Readit NewsDeleted Comment
Loading parent story...
Loading comment...
Loading parent story...
Loading comment...
If I were to cut them off as friends for being part of the problem, that sounds unreasonable right?
The major mistake/misunderstanding I see now is thinking that a stupid, vindictive asshole who failed upwards would be a good person to run the country.
I don’t think I’m susceptible to that. I’ve never viewed anyone the way a lot of these people view Donald Trump. I can’t imagine I ever will. Is it a failure of imagination or is something really different between us?
I agree with Slavoj Zizek's take on Trump's appeal and why a lot of criticism of him seems to either have no effect or increases his fan appeal: As a general rule, people relate to others by identifying with their weaknesses, not only or not even primarily with their strengths. You aren't susceptible to his appeal because you're of a different class or background which has different sets of strengths/weaknesses which make it hard for you to relate to Trump.
The weaknesses Trump has - his stubborn ignorance, his impulsiveness, his might-makes-right mentality and disdain for rules, his vindictiveness - are deeply shared with his fans. They will forgive his sins because it is their sins too. For example when Trump is attacked for an impulsive comment, they relate to the risk that they could also be cancelled for some comment that is seen as racist or sexist or something. His policy framework is made of the kind of simple ideas you'll find in a pub, I once heard Trump described as "the average guy from Queens" and it made a lot of sense to me. "Nobody knew healthcare was so complicated", "We're going to build a wall".
I belong more to a white collar, professional class. I probably have a blindspot on the weaknesses and sins more endemic to my group, ones that I share with the figures I find appealing. If I had to guess I'd say it's something like an ideological/theoretical zeal, bureaucratic dysfunction, and an exclusionary judginess. When a politician unveils some theoretically elegant project and it largely fails and runs over budget and gets mired in bureaucratic hell, I'm maybe too quick to forgive that as it's a relatable sin.
Loading parent story...
Loading comment...
If they were to stop, the demand for someone to do it would still be there, and that demand wouldn't be getting met anymore, which creates the incentive for others to do it.
Meanwhile the point is that most of "it" doesn't actually need to be done anyway. You don't need to do everything Google is currently doing. Adding support for new hardware is important, but that has an obvious source of someone to do it because the hardware vendors want their new hardware to be widely supported so they can sell more of it. So all you really need is security updates, and a community can handle that as evidenced by the many instances of it actually happening for other code.
What stops the thing that makes Debian work from making this work?
You're right, if Google steps away from Android completely then there would be incentive for others to do it, another megacorp will step in. Maybe Facebook or Microsoft or Samsung.
Why wouldn't you just get another account?