AS an earlier post put it, there's this tendency to label people based on 'wings', seeking to discredit them by association ("he supports Trump!" or "she's Marxist!"). We've always been careful not to fall into these traps; we've condemned Obama whenever he did bad things (especially in domains impacting technology) and Trump is regarded as little but a well-groomed (and orange-painted) Neo-Nazi.
"The issues of software freedom and human rights in technology impact both 'wings' equally; the damage is real and movements are being squashed if people who control both corporate parties (and fund both of them) fear those movements."The strategy known as divide and conquer (or divide and rule) has long relied on superficial differences that are mostly surface-deep, breeding sectarian wars over something like abortion instead of gross economic disparity [1], endless militarism (to cushion global imperialism) [2,3], climate disaster [4] and so on. In the domain of software we're meant/supposed to believe that abolishing the word "master" (even where it has nothing to do with slavery) is more important than ending the endless militarism which Microsoft expects to profit a lot from, just as it currently profits from the Neo-Nazi's internment camps which separate babies from their parents, uniting them with COVID-19 behind bars, instead. How about separating corporations from their patents? Or their monopolies? No? No way! Not as long as they buy the politicians and command public policy by proxies (through bribed officials).
Notice how none of these issues are brought up in (Vice) Presidential debates; both Biden and Trump don't intend to tackle environmental issues, end the empire, or offer medical coverage for all Americans. Heck, both of them represent the oligarchs -- the same sorts of people who control technology giants that insist our biggest problem is the words we use (like "master", which is what those technology giants are to us). Fewer words being available in mass communication/broadcast will inevitably mean restrictions on speech, or the veracity of words that convey hard/emotional concepts (like what we mean to companies which profit from genocidal "master race" ambitions).
Life isn't easy. Speech takes courage. Journalism isn't safe anymore, not even in the West. For exposing abundant government/corporate corruption and war crimes (with gory evidence of bloodbaths and bloodlust) one invites state-level assassination efforts. The exposer/reporter, not the murderer, receives the punishment. Vis-à-vis...
It oughtn't matter too much if you're "from the left" or "from the right" (both corporate parties are drifting rightwards over time, regardless). The issues of software freedom and human rights in technology impact both 'wings' equally; the damage is real and movements are being squashed if people who control both corporate parties (and fund both of them) fear those movements.
They still check how low they can aim, e.g. leaving the population on the verge of starvation [5] while passing what's left of the capital (plus national debt) to their offshore bank accounts, amassing tens of trillions of dollars in personal wealth. Oh, guess that won't be a subject in the next televised debate. Nor will the real unemployment figures (which also count those who gave up trying to find a job because it is hopeless). ⬆
Related/contextual items from the news:
The median U.S. worker salary would be around twice as high today if wages kept pace with economic output since World War II, new research revealed.€
As the United States marks 19 years since the September 11 terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people, a new report finds at least 37 million people in eight countries have been displaced since the start of the so-called global war on terrorism since 2001. The Costs of War Project at Brown University also found more than 800,000 people have been killed since U.S. forces began fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and Yemen, at a cost of $6.4 trillion to U.S. taxpayers. “The U.S. has played a disproportionate role in waging war, in launching war and in perpetuating war over the last 19 years,” says report co-author David Vine, a professor of anthropology at American University.
As the United States marks 19 years since the September 11 terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people, a new report finds at least 37 million people in eight countries have been displaced since the start of the so-called global war on terrorism since 2001. The Costs of War Project at Brown University also found more than 800,000 people have been killed since U.S. forces began fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and Yemen, at a cost of $6.4 trillion to U.S. taxpayers. “The U.S. has played a disproportionate role in waging war, in launching war and in perpetuating war over the last 19 years,” says report co-author David Vine, a professor of anthropology at American University.
"Companies across all sectors need to take more ambitious action to ensure otherwise devastating impacts of climate change are avoided while they still can be."
When university presidents were surveyed in spring of 2020 about what they felt were the most pressing concerns of COVID-19, college students going hungry didn’t rank very high.