this post was submitted on 05 May 2026
678 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

84434 readers
3516 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Your problem isn't with stats, polls are still valuable.

Your problem is political think tanks that pay for biased polling that reflects what they want instead of reality. And billionaire owned media presenting those biases stats with a straight face and hoping no one notices.

Imagine your back in college and the water bottle you just chugged had vodka in it.

That's a bad bottle, but the take away should be "verify it's water first" and not "never try to drink water again".

Meaning you shouldn't disregard all polls, it's just responsible to take a real.looknamd not just believe headlines or even articles.

Voting for the lesser evil is still evil.

Even if you'll never vote D in a general, there is literally no downside for voting for the left most candidate in the next Dem primary. Hell, you could even try voting for the left most candidate in the Republican primary instead, I don't think that would be as effective though.

After all, it's the first step in Marxism-Lenism:

Marxism–Leninism holds that a two-stage communist revolution is needed to replace capitalism. A vanguard party, organized through democratic centralism, would seize power on behalf of the proletariat and establish a one-party communist state. The state would control the means of production, suppress opposition, counter-revolution, and the bourgeoisie, and promote Soviet collectivism, to pave the way for an eventual communist society that would be classless and stateless.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism

Personally I want to exit ramp before all the Stalin stuff, but you can't argue that it didn't work for him.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, it's the whole "controlled by the state" thing I'll never trust about marxism-leninism. You dont get an informed and organized population by subverting them and taking away their mobility.

Authoritarianism doesn't lead to freedom.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, Lenin seized power by having all the soviets assassinated by bolsheviks after he lost an election to them. Then the USSR descended into widespread famine, surveillance, and state-sponsored massacres.

It's wild how many people still swear by marxist-leninism, as if "just try it one more time, this time it'll work, I swear!" Or even wilder "actually, widespread famine, surveillance, and monopolized violence in the USSR was good!"

And then they just smugly tell you to "read theory" because they assume you haven't already, because they can't imagine anyone would actually read it and think critically about it, since they sure as hell didn't...

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The problem with economics as a science is that testing some theories can be very expensive.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago

I've always viewed economics as a pseudo-science.

There might be some ways to apply the scientific method to economic systems, but even if so it would be a soft science at best.

But that's not even what's happening in conventional economic theory, and they try to treat it like a hard science.