The problem isn’t just publishing though, it’s academia as well. Scientists are incentivized to publish in “prestigious” closed access journals such as Nature. They are led to believe it’s better for their career than publishing in open access journals such as PLOS One. As such, groundbreaking papers often get paywalled. Universities then feel obligated to pay outrageous subscription fees to access them.
I go back and forth on this. When I was younger the Palme Dutt essay you cited would have sounded like nonsense to me. Now I see his work as a brilliant analysis of the conditions that give rise to fascism. Going back and tracing the circumstances that led to my change in perspective is not easy. What was the relative impact of comments like yours or my life circumstances that led to a change in my perspective? I can’t say I know for sure.
Unfortunately, that’s not how it played out. California residents actually voted for proposition 8 which banned same sex marriage. It wasn’t until a court case invalidated said proposition that same sex marriage became legal.
I think you might have your history mixed up. The courts legalized same sex marriage in California in 2008 but it was banned again after proposition 8 was passed by voters. It’s possible deep canvassing was used in the campaign against proposition 8. However, it certainly didn’t tip the scales. Same sex marriage only became legal again in 2013 thanks to a different court case that invalidated the proposition.
That said, I do think there are contexts where deep canvassing may be effective. For example, similar methods are an essential part of labor organizing. Progressive causes are just too resource poor in the US to use such methods at scale.
Unfortunately in the US deep canvassing is not a viable strategy for most political campaigns since it’s too resource intensive. It’s far more effective to canvass as way of identifying likely voters. Then you can make sure they vote when the time comes.
Oof I’ve been there. It’s rough having your worldview turned upside down. The lucky thing for you is that you’re not the first one to go through this.
I’d say before you go anywhere, try to understand why you believed in the Democratic Party in the first place. Books like Manufacturing Consent, podcasts like Citations Needed, or outlets like Fair.org can help. I think developing a critical lens for political media is a key step towards building a new understanding of the world.
Beyond that it’s important to understand that politics can’t be limited to how you vote. Change in the US has largely been a direct consequence of mass movements composed of well coordinated organizations. So, if you’re willing to put in real effort to participate and learn, join a member run political organization like DSA. That is if you’re open to democratic socialist political perspectives :P
Their first statement was factually incorrect and their follow up explanation was just unfounded conjecture that made no logical sense. When I pointed that out they just refused to engage.
Whether or not you want to call it a defense, you are providing justifications for Biden’s lack of action. Going on to suggest that your opinion is just “how reality works” even though you’ve made factually incorrect statements is just too rich.
Exactly how was my question “uninformed”?
They would if they were actually given the choice.
This has to be a bit right? The irony of being high while also trying to justify why Biden doesn’t push for legalization is just too funny.
That’s not true. You’re confusing punditry for polling. The former is biased against progressive reforms while the latter shows that large majorities of Americans are generally in favor of them.
Biden used the weakest legal argument available to him increasing the likelihood it would get struck down. Debtor advocates were not pleased with his decision and that was before the lawsuit. He does bear some responsibility for its failure in court.
These two things are not the same and are regulated by different laws. By your logic we could conclude that Biden couldn’t do anything.
It’s also important to note that Biden used the weakest legal reasoning available to him when canceling student load debt. Debtor advocates were very critical of him at the time for doing that because it increased the likelihood it would be shot down in court.
That’s a lot of condescension for someone who can’t even answer a simple question.
So you admit he can do it without congress. However, you think it would make him look like Trump and so he shouldn’t do it…
That’s very strange reasoning. What exactly do you think would be the actual consequences? Over two thirds of Americans support legalization. If Biden got marijuana descheduled it would likely be an incredibly popular move.
It doesn’t require federal legislation actually. Biden could simply order the AG to deschedule marijuana which would effectively legalize it nationally.
A lot of people voted for Biden in the primaries because they were being told he had the best chance of beating Trump. Plenty of those people actually favored the policy proposals of other candidates.
I don’t think anyone who supported say Bernie or Warren thought that Biden was a progressive. However, there were attempts made by the Biden campaign to appeal to progressives. After Bernie lost, Biden and Bernie staffers actually collaborated to release a joint list of policy proposals. I think that gave a lot of progressives false hopes for what a Biden presidency could be.
Well that’s exactly the problem. If people use AI generated images for commercial purposes they may accidentally infringe on someone else’s copyright. Since AI models are a black box there isn’t really a good way to avoid this.