EDIT: removed a block of text that took all too long to type out because I’m not going to spend more time further arguing the interpretation of someone’s comment as if it were religious script.

Quite frankly it hardly matters. You asked for proof of folks politically engaged yet not voting, I shared what I thought constitutes proof. You believe it doesn’t qualify, but other folks reading this can draw their own conclusions.

Thanks for keeping the conversation civil - have a good one!

If you’re a wage earner in this country, your life does not change in any significant way based on who we elect, so why skip a badly needed day’s pay to vote? There’s just no point.

You’ll notice that’s different from

If you’re a wage earner in this country and you think your life does not change in any significant way based on who we elect, so why skip a badly needed day’s pay to vote? There’s just no point.

The former is an assertion that all wage earners lives aren’t affected by voting therefore they shouldn’t bother voting. IF you’re a wage earner THEN there’s no point in voting".

The latter is understanding a scenario from a potential perspective of a wage earner who doesn’t see change being discouraged.

Like you said in your own post,

someone who thinks both party’s won’t help

Can you point out where they say “if wage earners think both parties won’t help”?

If not, then you’re the one selectively interpreting this…

someone who thinks both party’s won’t help

I don’t read it this way all - there was no conditional on party efficacy and it in fact was an assertion that their lives won’t change due to who was elected, which changed the overall statement to read like the working class shouldn’t vote.

Tbf the 50% that voted for trump aren’t here, plain and simple, so that’s why you don’t see engagement with them.

The only political engagement you’ll see here on Lemmy shifts overwhelmingly left for all parties, so you’ll see mostly squabbling between various left factions.

Well here’s a comment from someone I was talking to that was politically engaged yet arguing that folks might as well not vote.

I’m not going into the thinking behind it, but it’s certainly happening.

Being politically “engaged” on Lemmy doesn’t mean much in terms of ensuring voter participation. I’ve seen plenty of folks with a “democrats have to earn my vote” sentiment. That very much seemed to play out given the much lower voter participation for Democrats this year.

My parents sent me a video from a Chinese “practice English” channel about the negatives of Kamala.

It was fucking insane, the channel was mostly “this is what you say at the doctor’s office”, “let’s practice ordering food”, and then hard conservative talking point videos casually thrown in. I’ve always told others that non-english speaking communities in America are especially prone to conservative radicalization because they’re so isolated from the general public.

I love them, but I was furious when I replied. It’s a little sad honestly, I’ve given up hope on them politically. Had to make it very clear that if they talk to me or our kids about politics we will not engage and will just leave.

He has the concepts of a plan

As others have said, every time this gets brought up, the counterpoint is that we already pay more for healthcare than other countries, and there is 0 response.

At some point it’s just old man yells at cloud.

Carrier has arrived

A little extra rough that the naval defence guy states the claims are untrue

If there was a society where a penalty-free regulation would have actual effects, it’s Japan.

You should see the death glares people get if they’re loud on the train.

Nope. You’re just simply wrong here

So in this case, I’d suggest that it was a targeted attack, because there’s definitely credit due for setting up shell companies to infiltrate the supply chain to modify devices that are very much only for Hezbollah members to use for Hezbollah activities.

However, the actual method of killing wasn’t precise enough in the sense that there were too many civilian casualties. I’m talking out of my ass here, but if the payload was instead ye olde polonium poisoning on a needle that you’d get pricked when changing the battery, for example, that’d be a very precise and targeted strike.

Great example to discuss! I’ll point out that the r9x used in that strike is considered a precision weapon. Again, targeting and precision are two different things.

It feels like you’re conflating the two - do you consider them to be the same?

At least several children were killed.

Are you saying that the children were holding the pagers, or are you avoiding my question of how many civilians were holding pagers that went off?

A targeted attack means you want to attack a single individual and know exactly where, how, and when to attack.

A pager that out of necessity has to be on someone for it to work seems to fit that bill.

Single individual: targeting the person assigned to the pager

Where: right next to the pager

How: explosion

When: perhaps the weakest point, if someone was sleeping then the timing wasn’t right.

Again, my initial point is that it was targeted, but not precise enough. Targeted does not mean 0 innocents were hurt.

How many accounts have there been of non-hezbollah folks holding the pager when it blew up?

I carry one for work, and that shit is on me unless I’m sleeping, because the entire point of a pager is it can reach me no matter what, I’d be surprised if that deviated significantly for Hezbollah folks.

Blowing up a bunch of IEDs with no way to verify who they’re hurting is not a targeted attack.

My understanding is that it was selectively pagers used by Hezbollah that blew up, which is a far cry from the indiscriminate planting of IEDs you’re describing. These weren’t dispersed at random throughout a civilian population. They were …targeting Hezbollah members by being planted on them.

It was targeted, but not precise enough to keep innocents safe.

We were using Skype… Dark days.