Vocabulary is loaded. The words "rich" and "poor" conflate munificence with success or happiness. When we see an injured animal and say, "That poor creature!", we are obviously not talking about its bank account. By the same token, being short of money is a problem but it absolutely does not make you a "failure".

Same experience. And it's a shame.

And yet I've found that, occasionally, after I brace myself for the blowback, instead there comes a thoughtful reply which assumes good faith. It's those occasions which keep me coming back.

All the people here saying, "Just block them" - personally I just can't help suspecting that these are the same people who themselves are insulting and abusing others, who in turn are saying "Just block them".

The solution is not that everyone blocks everyone else. The solution is that we behave civilly and respectfully to each other.

You seem like a likeable person who's trying to the do the right thing.

Personally, I would prefer a world where people did not feel obliged by social pressure to announce such details about the minutiae of their private lives. I would prefer that individuals saw themselves first and foremost as individuals and not as representatives of this or that group of (supposed) oppressor or (supposed) victim. This whole situation looks to me transparently like the result of overreach by an advocacy class that needed to find a problem that it could solve. IMO most people are not, and never have been, bigots. They're usually nice folks trying to do the right thing, like you. And it feels to me like they are being manipulated.

On a screen only, in epub format. 10 books or so per year. Almost entirely non-fiction. In theory a chapter at a time. Often in the hour before eating, when I'm most awake and able to concentrate.

As to how I get hold of the book, first I check the Open Library on the Internet Archive. If it's not there (often the case) then I pirate it in about 3 clicks from the usual places.

BUT: if the book is recent and the author is still active, then I will also pay for the book on Amazon or wherever it's cheapest. While reading the epub I pirated earlier. That's only fair. The last time I did this was literally yesterday.

I'll try a different tack. Because after all, we seem to want the same result.

In my analysis (which, as someone who follows this pretty closely, I maintain is much better supported by the evidence than yours), I have to suck it up and talk to people I don't like and maybe even accept policies I don't like.

In yours, you get to feel great about being in the right, with no need to question any of your prejudices much less make any compromises.

If you were a neutral observer watching this conversation, who would you believe?

I'm European who votes green. I want the Democrats to win because that is better for the world. If only you did too.

Your theory is just a theory, and a weak one. The evidence suggests that the election was mainly just a backlash against inflation and immigration, as has happened across the world to parties of all stripes. Not much could have been done to avert the outcome. But it is also clear that a bunch of voters were pissed off by what they perceived as Democrat excesses on cultural issues, and apparently many of those people were in swing states.

More generally: "just turn out the base" is usually a losing strategy in democratic politics. For a simple reason: the cost of turning out your own base is that you will fire up the opposing base and turn them out too. To be sure of winning an election in democracy, you will need to get your hands dirty and persuade people. In practice that will mean tacking towards the center and making compromises.

So we're running out of reasons to use it. Personally I find the "planting trees" USP to be a potentially risky gimmick for the reason outlined above, but that is just my perspective.

Personally, I feel worse for the each and every one of the 7.7 billion people who didn't have a vote in this election but will now reap its consequences.

Terrible, no-good take. It's because of this attitude, totally ungrounded in the political science, that outside the USA we now have to put up with your bad decisions, once again.

Sorry to be so crude but this really p*sses me off. Your side is now losing in almost every single demographic group, the trend is as clear as day. If it were to follow your terrible advice (which fortunately it won't) the Democrats would be permanently out of power and the USA would become a de-facto one-party state. You can't pretend that these people don't exist or that they're subhuman. You have to sully your virtue and talk to them and find some compromises. If not for yourself then for the sake of the rest of us.

Apparently they are legit. But it's important to remember that this is the tiniest of tiny good deeds if you're really concerned about the environment.

Yes, that's obvious. But the cognitive fallacy of small gestures is a real issue, i.e. the problem of people changing their lightbulbs and calling it a day. Especially since there are things we can do that really do make a difference. For example, cutting down on red meat, dairy, and flying. Any one of those will have more impact than decades of using Ecosia.

Privacy is a better reason to use Ecosia.