Dang, I wish there were a term for that…

God, you’re so brainrotten by the narrative of “not voting for Harris is voting for Project 2025” that you can’t even get the words of the comment you’re responding to into your brain.

your proposal is

My proposal, as stated in the previous comment that you answered to: “enough numbers of progressives conditioning their vote to the end of genocide might make the dem administration sway towards ending the genocide”.

What part of that isn’t clear, or what part seems like calling for Project 2025?

By giving your unconditional vote to Harris, you’re not saying “I’m voting for the progressive candidate because of trans rights”. What you’re doing is saying “you can being the most republican-minded, Dick-Cheney-endorsed, conservative economically, and gaza-genocider candidate, as long as it’s minimally less harmful than Le Drumpf”. That’s how you enable the constant slide to the right in politics that you’ve seen for the psst decades. The idea isn’t solely “I’m too morally superior to vote for either wing of the American Corporate parties”, it’s also “enough numbers of progressives conditioning their vote to the end of genocide might make the dem administration sway towards ending the genocide.” And if not even that will make democrat leadership even question their commitment to the extermination of Palestinians, then the conclusion is simple: death to America.

If Harris wins, the republicans will nominate “evil candidate Mk.2”, and we’ll have you libs criticising people for protesting against Kamala’s support of the genocide, saying that “protests weaken democrats and we need them to win again in 2028 or else…”

So you must certainly agree with me that the US is consequently a terrorist state

The solution is obviously not exclusively from pricing models, we need other energy sources than renewables for the time being, that doesn’t mean we need to have market-based electricity pricing.

Imagine the state installing as many solar panels as society, guided by experts, democratically decides it wants, basically deciding as a society the energy mix instead of hoping that companies will install enough if we bribe them enough with taxes to do so, and if it’s profitable. Then, it decides a pricing model based on a mixture of subsidy and incentivising consumption during production hours.

Problem solved, innit?

Do I really need to explain the concepts of taxes, subsidies, or fixed prices regardless of demand, to an adult?

Cheap electricity is great for consumers, but not necessarily for producers. Some people might say, “well, screw producers,” but even if you take profit out of the equation, electric utilities need to be able to at least cover their expenses, and you can’t do that if the amount of electricity you’re generating relative to the demand is so high the price actually goes negative (meaning the utility is actually paying the consumer). Again, that’s good for consumers, but I’m sure you can see how that’s not a sustainable business model.

Fully agreed: let’s eliminate business from the issue, and create national, for-service electric grids, that produce the cheapest renewables at all possible times in the most efficient way possible, disregarding hourly profit and taking into account exclusively the cost in €/kWh produced over the lifetime of each energy source.

Suddenly it’s obvious that the problem isn’t with renewables, but with organising the electric grid as a market

abundance of electricity when people need it the least

Isn’t peak consumption around middle of the day for most countries?

it’s not economical

Mfw electricity being cheap to generate is not economical

They clearly don’t want to remember that, judging by your downvotes

You’re still not answering my claim about historical revolutions. Care to address that part?

You don’t know what ad-hominem is. I’ve criticised your lack of knowledge of revolution processes, not called you a dummie.

That’s a lot of words for saying you haven’t ever studied historical examples of fight against oppression. I take it for granted you despise the American revolution, all revolutions for independence in Latin America and post-colonial countries, and the struggle of native americans against European colonizers?

If you’re saying this ironically because you think Putin is a communist, you’re extremely misguided about the current political situation in Russia.

If you’re endorsing communism, based

People will probably say hexbear or .ml, but I’ve been browsing hexbear lately and haven’t seen any of that. In fact today I saw a post bringing attention to this particular topic (Russian gvt cracking down against “childfree lifestyle”)

The “slave labor” thing about china is 40 years too late. China now has wildly better working conditions than India or Phillipines or Indonesia or Malaysia.

Aren’t you concerned with the cold-war-like escalation that we’re seeing the US adopt against china?

Think harder. I’m not “moving goalposts”, I’m saying, if life in the countryside was so bad during soviet times, why are people from the countryside moving out now and not before… You said “tell that to the people living on the countryside”, the reality is that the people in the countryside were forced to leave the countryside after communism. So why don’t you go ask them?

No, I mean that it’s hypocritical criticising the other administration for following the same trend

Nah seriously, look up the role of the IMF in the “restructuring” of the Russian economy. And look up the social and economic consequences

How long did it last in the Weimar Republic (whose ideology you failed to mention btw). And when was it implemented in the rest of Europe.

But yeah for how long will our glorious liberal democracies have affordable healthcare and pensions, we’ve done nothing but degrade them for the past 30 years because apparently doing better is communism

No, it didn’t “fail” by any historical account. If you look up even on Wikipedia, which has an extremely western bias, you’ll see that the article is called , “dissolution” of the USSR, not failure or crumbling or whatever revisionist word of the day you wanna choose. The USSR was booming, it enjoyed overwhelming legitimacy in the vast majority of its republics (with some notable exceptions in the Baltics mostly) as proven by the soviet referendum to maintain the USSR, and it was only dissolved from the top down by a few party members, not a failure or crumbling by any means. The 90s crisis wasn’t created by socialism, it was created by the newly formed capitalist government which auctioned the country to the most corrupt bidder and created the russian oligarchy that we all hate now. It was literally directed by western institutions like the International Monetary Fund and economists from MIT, you can feel free to study this subject in the slightest if you’re interested and you’ll see that what I’m saying is right (clearly you haven’t done so before).