Skip Navigation
Fediverse @lemmy.world
Anarchotron666 @lemmy.world

For me, it's going to be Fediverse or nothing

So I’ve tried Mastodon, Pixelfed and didn’t like them. Mastodon is nice if you wanna ”tweet”, but that’s not for me. Pixelfed was dead.

I quit Meta because of tech bro fascism, and hated Twitter even before it was X because, let’s face it - nobody has ever changed their opinion on anything because of a Twitter conversation (I know I’m exaggerating, to get my point across). I was in Reddit for a few weeks, and the conversations there seem mostly friendly and constructive, but I decided I don’t want to have anything to do with social media corporations. Besides, I noticed I could scroll endlessly. And that’s not good for me.

Lemmy seems nice. There are still some topics I’m interested in that don’t have active communities, and I’m still learning on how to have my feed from multiple instances. But still, this is the way to go for me.

Against algorithms, against fascism, for free internet. Thanks for coming to my boring Ted talk and have a nice day.

You're viewing a single thread.

180 comments

  • Lemmy is just left wing politics in an echo chamber

    • It's too bad you're being forced to be here.

    • If majority of Lemmy users come from .ml, then yeah. But there are also servers that do not care.

    • Then why do we keep arguing with each other?

      • Liberals Vs tankies

        Leftist infighting is what happens here.

        • It's not leftist infighting if one side isn't leftist.

          • Liberals are socially leftist. LGBTQ stuff, women empowerment, environment stuff, pro universal healthcare, ...

            Personally I view american politics as right wingers compared to west Europe, but oh well.

            They still are viewed as a hundred million people on this planet that vote for the left side of their country's politicians.

            It's not that easy with USA. Bernie Sanders is likely the most left wing there. AOC likely the same.

            Joe Biden was less left wing, but he still helped people out during the pandemic compared to what republican's would have done.

            Here in Belgium you have more choice. You can choose between anti immigration, regionalists, liberals, Christian centrists, environmentalists, social democrats and Marxists.

            Broader choice. Here in Belgium the left wing is considered environmentalists, social democrats and Marxists.

            While liberals, although socially left wing, are economically right wing. Basically the party for the small entrepreneurs. The other right wing party is more for the multinationals. While the anti immigration party actually is quite socialist economically, but the same old "own people first" shit. It just so happens that being a conservative in Belgium means being somewhat of a socialist economically.

            Pretty funny, there's not much difference between extreme right and extreme left here. Basically just.. is the socialist a racist or not lol

            • Liberals are socially leftist. LGBTQ stuff, women empowerment, environment stuff, pro universal healthcare, …

              Until the second it becomes evident that they might have to stand up for any of that.

            • I think In all honesty that we have different notions of what the word leftist means, and I'm not super keen on a discussion on semantics. Personally, I attach a very specific fixed non-relative set of ideals and principles to the word "leftist" (an acknowledgement that capitalism is neither fair nor efficient, a focus on building a state for the proletariat, cooperation over imperialism, etc etc). From your comment I get the sense that you have a more relativist approach. Whether or not someone is a leftist depends (additionally) on the political context in which they operate. In this light, you call Biden, a staunch neoliberal capitalist, a (lesser) leftist in the same breath as calling Belgian Marxists leftists. I am in no position of telling you that you're using words wrong any more than you are in the position of telling me I'm using words wrong.

              But there are some things you mentioned that I do think are worth discussing, under the assumption that we would both label the mainstream part of the democratic party as liberals. Because they do not support the policies you would label as socially leftist. The last time universal health care was part of a mainstream candidate's campaign was Obama's first campaign (17 years ago), and what we ended up with was essentially a handout to insurance companies, a very far cry from UH. No major mainstream candidate since even mentions it.

              Then there's the support for LGBTQ rights. I would like to focus on the T part first. Not only was there no countermessaging from the democrats to Trump's virulent anti-trans rhetoric; after the race was lost, the MSNBC talking heads and major democrat campaign strategists were on national television claiming that part of the reason Harris lost was that she wasn't tough enough on trans people. The transgender support by democrats is skin deep, and ready to be dropped when it becomes politically inconvenient. If the transgender folks are that easy to drop, don't doubt the other letters won't drop either. To finish off this section I'll leave you with a nice Biden quote from 2006: “marriage is between a man and a woman and states must respect that”

              Another policy you mention is environmentalism. I won't be verbose. Big part of Harris' campaign was that she was more pro-fracking than Trump.

              Next women's rights. Four years of Biden, nothing done to fix Roe v Wade. All these words about supporting women's rights and here we still are with 12 year olds carrying their rapist's babies to term. Actually, we don't even get words, there's a nice website which kept track of whether the Biden admin used the term 'abortion' in a press release (they did, once, more than a year in).

              I'm going to take some liberty into what else you might consider socially leftist positions, namely a pro-immigration stance, and an anti-war stance.

              War first. You can go back to the Senate and congress voting records. Democrats consistently vote in favor of bombing the middle east. The Biden administration pumped billions into the Palestinian genocide. During the Harris campaign, Waltz said that the expansion of Israel was crucial to the success of America. During the recent Signal gaffe from the Trump administration where a group chat leaked where they were planning to bomb Yemeni schools and hospitals, democrats were outraged not by the fact that the US would be bombing civilians, but rather about the fact that it leaked.

              Immigration next. The kids in cages at the border that we were all (rightly) upset about during the Trump admin? Not only did the Biden admin do nothing whatsoever about this, the number actually increased during his presidency. The messaging from the conservatives is simple: the immigrants come in, they're criminals, they take our jobs, and we need to do something about this. This is of course false, if you look at the actual statistics, undocumented immigrants commit fewer crimes per capita than citizens, and the addition of immigrants to the workforce (and to the market as consumers) is actually a boon to the economy. Did the Harris campaign do any countermessaging on this, citing the statistics, and looking at reality? No. A big part of her campaign is that her border policies would be tough, and that she was tough on crime.

              I've taken the US as an example, but the same pattern applies in Europe, at least in the countries I'm most familiar with (Germany and the Netherlands).

              Finally, you mention that the extreme right wing is similar to the extreme left wing in Belgium, and that conservatives are left wing on an economic level. I can't speak much for Belgian politics. I went to the Wikipedia pages of the leftmost and rightmost parties I'm aware of (PvdA and Vlaams Belang) and all I can say is that I don't see it. I see stark differences on policies on a social level (one being incredibly pro multi-cultural) and on an economic level (one being very pro union and worker, and the other somewhere between neoliberal and protectionist). But again I know very little of Belgian politics.

              But I can say something about the conservatives portraying themselves as socialists. Please do not fall for it. This is a trick as old as Hitler. They put the "Socialist" in nazi only to trick workers into voting for them. They ended up privatizing more than any government before them (something I hope we can agree on isn't very leftist), slashed minimum wage, culled unions, and put socialists in concentration camps. Not very left wing. Same with the current far right in power in the Netherlands. Portrayed (successfully) as economically leftist during the campaign, but every policy they've put in place is economically right wing. They tried putting a flat tax (unsuccessfully so), they've gutted public services, and they increased income tax while leaving corporate taxes fixed. They do this every time, do not fall for it.

              • Let's see. Belgium has 0,26 gini income inequality. (EU 0,29). We have great hospitals. Uz Leuven and UZ Gent being world top class hospitals. When my wife will give birth, it will cost us 300 euros. Median income in the country is 3800 euros gross. Which comes to about 2600 euros net.

                Schooling is tax paid. There are like no private schools here because who would want to fund that (there's one in Brussels, would cost 500k euros to have your kid schooled there till age 18, while public schools get funding from taxes). Higher eduction costs like 1 month wage to fund a bachelor's degree tuition wise.

                Median net wealth per adult is 250k euros. Puts us alongside Australia, Luxembourg and Iceland.

                We have unions, personally I'm with ABVV, which is the socialist variant. They help with certain stuff. Went there when I was unemployed for 3 months.

                There's unemployment benefits for 2 years. Only the first year is good income. Not really necessary to be longer than 1 year imo.

                Quite some sick leave. Medical bankruptcy isn't a thing here. There's a maximum invoice per household per year. Which is a pretty low sum. Depends on income level too. Can easily be as low as 500 euros per year.

                Maternity leave is decent, my wife is on maternity leave starting 1 august until 1 February.

                Child benefits exist. My wife will get 250 euros from that every month I think. At birth she gets 1250 euros too. And we get a free stroller and car seat. Quite good quality too.

                There's an issue with the amount of daycares. Just no space. But starting age 3, the kid will just go to school. Which is properly funded.

                Public transport.. there's rails everywhere. 80% of trains are for commuting in Europe. Belgium is no exception. I don't have a car, there's no need for it.

                They are building bike lanes alongside the train rails for car free commutes.

                It's very tax friendly to lease an e bike with your company. It uses the taxes on your end of the year bonus. Basically turns a 1500 euros net bonus into a 4500 euros bonus. Allows people to lease a premium quality e bike for commute and buy it after 3 years for 15% of original value.

                There's always investment in social housing.

                We've got quite a lot of immigrants. Immigrating is really easy. My wife basically went from Indonesia to Belgium with a tourist EU visum. We married and then she never had to leave. Since I have housing and a job.

                Psychologist costs 11 euros per session, psychologist gets 85 euros for it.

                Trans people can get sex change surgeries and hormones funded by tax money.

                One of the earliest countries to allow gay marriage.

                47% of EU electricity was generated with renewables in 2024.

                Government funded the purchase of electric cars quite a bit until now. Same with solar panels.

                Buying a house costs 3% tax if it's your only house that you will live in. Otherwise it's 12%.

                There's a lot of funding to teach immigrants Dutch.

                Cleaning is the stereotype job for immigrants that don't speak Dutch, since that job is funded 2/3rd with tax money. The client pays 10 euros per hour and the cleaner earns 13,64 euros per hour. + Free e bike. Can get this job without speaking Dutch, because there's just such a high demand.

                We have a lot of doctors per capita.

                Walkable cities like Ghent, Brussels, Bruges, Antwerp, .... All cities are walkable.

                High social mobility. A lot can be achieved within 1 generation.

                It's a pretty nice country. But my wife does call it boring as fuck 🤷🏻‍♂️

              • Thanks for the detailed report, bout USA my only information is social media which is limited. I did see a rise in bottom 50%'s wealth % during Biden's term. But the income gini is still 0,42 so I suppose that's meaningless.

                About 20% of the Flemish people voted for Vlaams belang, they are in general the less educated folks.

                That's why Vlaams belang has to portray themselves as "for the man". Bring back industry to Belgium, promote manual labour jobs for Belgians.

                It's just a stunt, because they (together with the Marxists) are banished from being in the government. They always are in opposition. The other parties long ago agreed to that.

                Vlaams belang is the 2nd largest party now, but in opposition. Luckily. The only issue is that they can always complain about anything that went wrong and promise heaven if people vote for them. Then when shove comes to push "oops, sorry guys we can't help, we wish we could, but we're in opposition". They've never actually had to prove themselves capable leaders. They get paid well though.

        • Hardly an echo chamber, then. Echos don't argue, they just repeat the same stuff back.

          • Tankies go to .ml while liberals go to the other spaces. You don't really interact with eachother, there's several types of leftists etc.

            I'm banned on several ml's and several liberal's.

            They do not like people to talk back.

            They moderate the places so that it works as an echo chamber. Mainly for leftists. Not many right wing people are coming towards Lemmy.

            It's pretty silly, Lemmy is at one hand designed so that everyone can see eachother's content and opinions.

            But at the other side, the spaces are moderated so that only their own opinions are allowed.

            So there's a lot of polarisation instead of compromise.

            Then you end up with extremists having power that wrecks havoc.

            Compromise is the enemy of extremists. They love it that we separate ourselves so easily.

            • I'm constantly arguing with liberals, the whole reason I'm on .ml and not one of the defederated instances is because I want to talk to y'all instead of stay in an echo chamber of people that agree with me.

              Also liberals aren't leftists 😘

              • Aight, I'm a social democrat. Am I a leftist?

                • Do you want to abolish capitalism? Not just reform it, but completely abolish it.

                  That's the bare minimum.

                  • Your ideology doesn't have any allies then. It's used in Cuba and in North Korea. That's all.

                    In Cuba, they are losing ground because the people don't want the government to have a monopoly on labour.

                    North Korea is kim's paradise

                    Your only hope is to brand china communist. But are they?

                    "The private sector already accounts for over 60% of GDP, 70% of technological innovation, and, more potently, employs over 80% of the workforce across the country's urban cities."

                    Chinese capitalists own majority stakes everywhere in the world. They control the cobalt in Congo for example.

                    • In both Cuba and the DPRK they've been under a brutal siege war from the United States since the revolution, don't pretend like they struggle for no reason. There are certainly problems, but they can be laid firmly at the feet of the US empire and its proxies.

                      But the US won't be around forever and BRICS is opening the world economy to them. They endured a near century of humiliation and its finally coming to an end, I'm excited to see how they develop without a US boot on their necks! Aren't you?

                      As for China, I was skeptical about the Dengist reforms. It's like you said, they boosted private sector development and investment. The created billionaires. They allowed for heightened exploitation of workers. They suppressed Maoists.

                      They proved politics are still in command with Zero COVID, though. Ever since China's heroic pandemic response I am optimistic that the private sector is subordinate. They're willing and able to tell their billionaires "no" and force them to obey.

                      See, the purpose of the Dengist reforms was to develop China's economy as fast as possible while avoiding Western retaliation, like what happens to every other communist country that becomes the subject of endless siege and proxy warfare, and it worked. Unlike under capitalism where the anarchy of the market dictates production, China has its productive capacity firmly under the control of the government. They still issue marching orders to the private sector and they centrally plan their development.

                      China is now a world leader in technological innovation and is critical to the global supply chain as a key node of production. As much as Trump wants to do a trade war he's more likely to hurt the US than to actually hurt China. China is still dominated by the capitalist mode of production, like you said, but since the Party remains in command they'll be able to abolish the market entirely without fear of Western retaliation. Capitalism is just a stage of development, after all.

                      Also, don't ignore Vietnam. They have been on a similar trajectory as China, developing their economy and integrating themselves into the supply chain, and now they're growing closer with China with every new idiot tariff imposed by Trump.

                      I find that """social democrats""" are just pessimists. You think revolution never works and communism always fails, and so you retreat into reformism and liberalism. I still have revolutionary optimism, though, which means I don't even need to win this argument. I'm certain that you'll see that I'm right soon enough. ☺️

                      • So you agree that capitalism is the best way to develop a country. So, capitalism is good? It relocates everytime to a poorer country. Developing that country.

                        At the end, the whole world will be developed. I'm not an anarchist, so I'm quite fond of governments creating stability in their region. (Not a revolutionary indeed).

                        North Korea and Cuba joining globalist trade is fine by me. Cuba already sends out their doctors abroad.

                        Cuba trades a lot with Spain and China.

                        Problem though. Their doctors would earn more money in other Latin American countries. Which they often do. They emigrate to one of those countries and then have their family live a luxurious life in Havana.

                        This is because in those other countries, even though same level of wealth, they are self employed as doctors. They get the entire fruits of their labour :)

                        Competition is very important. Just like you don't want Elon musk to be a monopolist, you don't want a government to be a monopolist either. Competition is necessary.

                        I don't know much about Vietnam, so I didn't talk about them. Their language makes me go insane not gonna lie 🥲

                        I did watch documentaries about Cuba though, so talking a bit more about that.

                        I'm not a fan of revolutions. Look at Libya and Syria. Revolutions aren't good.

                        If you want to do a revolution, you better accept to live a full generation in pure poverty in the hope that your children will have it better.

                        Then compare it to a place that has been having stability in the same period.

                        The place with stability will be stronger on the global scene most likely. Such as Switzerland Vs the rest of Europe that were involved in world war 2.

                        Stability means growth.

                        You view me as a pessimist and I view you as a pessimist. You see no other way out than revolution.

                        I can assure you, in my day to day life I am the optimist. My wife's rather pessimistic aha.

                        Like when trump crashed the market and I pumped it full. My wife was like "you're having a baby, you need to be careful".

                        Right now the stocks look green af.

                        I'm saying I'mma take a 100k euros mortgage.

                        She's like "we're having a baby, can you even afford that?"

                        Tsk tsk tsk 🌝

                        Edit: let's ask my best buddy the cat from mistral AI 😤

                        Estimating the percentage of revolutions that bring prosperity is challenging due to the varied nature of revolutions and their outcomes. However, based on historical observations, it's clear that while some revolutions have led to significant improvements in economic and political conditions, many others have resulted in instability, conflict, or the rise of new repressive regimes.

                        Factors that influence the success of a revolution in bringing prosperity include:

                        1. Goals and Leadership: Revolutions with clear goals and competent leadership are more likely to achieve positive outcomes.
                        2. Popular Support: Broad-based support from the population can help stabilize the post-revolutionary period.
                        3. International Context: Support or interference from other countries can significantly impact the revolution's outcome.
                        4. Economic Conditions: The state of the economy before, during, and after the revolution plays a crucial role in determining prosperity.
                        5. Institutional Strength: The ability to establish strong and fair institutions post-revolution is vital for long-term prosperity.

                        Given these factors, a rough estimate might be that a minority of revolutions—perhaps around 20-30%—lead to sustained economic prosperity and political stability. This estimate is speculative and based on the general understanding that successful revolutions are relatively rare and often face significant challenges in achieving their goals.

                        Okay...

                        Leadership? You can do that, I believe in you.

                        Popular support. No, you simply are a minority.

                        Nobody in Europe wants a revolution. Guess what the last revolution was, it was to not be communist 😬

                        International support. You can get China's support

    • I guess you're getting downvoted by those offended. It absolutely is.

      Note: I am left, communist in fact, but the way political topics are discussed is a clear doomer circlejerk. I'd love to at least see more variety over "Trump is stupid, Elon is mad, senators are bootlickers, death to Nazis, we're all gonna die". Like, yeah, we got it and we know it. What next? Any political action, maybe?

      • Believe it or not, but I also am a leftist. Social democrat.

        I say a lot of bad stuff though. Like: old people that did not have kids, should have less pension and use the money they have been saving up by not having kids.

        This is seen as insane, but.. old people are the wealthiest class in most societies.

        Yes there are exceptions and these people need help. High minimum pension for sure. They need a decent life.

        But why would I want someone who didn't even have a kid to replace themselves as productive entity to gain a fantastic passive income on top of their already passive income generating assets?

        a compromise would be something as simple as: retired person above age 65 gets +amount of euros per working child in insert home country.

        It would incentivise having kids.

        The reaction I get usually is that it's inhumane, that people are seen as production houses only, that people don't wanna be born... A lot of doomer stuff to be honest.

        It would be fun if there's a place where you can only deny an idea if you can replace it with your own solution to the issue. In this case "aging population" (popular issue in Belgium right now)

        • I fail to see advantages over the expansion of direct support for families with kids.

          If such families would be adequately supported, parents wouldn't be so financially disadvantaged and this would automatically resolve the issue of assets as well.

          Paying it as part of pensions on the condition of children working in the home country makes people's finances directly reliant on the actions of independent actors (their adult children) and punishes people who, for example, cannot have children in the first place due to medical reasons, lack of a partner, etc. It also doesn't bring financial support when it's needed the most.

          And relying on asset accumulation and personal investments as a source of pension funding is quite odd to me to begin with, as salaries don't always reflect the good done for society (for example, public sector work is often paid more poorly, despite bringing maximum value for the state), and also because personal investments cannot be done with the same precision, competence and risk management as the funds do (and even if you invest in funds, they take a cut). I believe asset accumulation should be minimized in favor of public support nets (including decent pensions and good living conditions for everyone).

          • These families already are adequately supported. We need to find a way to guide people into the actions we want them to do.

            Like, they want me to stop using the car to work. Okay, they allow everyone at my hospital to use their taxes to pay for a commuting e bike. It's a financial incentive. (Don't worry I'm not a healthcare worker, just administration, I am not the right person to work with people in need).

            Indeed there are exceptions and therefore exemptions. If a medical examination says that it's difficult for you or your partner to have children, then they'd be exempted of any punishment.

            I don't think it's psychologically a smart move to punish not having kids, but to reward having kids. That's why I say "extra pension". (By behind closed doors reducing pensions in general first, but they don't know that).

            Helping people that can't have kids... We could allocate resources to them to help them adopt a child. Something like that. Once again, psychologically it would help them accept this. People give them the option that nature didn't provide them.

            We're competing against the funds actually. I own ETFs that tracks the Stoxx 600. It has a yearly expense of 0,07% while bank funds would take like 2% or whatever.

            Personally I'm not even thinking about my pension, cannot know what will happen in 37 years so I'm definitely taking it into my two own hands to accumulate assets.

            Now, I understand why a pension is desirable. It's a safety net. And I agree with that. High minimum pension for anyone who is unable to work due to old age. Just like for people who can't work for other reasons.

            But as Belgian, I know a lot of people that try and take advantage of our social safety nets. For a lot of people it's not because they need it, but view it as an extra passive income while doing nothing.

            That's damaging to the social democrats. We need to get rid of the abuse, the corruption. We need to motivate people to do effort and reward that. And we have. Minimum wage in Belgium is quite high. Income inequality is 0,26 gini. Median net wealth is 250k euros.

            Motivating people to have kids is also a necessity. To live more together in the same household. To use fewer resources. Be economically sustainable in the long term.

            People are scared in Belgium, everyone is retiring. We've been accepting a lot of immigrants to help us out with this. Luckily, second generation immigrants are tremendously helpful.

            To have a meaningful social net, we do need a good amount of people that can work. That can be parents.

            We need to motivate people. And everyone that really cannot help society with this, they are exempted of course.

            My friend her parents never worked a day in their lives. It's absolutely normal. Her dad's disabled and her mom takes care of him.

            But another guy "didn't work for 10 years cuz his knees hurt" while he randomly showed up at our hospital working, magically, when he'd lose his free passive income. He's doing a desk job. Like everyone else.

180 comments