So, you’re digging into breaking web accessibility. What did the disabled do to you to deserve this abuse? Do you kick crutches & obstruct service animals, too?

Here is an historic graphic of Social Mobility in the US.

Here is the Gini Coeficient that measures inequality (the higher the more unequal), which actually understates the reality because it’s not that great at reflecting internal inequality in the top quintile (i.e. things like how the top 1% are now way much richer than the top 10% than before).

A problem with these graphs & your inferences is it’s objectively unclear what to expect. What do they look like for other countries? What part of this is explained by other factors like unique historical advantages (eg, an industrial base untouched by war during the postwar boom) dissipating as other countries rebuild & catch up? Can we decouple these time-dependent factors to get an expected baseline performance apart from them?

With that social mobility graph, should we expect nearly all children to earn more than their parents every subsequent generation indefinitely? The remarkably similar graph provided by the source cited by yours shows birthyear of the child starting in 1940. Couldn’t their parents earning substantially less, perhaps by living through the Great Depression, and the postwar boom significantly explain the high proportion earning more than their parents? And as GDP per capita growth rate declines, wouldn’t we likewise expect a declining proportion of children to earn more than their parents? A base of reference would really help here.

As for the Gini coefficient, we see a 7% range from 35% to 42%. While this is an increase, it doesn’t seem staggering & needs evidence to distinctly support your conclusion.

Some problems you mentioned were always present or worse when that Gini coefficient was lower: gerrymandering, obstructions to vote (felon disenfranchisement, intimidation, poll taxes & tests), discriminatory incarceration, 2-party system due to plurality voting, etc. They’re not new developments systematically leading in the direction you claim.

It looks like you started with your conclusion & worked backwards to confirm it with evidence that is not as conclusive as you claim. An open-minded skeptic wouldn’t be convinced.

“harmful”

You could have done

1. The extra…
2. The like/dislike…
3. The flow…

Instead, you went with the counterintuitive & unnatural

1 . The extra…

2 . The like/dislike…

3 . The flow…

which takes special effort. This ain’t making sense.

Welcome to democracy & divided, partisan voters.

1 .

Bizarre. Did you mangle lists on purpose to impair web accessibility just because?

Vote enough non-Republicans into Congress, impeach, and convict? Wait for whatever is turning his skin purple to take its course?

yeah, not saying you’re the revolutionary to do this, but that brigading concept from reddit moderation tradition needs to die: the web was made for linking, and web accessibility takes priority over territoriality & petty territorial disputes. if the link were between completely different websites or social media platforms, everyone would just accept it as the web working as designed.

anyway, tankies becoming indistinguishable from alt-right conspiracy freaks is next level unhinged!

they went from TANKIE OR CONSERVATIVE to TANKIE OR ALT-RIGHT with this

post could use link to source or alt text, though: images of text aren’t web accessible

An explicit argument consists of citing the relevant rules, stating how they’ve been violated, and providing evidence. It shows you’ve done the bare minimum to show your claim is plausible. This is in everyone’s interest, especially yours as the interested party.

As basic advocacy, an explicit argument should be expected: if you’re unable to articulate a decent argument, then how can you expect others to do so for you? Leaving that guesswork to others may not necessarily work in your favor. Do you really want to leave the best argument to chance & the unreliable charity of others?

An objective, sound argument may draw popular support by convincing them your claim is legitimate & just and demands action regardless of where admin decision ultimately settles. Not attempting one, however, draws all of it into question.

I saw: still needs a proper argument.

Per site bylaws on community mod removal, can you provide an argument for this case addressing the relevant rules directly?

gif 51.6 M

Do we know about this cool tech called video?

I find doing AI impressions an effective trolling technique: beep bip boop & some fun punctuation ‒−–—―…:.

Is that another way to say you can’t? It is.

We can all see you’re making unfounded assumptions. Making more when your ego is threatened (by claiming anyone who calls out your baseless assumptions is right-wing in lemmy of all places), tossing insults, and refusing to rationally support your point doesn’t help your credibility. It just makes you a sore loser.

Stay mad: your opinion remains worthless & you need to work on your narcissism.

They can also be funny with them. Comedy doesn’t need or care about preconceived constraints. Irreverence that challenges our arrogant conformity & self-indulgent vanity that anything is sacred or off-limits is a goal of comedy. It’s part of gaining humility to question & laugh at ourselves & conceited ideas.

yes

or primaries

a spoiler effect happens when a losing candidate affects the results of an election simply by participating

Vote splitting is the most common cause of spoiler effects in FPP. In these systems, the presence of many ideologically-similar candidates causes their vote total to be split between them, placing these candidates at a disadvantage. This is most visible in elections where a minor candidate draws votes away from a major candidate with similar politics, thereby causing a strong opponent of both to win.

That the US voting system lacks the sincere favorite criterion is mathematical fact: lesser-evil voting is necessary to avoid losing the best chance of getting anyone preferable to the worst major candidate. Denying that is like denying laws of physics. You can’t coerce logic & causality to your will. Just because you don’t understand that doesn’t mean others don’t. Primaries exist to select better major party candidates.

Viable 3rd party candidates requires voting reform, which again requires passing those reforms through the current system.

Those are found in other comments: Meta, NCOSE, Heritage Foundation.

Meta is covertly supporting bills to weaken the burden on itself and shift it on others (especially competitors) while NCOSE & Heritage Foundation want to regress society as usual.