Well, if you can’t find anything to confirm your bias, then it is probably wrong. Public Transit often loses money and is owned and operated by government.
It is worth noting that “loses money” and “costs money” are generally just differences of perspective. For many, public services don’t necessarily need to be profitable monetarily to be worth their cost.
eta: I would like to clarify that this is in no way disagreement. More of a yes-and, than a but. I agree with you completely.
I love that distinction. And where does the money go? “Lose money” implies it vanishes, which isn’t the case. It goes to companies that then pay their workers. It circulates which should be the point.
It’s like saying the Department of Transportation loses billions of dollars annually to build roads for individual vehicles. People find the craziest arguments to fight against anything that benefits the public.
Public transport almost never runs a profit on it’s own, but if you manage it through the government, then the added tax income from vastly more people being able to work better jobs, more than make up the shortfall.
This comment and my other in the thread are gonna get a ton of downvotes, so I’m just going to own it.
Also, this is entirely from my experience with republicans in real life. I am not one, but many of my family and friends are.
First, most are not anti-LGBT at all. Most that I know are against these laws that are being out into place. But these issues are not very important to them so they don’t have strong convictions that would dissuade them from voting based on this issue. They will not engage if you call them anti-LGBT because they are not.
Second, contempt for atheist. This is a perspective that comes from the online and media representation of republicans. I’ve never heard a single discussion about atheists with republicans. This is not an issue, period. They will not engage in discussion around an issue they do not see as an issue.
Third, Christian nationalism is, again, not relevant to these people. They do not see it as real nor do they see it as a real problem. They may engage with this discussion. So I don’t see a need to reword this one.
Lastly, abortion rights. This isn’t how republicans frame the issue. They view it as a human right and ending a human life early. I don’t agree, but they will not engage with someone asking why they are against “abortion rights”.
Again, let me repeat, I voted straight dem ticket last election. I am only giving my perspective based on interactions with real life republicans.
Honestly, this seems like the depiction of a bunch of people that are safe and prosperous and can’t imagine how their views could possibly be problematic, and don’t need to, and so avoid political discussions because it’s just a bit too yuck and they’d prefer to lead their happy lives.
Basically the conservative - privilege coupling that is so shit.
Having grown up in the rural deep south, this feels like more of a description of blue state Republicans than red state Republicans.
You can clearly see that plenty of states have Republicans that care about LGBT issues. In Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and West Virginia, less than 1/3rd of Republicans think homosexuality should be accepted. And it’s not like all the other states are blowing them out of the water. A majority of Republicans/Republican leaners believe gay marriage being legal is somewhat or very bad for society. Less than half believe it is acceptable for gay people to raise children. And that’s not even touching trans issues.
Third, Christian nationalism is, again, not relevant to these people. They do not see it as real nor do they see it as a real problem. They may engage with this discussion. So I don’t see a need to reword this one.
The literal current Republican speaker of the House stated outright that the USA is "depraved" and key parts of his reasoning for this was the prominence of LGBT people in modern culture and declining church attendance and religious observation.
I fully agree that your average random Republican doesn't necessarily hate LGBT people, or non-theists but they're simply not paying attention to the outrageous crap many elected representatives are saying.
Still, the things you say they don’t want to engage in a conversation about or even acknowledge are actual policies the party engages heavily in. And that’s really my question. How do they reconcile their non-religious convictions with those religious policies of the party.
Do you mean they just don’t care and vote for the party regardless because there’s one policy they like?
They honestly seem like any other voter. For me, I don’t agree with every position the dem party takes. They are the same, they simply agree with republicans more the democrats.
I read it as being a matter of phrasing. Which will make rewording potentially difficult. But for instance, you use the phrase “Christian Nationalism” to cover an umbrella of policies you see as related, I think OP is saying that your average republican doesn’t identify their policies and opinions as being part of the Christian nationalism umbrella. Since they don’t make that association, they don’t, maybe even don’t know how to, engage under that umbrella.
Instead of one community becoming completely dominant on a topic, there’s another one close on its heels should anything happen to the first.
And if I subscribe to both, who cares which a particular post comes from? Just scroll down the feed, read a post if it looks interesting, ignore if it doesn’t. Which community it originates from doesn’t matter.
I wonder if the people who push for one community per topic across all the Fediverse are just extreme tidiness types who get a kick out of seeing everything in orderly little boxes. Trying to Marie Kondo a decentralized internet forum, that way lies madness.
It would be annoying to see repeat posts, this is people’s main complaint. In my opinion this could be fixed with a tab system that takes you between comments sections of posts of the same URL on different instances.
I completely understand your perspective and align with it, but people need to start thinking about these discussions when they push for more mass adoption and expanding the user base. Lemmy is niche; if people want to have individuals join who aren’t very tech savvy, they need to consider why people are asking questions such as OP’s. The “if you don’t like it then leave” mentality cannot coincide with “we need more users and engagement”. The platform doesn’t necessarily need to change, but it needs to learn to be inclusive of those who are used to centralized platforms like Reddit and make accommodations or compromises. Otherwise Lemmy will not grow. If not growing is the consensus, that’s fine, but Lemmy needs to make it’s mind up first of what it wants to be.
I can barely figure all this out and my goal is exactly where you are talking about — to make adopting Lemmy as easy as possible to attract as many users away from the corporate social media as possible.
I suppose that I can personally tolerate same-theme communities across multiple instances. I feel like I was a late arrival at Reddit and when I grasped it’s potential, it became an important source of information, entertainment and community for me. Then it imploded.
But a lot of people are still over there and I guess I hope to see it flatlined completely.
So I hope that Lemmy can be as easy to use as possible.
But this thread has persuaded me that redundant groups are healthy. I just hope new users come here and abandon all corporate social media.
One option is them being tied together while remaining separate. Like have the clients all treat them as one channel on the client side, with them still all being separate on the server end.
I think the main problem people want dealt with is when they are in 7 of the same community accross different servers and someone cross posts something to all 7 of them. I don’t know if we’ll ever be able to solve that problem on the user end, like discouraging cross posts or whatever, but there could be a way that posting to one automatically and invisibly crossposts to all the channels that are deemed “like” that one. Whether communities could have tags that align with post tags, or something like that. I don’t know. But it sucks that right now the option is either pick one and deal with missing out on anything not cross posted, or pick a few and deal with all the things you see multiple times.
asklemmy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.