openmic.social is an uncensored community. You may encounter strong language, controversial opinions, and mature or NSFW material. You must be 18+ to browse. Illegal content is prohibited and removed on sight — please report it. By continuing, you accept that you may see content you personally disagree with.
In defense of small changes, the 2nd term Trump administration is a great example for why it should be difficult to make big changes. Even with the decent guardrail, he is able to completely destroy congressional mandated agencies, implement random tariffs (tariffs are back BTW), use DoJ as personal revenge agency. There should be a small appreciation of what we have today when compared to the last three thousand years of history. Things really can get a lot worse and very quickly.
Do I want Medicaid for all/single payer, yes.
Would I settle for Medicaid for those who want it, definitely.
Things can also get a lot better very quickly. Being against major change because change can be bad is like being against having a big cake because shit can also be big.
Generally I share your sentiment, but just for consideration, I couldn’t so boldly say things can get better very quickly. Can they really?
Does human nature support that, or is major change virtually guaranteed to trigger power struggles and chaos detrimental to the average citizen?
I’m not sure we can objectively assert an answer very confidently.
Just saw this but @gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml seems to have beat me too it.
But effectively:
They can, simply look at China or the USSR when the revolution came and effectively every metric that matters (life expectancy up, poverty down etc.) went vertical.
Human nature isn’t real. Material reality precedes thought/nature.
there is no human nature, existence precedes essence. we first exist, then we decide what the fuck we are.
Decades of incrementalism is precisely how the US got to the spot where Trump has become a viable political figure.