aski3252

People who are tech savy maybe. Most consumers have no clue how to install windows (or any OS) with an iso though.

Also, lets not forget who will be president soon.. Trump and his fellows have hinted at going after fake news media before. Going after terrorism supporting fake news media is even easier.

They are probably also scared of people trying to free him since he is quite popular. This isn't generally the case for other suspects.

Obviously both approaches had advantages and disadvantages, but OPs experience was definitely possible if you had the patience and luck to find a good community/server. But this also means there is a certain barrier because you have to do some work to find a good community/experience and can't just click one button to start.

And there are still modern games that have server browsers and they mostly tend to be less toxic imo, in part because people tend to know eachother a bit better and in part because servers generally have harsh rules, so toxic players often get kicked quickly.

And this is also where the disadvantages come in because there are admins who just kick anyone they don't like for whatever reason.

The same has also started to be done with Bernie’s “successor’s” like AOC and Jamaal Bowman

Don't know too much about Jamaal Bowman, but AOC also seems like a genuine leftist activist that happened, mostly because of a glitch in the system and pure luck, to slide into somewhat of a political position.

And of course, there will always be severe limits to what that path can bring. Which is why they mostly focus on rhetoric and making their ideas more mainstream viable and popular. I think at the moment, that's probably the best they can do. They cannot solve our problems for us, and even if they could, that shouldn't be the goal. The goal should be that we get into a position where we can solve our own problems.

The oddest part to me is the people who downplay Bernie’s radicallness. I’ve only ever heard it done by left wingers who think he’s not actually left wing enough

In my view, it's mostly done by "radical online Marxists" and edgy radicals, who I suspect aren't actually doing much except for complaining about it on twitter, which is probably why they get uncomfortable with people actually doing real world stuff? And not gonna lie, sometimes I get my tinfoil hat on and start to question if those are actual misinformation bots.

I also have seen it a lot on the right and with other anti-socialists, who just want to paint Bernie as a hypocrite. Same people who say "But Bernie is a millionaire, what a hypocrite"..

I appreciate the positive response, if my tone might have been a bit aggressive, that was not my intention. I understand why people were mislead about Bernie, there was a ton of media reports about how Bernie "isn't a real socialist" and it's not like Bernie is god or anything, there are obvious limits to his approach. It forces people to make compromises and water down their believes. But I do believe he is genuine, or at least the most genuine seeming politician I have seen.

Also, AOC seems to be very similar, although she doesn't have the same knowhow yet about politics and mostly focuses on rethoric. But she is basically a leftist activist who, with a shit ton of luck, managed to get into politics.

I appreciate the positive response, if my tone might have been a bit aggressive, that was not my intention. I understand why people were mislead about Bernie, there was a ton of media reports about how Bernie "isn't a real socialist" and it's not like Bernie is god or anything, there are obvious limits to his approach. It forces people to make compromises and water down their believes. But I do believe he is genuine, or at least the most genuine seeming politician I have seen.

Also, AOC seems to be very similar, although she doesn't have the same knowhow yet about politics and mostly focuses on rethoric. But she is basically a leftist activist who, with a shit ton of luck, managed to get into politics.

As an European, I have never understood why so many American leftists don't see that, even by simply listening to what he is saying or looking at what he is doing. I mean he literally has a picture of Eugene Debs on his desk and mentions how he is this political role model and hero any chance he gets, that alone should tell you where he stands on an ideological or philosophical level..

And of course, he has been involved in various socialist groups his whole life and literally still calls himself a democratic socialist. Why would he do that if it wasn't true? To gain a political advantage, in America of all places, where calling yourself a socialist would have generally been political suicide?

And then are his policies, where many will focus on healthcare and say "he just wants healthcare" and ignore anything else. But of course, healthcare is a major issue because it makes the working class even more dependend on their employers because they lose tgeir healthcare if they get fired, so it makes sense for him to focus on tgat first. And of course, he also had other policy in his program, like transfering 20% of ownership over major corporations to their employees and having workers electing half of the board of directors.

You can call him a reformer, you can call his participation ineffective, but why deny his political believes?

He wasn't even a social democrat. At the time, social democrats were democratic socialists, the shift away from reformist socialism happened around the 80s (some social democratic parties still hang onto reformist socialism, at least in theory).

He was a smart liberal who realized that in order to save capitalism from collapsing again, some regulations are necessary. In Europe, similar policy was often pushed by social democrats, which sometimes leads to confusion. But actual social democrats at the time went (or at least wanted to go) further, like nationalization and socialization of major industry, worker representation at companies, and increasing worker and union power in general.

Social democrats stated endgoal was a socialist society. FDR's endgoal was to protect and maintain capitalism.

Edit: Also, Bernie is definitely a reformist socialist, I will never understand why people think otherwise. He literally mentions Eugen Debbs, one of the most influencial socialists in American history, as his role model and hero every chance he can.. And he praises the nordic model because the nordic model was literally pushed by reformist democratic socialists.. Here is Olaf Palme, one of the most important figures when it comes to the nordic model and prime minister of Sweden (until he was murdered), explaining why he is a democratic socialist:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=7i2Ws1X5DSA

Just imagine a conservative politican, calling themselves a fascist, keeping a picture of Mussolini on their desk, saying he is their political role model. Would you claim that he isn't really a fascist? It's not even as if Bernie Sanders was dog whistling, he couldn't be any clearer about his believes.. Yet somehow, so many American leftists seem to sonehow doubt his intentions? Why? Because he isn't radical enough? Because he isn't throwing molotov coctails at the police? What does he have to gain from falsely calling himself a socialist??

The man's presidental campaign was giving 20% of major corporations to it's employees and having about half of the board of directors be elected by workers, among other stuff..

if you don't even want to acknowledge his values and his ideology simply because he is playing the politics game and is a reformist, send him to Europe, we would love a genuine leftist like him with so much charisma. I don't think you appreciate him..

Imagine dedicating your life to fight for a better life, involve yourself in the civil rights movement, work in various socialist groups, calling yourself a socialist and calling for major industry to be socialised, being constantly attacked by right wingers for your socialist believes, etc, only for fellow leftists denying that you are a "real socialist"..

Verstehe als Schweizer nicht ganz, wie genau das definiert wird. Ich dachte, "Linksextreme" wären Teile der radikalen Linken, welche Gewalt (ob gegen Sachen oder Menschen, defensiv oder offensiv) ausüben (bereits eine komische definition, aber naja).

Aber im Artikel steht, der Präsident vom Verfassungsschutz "gehe von rund 37.000 Menschen aus, von denen etwa 11.000 gewaltbereit seien". Also ist eine Mehrheit von "Linksextremen" gar nicht "gewaltbereit" laut Verfassungschutz? Woher wollen die das wissen? Und wer zählt alles denn als "Linksextrem"? Menschen, die das Kapitalistische Wirtschafssystem überwinden möchten? Dann wären ja alle Linken, oder zumindest die meisten, "Linksextrem". Selbst die Sozialdemorkatische Partei der Schweiz wäre dann ja, laut Ihrem Parteiprogram zumindest, "Linksextrem".. Und die ganzen Umweltaktivisten, welche einen "Systemwechsel" fordern, erst recht. Aber das ist ja auch nichts neues, also was genau hat sich denn geändert? Und wer sind denn genau die "zahlreichen Akteuren aus dem linksextremistischen Spektrum", zu welchen die Organisation angeblich Kontakte hat? Und natürlich geht es bei zivilem Ungehorsam darum, das Gesetz (vor allem sinnlose Gesetze) zu brechen.. Das ist ja der Sinn des ganzen.

Wirkt alles etwas willkürlich, oder sehe ich das falsch?

Of course you can still be fired instantly for huge mistakes but it’s difficult to prove for them which is why I’ve never seen it used.

I have seen it a few times, but there have to be severe and generally repeated offenses, though you can get fired instantly for stuff like serious stealing from the company. But then again, there was once a dude who tried to start a fist fight with his bosses' boss, which apparently wasn't enough for him to get fired instantly.