Or... they'll do the standard democrat thing, and be totally ineffective. Chuck'll write an angry letter, but still support the bullshit.

Because there are only two options. Think of aggregate voter sentiment as being "If things are good/ok, vote incumbent. If things are bad, vote for change/the other guys". It doesn't matter who the 'other guys' are, just that they're recognised as 'the only alternative'.

Eg. Canada's third largest province just elected a totally unknown conservative leader -- like the 'real' leader stepped down a day before the election was called, and a temp got put in place... who then 'won' the election. That cycle wasn't about "voting for the random temp" / supporting conservative values, it was a repudiation of the previous government. People just didn't feel like there was any other viable alternative.

So if the dems don't markedly improve the living conditions in the USA somehow during their term, and get people thinking "Yeah, things are good!", they'll be kicked out again, and replaced by whatever monstrosity the R's have dredged out of the Trump Ocean.

Honestly, I think it's partly that tech workers are out of touch with reality in terms of pay/income. I've heard senior software devs be absolutely floored / in utter disbelief when they've heard the average salary in my country -- ppl literally laughed, thinking it a joke, because they couldn't believe anyone could live on so little. They were making double the average right out of university. They have no frame of reference for people who struggle to pay bills, nor do they pay much thought to blowing a few thousand on a gadget.

From my quick reading on it, it's logins that allow passwords -- the bug is basically that hackers can send a specially crafted message, and be treated as though they are legitimate 'passwordless' accounts to login, essentially bypassing the password req.

Are you implying I'm being racist already, by saying I should try discussing it without being racist? Was my previous post, highlighting how dissenting comments towards immigration policies gets typecast as racist... somehow racist? Dafuq?

Lemmy brands any conservative-sounding comment as racist on the subject. You can see that sort of trend even in this thread, where there are some people saying 'conservatives are racist' as a preface to trying to say they agree with lowered immigration levels. It's like they need to pre-emptively defend their opinions against being called a racist, just to discuss the non-lemmy default position, which is absolutely batshit insane, considering that the study your post linked to shows that it's the most common / average opinion amongst Canadians.

Yes, the majority "at large" wants less. Lemmy vehemently supports more, and declares people who support the majority position as racists, and will often ban/censor such commentary. The "average"/"majority" opinion is type cast as 'racist' on lemmy.

That's.... the point I was making. Not sure where the disconnect is, or why you think I didn't read the material.

Painting conservatives that question immigration policy as racists is absurd, but incredibly common on lemmy due to lemmy's left-wing bias. There can be no open discussion / dialogue on this topic, especially not on left-leaning sites that sometimes interpret discussing immigration policy with hate speech, and subsequently ban/censor people.

The survey in this context, mostly highlights how abnormal lemmy's bubble is.

So in other headlines, we see America's deporting former Afghan informants back to Afghanistan where they will absolutely be executed by the regime in place there.

Why anyone would partner with America at this point, is beyond me. Before they at least had the pretense of helping oppressed people -- now they laugh about blowing up fishermen, and overtly just want to loot resources from places like Greenland and Ukraine. Elections don't really change what's been made explicit, especially as the country is basically manic every four years, flip flopping between fascism and ineffective virtue signalers.

Alberta's run by oil companies. Pretty sure Danielle Smith, before becoming premier, was basically an oil industry lobbyist.

It surprises absolutely no one that Alberta has regulation that impedes/hinders solar and renewable energy projects. It's a really weird example to try and use to demonstrate the 'broad' existence of nimby regulations. Sorta like highlighting North Korea, and saying human rights abuses are global based on that sample.

Yawn. It's not that interesting to discuss things with you. Your word choice and verbiage make it pretty clear you have no interest in an open dialogue, and would rather just vent your teenage angst or whatever.

The other examples you gave were even less convincing / interesting than that first one -- sorry that I destroyed your first point, and then stopped bothering to go through the rest. I get how that can feel really frustrating, seeing someone ignore most of your rant because you started off with total nonsense bullshit, but hey, maybe one day you'll be able to put your thoughts down in a coherent, convincing fashion, and people won't be so quick to dismiss your viewpoint as the ranting of a child. Keep at it!

Our government has things to answer for, sure. But to equate issues in Canada to issues elsewhere is not that convincing an argument, in general. I mean, your very first example of the guy getting applauded -- a ridiculous example, and that's what you lead with, your strongest point? A guy gets introduced as a WWII vet, is a geriatric ancient husk of a person, and people applaud assuming that what's meant is he's a vet from the allied side. Then when they find out he was on the Nazi side, there's universal condemnation for the event and the people who failed to do their due diligence. You attempt to frame it as though Canada is knowingly inviting and celebrating a nazi, which is just patently absurd and childish -- and sets the tone for the rest of your screed.

Germans bare the responsibility and shame of Nazi Germany, whether they participated in the gassing of jews or whether they sat on the side lines and pretended everything was normal while the country went nuts. We don't excuse the actions of Nazi Germany by saying "Not all of them voted for Hitler, he came to power with a minority government, most were good people! No fault!". Doesn't matter that they were living under a fascist government.

We (western democracies in general) have applauded people who took active measures against the Nazi government -- people who hid / saved the lives of persecuted groups, people who subverted / killed fascist agents, etc. There are stories of escort girls, who killed off Nazi soldiers -- we don't stop and say "Wait! Those soldiers she killed were forced into it by a bad economy, and they just worked back-office jobs, they were innocent!". Instead, we say "Good work, lady". We curate museum installations celebrating in her honor.

Germans who fled Nazi rule in Germany were explicit and generally very vocal in their criticism of the regime. Not apologetic about it. They didn't want anything to do with that stuff -- many effectively severing their roots. So, like, if a Jewish person/group in Canada wants to be thought of as not being part of the genocide, they need to come out very clearly, publicly, opposed to the Israeli Zionist movement -- Avis Lewis (NDP leader) makes that sort of thing known, for example, so he's got some moral backbone at least. Most Canadian Jewish organisations / temples / etc still generally seem 'ok' with genocide. When most of a group/nation supports an extremist agenda, and/or allows it to carry-on through apathy, it's fair for people outside that group to generalize / assume that any 'unknown' member of that group is likely someone that's either supporting or enabling that atrocity.

Same vibe.