this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
260 points (99.6% liked)

New York Times gift articles

732 readers
242 users here now

Share your New York Times gift articles links here.

Rules:

Info:

Tip:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

My impression is that contrary to the headline, this isn't a young vs old thing, but a follows-the-news vs doesn't-follow-news thing

all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 3 days ago

I think this a liberal vs left thing. Most liberals aren't mad at Schumer. It is the leftists like AOC and Bernie that are passionately fighting against fascism and oligarchy

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 53 points 3 days ago

Bear in mind that a “young democrat” is anyone under 65

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago

traitor, nazi collaborator piece of shit.

[–] cabinet_sanchez@midwest.social 47 points 3 days ago

I'm in my 40s. When people call me young I know they're not just old, they feel lost in the modern world.

Also yes, I am fuming. (And no, while I'll still vote for a Democrat to get rid of the fascists if ever given another opportunity, I would never again call myself a Democrat.)

[–] Charely6@lemmy.world 38 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I was seeing posts weeks ago about "how do you expect the Democrats to do anything if you don't vote them into power" , and I see this and get mad thinking, this is why people aren't voting for you, this is why so many voters are mad at you, you have the power to do something, anything and your reply is "I'm sorry I called the GOP bastards" when the GOP has no problem calling you literal baby eaters.

[–] adm@lemm.ee 5 points 2 days ago

Every major gov shutdown I remember was the Republicans being bastards to force something they wanted or to make Democrats look bad. 20 years. The entire time I've paid attention. It's always been Republicans. This is a legitimate reason for once for democrats to do it. To fight this dismantling of government. They won't. They're useless. They want this. May anyone who tell me to vote have their nose broken. I've voted in every election since I turned 18. Even locals. There isn't a systemic fix to this. No one is going to save you. Stop looking to your government leaders and start forming extra governmental solutions.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Shockingly enough, there's things called "primaries" where you can show the fuck up and get these fossils out for people who actually act in the best interest of their citizenry.

The catch being the "showing the fuck up" part.

[–] yunxiaoli@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This assumes the party allows a primary challenger to any arbitrary seat. Usually they don't for safe seats. Or at risk seats. Or any seats where the currently elected member is making them money.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world -3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes, we can dither and make excuses all we like, but if we never try, nothing happens anyways.

Might as well try, yeah? Unless of course we just want to complain about how the system is unfair and not actually do anything to change it.

[–] yunxiaoli@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And you think doing the exact same thing over and over is "trying"?

We've been doing things to try to change the system, but mainstream Dems, white liberals, tend to call us radical criminals, terrorists, and damaging to progress. When we try we get shot in the back. When we try we get anonymously reported by someone 'that agrees with our ideals but not our actions'.

So hopefully now that you people will be suffering too, you might not stab us in the back this time when things get a little uncomfy for white liberals.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think coming at it from the angle of "doing the same thing over and over" is incredibly disingenuous.

Voter participation is abysmally low. Local elections in my area have a turnout of 10%. And that's a high. If people actually showed up, that'd be something different.

Instead of pushing "do nothing and hope things change", which is what we've been doing for decades, maybe we should have change and show the fuck up.

[–] yunxiaoli@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Voter participation is low because every time people do turn out, they're reminded there are no politicians that will work for the workers.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

People haven't turned out. Voter participation is abyssmal. Just because you personally have not seen universal and positive change from your own vote immediately does not mean it can never ever work.

Voter participation is low because dipshits like you keep saying "See? Your life hasn't irrevocably changed because of this one election! There's no point in doing the absolute bare minimum! Better to sit at home and complain about how everything is broken and hope that someone else does something radical and meaningful about it!"

Maybe stop treating everything like a winner-take-all competition and realize that we won't see effective long term change except through repeated concerted effort where you keep showing up. Even if you see setbacks. We might actually achieve something.

But I guess if you'd rather give up because you haven't gotten what you want immediately, that's entirely up to you.

[–] yunxiaoli@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

You will never get more than the 65% turn out of 2020. You just won't. Because when the Dems win, it's never enough. You never get enough, you never have enough, but the Republicans always have enough to get their legislation through, even as a minority.

Stop making excuses for oligarchs. It's pathetic.

[–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I would hope this pisses off enough people to actually go vote in primaries.

It certainly should.

[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Difficult in a state where you have to declare a party (and “none” doesn’t count; they only recognize R or D)

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Sounds like it's as easy as declaring a party. Are there some strange initiation rituals you need to go through to declare? Sacrifice a goat or something?

[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

What if I don’t want to declare a party and remain independent?

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Then you can watch as things don't change because of your stubborn pride.

You can declare a party to vote in an election and remain philosophically independent, that's always been allowed.

[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This right here is why people don’t vote in the primaries and instead of saying, “huh, you’re right, you shouldn’t have to register with a party” you’re doubling down on your horrid stance.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

You're right! The system sucks!

The problem is, if you don't do anything but complain about it, at best it stays the same. More likely it gets worse.

But sure, fine, you're mildly inconvenienced. That's totally an intelligent and rational reason to sit on your ass and complain rather than doing something about it.

[–] lemonskate@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Well I suppose you could always whine about it online instead?

It costs you nothing to register as a Dem so you can vote against these fuckers in the primaries, except maybe some worthless sense of idealogical purity.

[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I have 0 desire to be mercilessly spammed by the Dems or Repubs because I registered with their party.

Plus no one but me should know / needs to know my party affiliation. In today’s day and age of wanting more privacy, this is part of it. I don’t want to be on the wrong side of history because I was registered with a party.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Apparantly you also have 0 desire to see effective change unless it's exactly as you want it, because you refuse to participate on principal.

[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Hard to when people decide they'd rather stand on principle than actually act.

[–] cabbage@piefed.social 26 points 3 days ago

A generational divide, seen in newer lawmakers’ impatience with bipartisanship and for colleagues who don’t understand new media

The man is 74 years old. They're talking about "newer lawmakers".

I think "young" here refers to people who can't remember the moon landing.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

Old democrats too.

[–] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 8 points 3 days ago

Part of me is hoping that Schumer is the designated fall guy for this bit of political theater. Another part is wondering who that theater would benefit.

Sometimes I wish I never learned critical thinking.

[–] heavyboots@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 days ago

I mean, I'm mid-50s and I'm raging…

[–] lorski@sopuli.xyz 5 points 3 days ago

It actually is a young and old thing, the older senators are capitulating and the younger ones want to fight.