You have nothing to add to my experience.

Precisely what I’m talking about, individualistic.

Just know that liberals in other countries are considered conservatives. Like, Mamdani is considered far left in US, but his policies are normal in Europe.

Ask yourself why liberal Democrats are so against progressives. Ask as well why in liberal cities, there are so many NIMBYs voting against affordable housing despite being “progressive”. The individualistic values “sneaks” to economic policies.

It’s going to be a lot but I urge you to read on the historical development of liberalism and you’ll understand. It then ties to why socialism developed, and later on fascism and communism.

There is deliberate obfuscation by your government and elites to muddy the terms to prevent further mobilisation of people against them. While in other parts of the world, calling one’s self a socialist, democratic socialist or social democrats are perfectly fine, it is very much a no-no in the US and Americans instead call themselves progressive.

The old historical meaning and value of liberalism is emphasis on individuality and private property. Those two come part and parcel together. It is no coincidence that socialism developed as a collectivist response to liberalism. Many people think socialism is only on economic level but socialism is, well, also social. Socialism tries to go back to collectivism; where group well-being is more important than individual. Think about it, why do the slogans “1% vs 99%” and “for the many, not the few” are leftist while centrists shun it? Other ideologies also tried to claim collectivism, namely communism and fascism. These ideologies are anti-liberal in the sense that they are against individualism. Never mind some of the collectivist ideologies are not democratic but that requires another discussion. In any case, you will notice socialists, communists and fascists often use “we” in their rhetoric more than the liberals and centrists alike, because of greater emphasis on collectivism, as in “us” rather than “you” and “I”.

I urge you to read more on the historical development of political ideologies, especially on collectivism and individualism. This is not simply left or right, this is also collectivism versus individualism. This is what gets lost on the current discourse and why I think liberals and left lost ground in recent decades, because they don’t understand. You don’t have to agree, you have to understand. At the very least, progressives like Zohran Mamdani, Bernie Sanders and AO recognised this and they understand, and captured the appreciation of MAGA voters.

MAGA is a religion

You are nearly there. The decline of religion is replaced by political ideology. Religion has traditionally provided community and a sense of belonging and purpose. Since the advent of scientific revolution, religion has been steadily been declining. Coupled that with the growing individualism, since the promulgation of liberalism, and we have people feeling alienated and purposeless. The scientific revolution and individualist priorities atomised what was once communities and now there are only individuals left to fend for themselves. These vulnerable individuals are easy prey for demagogues who promise to bring back that sense of belonging and togetherness. It is not a coincidence that many rural areas are MAGA and religion is still alive and well. And what’s the main characteristic of rural countries? Its loneliness. Hannah Arendt made an insightful conclusion that loneliness is a precursor to totalitarianism.

The extremely liberal and individualistic values that happened in 19th century giving rise to collectivist totalitarianism is repeating again and we haven’t learned. Even a lot of Lemmy users don’t get this and scoff at the “deplorables”, wondering why the poor voted for Trump. He offered a sense of belonging to the poor and alienated, which both centrist Democrats and Republicans abandoned long ago.

Starpage is slightly better than DDG. I like how SP also enables masked entry into a website.

Howler Monkey Sisters lol

Depending how one looks at it, even normal investing can be considered gambling. But at the very least, investing is not leveraged, and it is surer and more calculated risk than sports or race gambling. The latter is fixed because of behind the scenes corruption; but with investing, it’s more regulated and so long as you invest in trustworthy companies, it’ll be fine.

There is a workaround to the moral problem like hedging with CFD, because you don’t technically own shares and thus not funding companies you dislike, you are simply betting on whether the company’s share price will either go up or down. But as mentioned, it is leveraged and therefore betting and gambling. There is also holding fees which eats away at the profits in CFD.

I have a colleague who invested in Palantir. I mentioned to him of the controversy with the company but he just shrugged it since he made some money before selling the shares. I don’t really pass judgement on many those who invest in unethical companies simply because the old fashioned way of working and saving simply doesn’t cut it anymore. The older generations could party and travel in their twenty’s, and buy a house and have family in their thirty’s. The younger generation can’t really do that anymore.

I also do investing and I realised that it’s hard to be ethical under a capitalist system. There are index funds I want to invest in because of lower initial investment requirement, but I don’t like the companies listed in those funds. And thus I have to individually invest in companies I like, but I have little gains because my capital is spread out across various equities.

So, craving for power is a natural trait in nature. And standing up to bullying animals works just as well.

Seeing where the world is heading now, I kinda think we are cursed by nature with craving for power.

Somehow I understood that.

*Looks at Philippines and Thailand

The US House of Cards based the Underwoods to the Clintons. Does that mean the Clintons and Trump had a meechsome? Is Meechum based on Trump?

In the Ubisoft trading community that I mentioned, some folks blamed UbiSoft’s downfall for “being woke”. As if Ubisoft’s blind chasing of money, abandoning most of their IP, selling broke products, and last but not least an executive telling consumers to get used to not owning games are not bigger factors.

The Ubisoft trading community are coping to justify holding on to their tanking investments. It’s a gambler doubling down on losing.

Christ, how the mighty Ubisoft has fallen. They will go the way of EA and become a spyware company for the decadent Arab royals. I’m just crying that Ubisoft made some of my favourite games growing up and look what they have done to my boy-- a rotting zombie 🥲

Serious question, why are those who hit a bully get punished instead? No wonder there is rise of authoritarianism because the bully are practically worshipped and given a pass. Bullying is embedded in the culture.

you guys are in this mess because of “experienced candidates”. Experienced doesn’t mean good.

So much for lesser evil!

Well the US oligarchy is trying to recreate feudalism for the modern age. So you’re not far off.

It’s a catch 22 for Putin. If he quits the war now, he will face domestic coup because it showed how weak he is. If he continues the war longer, it will jeopardise the entire future of the Russian country even further.

They are undoing New Deal. It’s all part of the plan.