because the voting system in a single state was so totally and completely fucked? Ahh, well, looks like we gotta go kill a million fucking people in iraq for oil money, champ, sorry about that.

It’s especially fucking insane because the idea of voting for them in the first place is an acknowledgement that we live in a FPTP system where you cynically have to vote for the lesser evil. Every other qualification and quality that the system has, which makes it worse? That shit doesn’t exist. We’re taking the most simplified, common idiot stance, here. It is so insane that I struggle to think that it’s not just bad faith drudgery. Out of the 350 million, only like 5% of that are people who even approach mattering, and, as we also know, it’s kind of dubious even then. So, if those are the only people whose votes matter, and we all FUCKING know that, then why the hell am I inundated with constant removed and moaning and whining about how I just simple NEED to vote democrat or else nooo nooo we’re going to be plunged into literally a hitlerian dystopia like handmaid’s tail? Look around you, look at what is currently happening.

Oh no! Another democratic senator has decided to stand in opposition to this bill, narrowly swinging the votes around and keeping us deadlocked into an eternal hell where nothing except bipartisan things like border spending, foreign policy, spending on the military industrial complex, banning shit like tiktok, and the basic foundational elements of neoliberal economic policy ever get done. Whatever shall we do? Guess the answer is just to vote harder!

If the democrats did actually get an overwhelming victory, you wouldn’t get FDR again. They’ve been very clear about exactly what their policies are, and they’ve calculated that position as a way to push the buck as far in favor of their corporate sponsors and themselves as they can get away with, while both winning, and also presenting a constant war to the public where it’s a struggle to get anything done. The narrowest margin of victory is actually a boon, in that circumstance. It means they can both run on unpopular policy and they can make it look as though they’re trying to get things done and oops whoops they’re just narrowly failing. If they somehow got a massive win on that platform, probably through some absolutely massive unforced error by republicans. I don’t even know what that would look like, at this point. They would probably all have to collectively catch a disease and die simultaneously, and I think that would probably also spell chaos for the nation. You wouldn’t see the dems suddenly run to the left, after that, because the left would have basically no leverage over them, no bargaining power, no hand in their win. You especially wouldn’t see them drift to the left because THAT’S NOT WHAT THEY’RE FUCKING CAMPAIGNING ON. SO THAT CAN’T BE WHY THEY GOT ELECTED. The only way they would get that majority in the first place is basically through them moving to the left to begin with, which as previously described, they will never do, or, worse off, and what they are currently trying to happen, is if like, 40 - 50% of the population suddenly drifted super rightward and became neocons.

No democratic party politician is some secret communist that, ah, once they get an 80% majority, after enough election engineering, enough rightward drift, enough calculations that they can get into power unilaterally, then, suddenly then they’ll become a communist. The most you might see is that republicans, after losing so badly, might make a better run at implementation of actually populist policies, but then that’s kind of obviously a nonstarter for them because they’re ALSO owned by corporate entities and they’re ALSO doing this same exact gambit. The idea of getting a huge win somehow also relies on the utter delusion that you can outflank the republican party from the right, or, outflank them with your competence at right-wing policy. You could maybe outflank them in competence, but that’s both not a good thing, obviously, and it also wouldn’t matter to their core base of delusional evangelical suburban whites that have an outsized amount of voting power and oil money.

The reason some people think this, if they even do, and aren’t just assuming whatever cynical position they have to in order to push things around, is because they’re idealistic and totally delusional about the incentives the system naturally produces. How people in power go through many filters that all but guarantee they’ll be acting in their own self-interest by the time they reach the top. There’s no secret leftist that is going to reach a presidential level of power and then suddenly come down and save us all. I’d love to be proven wrong there, but it’s not fucking happening.

And you know what’s the worst about all this shit? Every election cycle, every single time, at the one time when there is the most political interest flaring up in the population, we are met with this fucking insanely dumb conversation that we have over and over and over and over and over again. It eats up space that could otherwise be reserved for actual serious conversations about strategic voting, how to look into local policies and politicians and how to vote for them, where those resources are, how to organize, how to gain political leverage, how to unionize your workplace, how to stage a protest, participate in a protest, when a protest should even be done and what amount of political leverage such an act might buy you. None of that ever gets talked about. Instead we need like a year out of every four where the only political conversations anyone is capable of having is this repetitive overly simplified bullshit. This ideological poison which totally stymies any serious dialogue. And then turn around and wonder why nobody except the dumbest and most aggressive sacks of shit on the planet, that are obviously just taking out their anger issues actually want to talk to you about this shit, sacks of shit like me. It’s insane. I don’t understand how we keep falling down the stairs. I don’t understand how this keeps happening.

Yeah, i would empower monsters to do heinous things to my citizens, like forcing them to live in a rural village where someone will care for them when they’re old, and their utilities layouts will make sense, and their cost of living and lifestyle footprint will massively decrease. Oh no! The horror!

Also, I dunno. ahh, they’ll go to war, how horrifying! whatever shall we do! How many of these people will actually go to war, though? That’s some shit that floats around a lot, but I realistically think that if you just kick someone into some situation that’s realistically better than what they were previously hucking, then they’d probably just take it. IF you really wanted to swing it, though, then you could just swing it all through the markets and then fuck them over that way, just like they’re already being fucked. Not many people actually have that killdozer gene in them, though, and they wouldn’t really have a good target. There’s no amount of “blowing stuff up” or “going to war” that can realistically bring back a, by it’s nature, highly vulnerable, detached development style like that, and blowing stuff up doesn’t really help you contest with whatever your current standards of living are.

Lemme ask you this, though. How do you think we should solve the problem of the suburbs? Do you think a market solution is going to operate fast enough? Do you think those solutions are going to solve the broader problems with the housing crisis popping up in every major city? Do you think they will be enacted fast enough to mitigate climate problems?

and I’m loving every minute of it jerry

I mean, yeah, but the major difference is that they were wrong and dumb and I am correct

Money’s just an object. Just do maybe 3 or 4 five year plans, and you’d probably be able to get there. If they don’t like it, eminent domain their asses. I dunno. It’s not a real obstacle, to me, that they’re deciding to intentionally be obstinate and intentionally deciding to make all their neighbor’s QoL worse. Just an slightly smaller version of the problem where some iowan baron decides it’s their right to dump their 84 million people’s worth of pig shit into a massive pig shit lagoon, tainting 70 something percent of the water supply. Except in this case, people aren’t getting malaria and we’re not having water quality issues. Instead, they’re getting heart disease and increased risks of lung cancer from needing to drive everywhere, they’re having to work fruitlessly on road and utilities maintenance jobs for longer, and grandma dies maybe 10 years earlier than she would’ve cause she was 5 miles away and nobody was able to notice that she wasn’t coming out of the house.

I mean, my answer doesn’t make any of those people happy, but it’s basically just, fuck those people, if there’s a correct way to do something, we should do things in said correct way, rather than capitulating to everyone’s half-baked propagandized idiot desires

However, in most case, each of those steps resulted in a useful service or product.

I dunno if I’d say that, really. “useful service or product” is inferring a lot about the context in which these transactions are done, it doesn’t really open up the box, there. Is gambling a useful service to have access to, for instance? What about, say, setting everyone about buying a big suburban house, a car, running out a ton of asphalt to these places, putting out utilities to them that are both financially insolvent in the abstract and also take up too many resources for what they are? Like, I dunno, if we’re considering the alternatives, there, which incur much less consumption, and thus, much less trade, the alternatives that cost a whole lot less, I would say that the idea that this is a useful measurement really at all begins to totally fall apart. I dunno. I maybe wonder if, say, free healthcare might be thought to decrease the GDP of a country simply because less money is being thrown around.

I have no close friends and I couldn’t be happier.

But also

I wish I wasn’t me. I really do.

hrmmmm

You eliminate the rural area with 5 minute drives between homes. Japan has a much higher population density more generally, granted, and they do occasionally get older, offset, single homes that are miles from anything else. But they also have extremely rural villages with maybe 2000 people that are still about as rural as you can get and still go in for farming. Many other places (I would say, basically all of them?) do this as well, and not all of them have high population density. I think, almost definitionally, the land use I’m proposing has a higher pop density, but the style of development generally, you’d be hard pressed not to classify it as rural.

The solution here is to orient the land use radially. Also probably to use less land generally, but that’s a separate issue. Most land use in america looks like having 20 different farms, that are each like 3 or 4 miles across, sometimes with multiple plots, with each house being positioned as far away from the other houses as possible, usually somewhere along the edge of a plot, and then running roads out to each of them, sometimes dirt roads, sometimes paved, usually some combination of the two for higher use vs lower use vs private.

Instead of that, you do what people have been doing for centuries. You clump the 20 different houses together in one contiguous strip that’s placed along some sort of rail line or higher traffic road, and then you disconnect all the plots of land from the particular houses. Ownership doesn’t necessarily have to correlate with one plot of land vs another. Then you gain all of the benefits that entails, and if everything is laid out sensibly, then you’re only about 3 miles from your specific plot. Utilities become cheaper to maintain, emergencies like fires, medical problems, natural disasters, become much easier to deal with, you can start building some actual infrastructure, like, say, a rail line.

That becomes much easier to justify if you only gotta send that shit to like one concentration of 20 or 30 or houses instead of sending it to those 20 or 30 houses individually, most especially if that line is just passing through before heading somewhere else, which should generally be the case. Maintenance of that rail line also becomes less problematic compared to that of a road if we’re considering that this rural area is probably mostly going to be farmland that demands larger industrial equipment shipments, and is going to be shipping back and forth things like grain, bulk goods which would do much better to be shipped by train compared to most other forms of transit. Slap that together with a multi-daily passenger rail line that passes through it as a stop and you’re pretty much set.