After /r/TheDonald was banned, a bunch of right wingers did exactly this by creating TheDonald.win and other sites (including one for /r/TheRedPill), forming the win network. Honestly, the interface was better than Reddit and the site was very active, demonstrating that moving communities off-Reddit is very doable.
Coincidentally, I just became Top Rated Plus (as opposed to normal Top Rated) on Upwork thanks to finishing my first large contract! I'm going to have a mini-party with my wife to celebrate, haha. Upwork dramatically changed my life. I don't care much either way about the fee change, but I get why other people do.
A good friend of mine is hiring engineers who want to transition to providing therapy for digital nomads, remote techies, and such.
His practice actually specializes in therapy and mental health for remote workers and engineers. They provide extensive training and paid certification.
I'll pass you his contact, email me at [email protected] if interested.
Just to be upfront, the pay range he told me is great for therapy work but not impressive by engineering standards.
>Funnily enough, the old.reddit.com view does have a <link> to the RSS feed.
Maybe that's not a coincidence! Aaron Swartz, one of the co-founders of Reddit, was also one of the developers of RSS. Most people already know his story, but for those who don't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz
Who says the two parties aren't on the same team? Maybe the winning team is corrupt politicians and the facade of ideology is a marketing gimmick that sells tickets but at the end of the day, the NFL doesn't care whether you buy a the 49ers jersey or the Raiders jersey.
Imo the real teams aren't you versus me, it's us versus them.
You are completely correct, I didn't mean to argue against the Dems, just noting that I hear this critique raised against them a lot.
>Arguably by the same reasoning, republicans benefit from legal abortion and their finally getting Roe v Wade reversed was terrible for their electoral performance.
Indeed, the far-right has raised exactly this criticism of overturning Roe v Wade:
>If you have limited energy and a limited number of possible wins, it is important to focus your limited energy on one kind of win: wins that make future wins easier. By definition, these are the kinds of wins that augment your power. These are real wins.
>
>There is another kind of “win,” wins which expend your power in order to achieve some result you want. These are sometimes called “Pyrrhic victories.” Pyrrhus took the battlefield, but after the battle his chances of winning were reduced. His tactical “victory” was a strategic defeat.
This kind of thinking isn't partisan, I think it describes the a problem that occurs with institutions in any society. I'm not sure what the solution is, other than to be collectively vigilant against institutions succumbing to these tendencies. Which seems woefully inadequate.
He probably didn't have the stat off the top of his head, so it was exaggerated based on assumptions. But the underlying intuition had a kernel of truth and applies to any political party, or any institution, really. For example, if an organization dedicated to the poor mainly draws support from poor people, they have a kind of incentive to subtly maintain poverty.
This theory that institutions kind of have a tendency to perpetuate the conditions that necessitate their existence was developed by Durkheim, and like most of the other early sociologists, I really recommend it over newer stuff. It's not conspiratorial, the idea is that organizations that do this outsurvive groups that legitimately solve the problems they are created to solve, and so through an evolutionary process, the longest lived and deepest institutions tend to be ones with behaviors ironically antithetical to their supposed mission (even if the members of the institution totally believe in and earnestly support the mission).
The typical example (at least when I was into this kind of stuff) is the Catholic Church earnestly helping the poor, but doing so in a way that societaly, will never actually alleviate poverty, or may even exacerbate it. Now days I tend to hear this line of thinking used about liberals supporting policies that "help" minorities but really perpetuate the cycle of poverty.
Whether you believe this is beside the point, I only mean to suggest that OP is wrong, but a steelman of his point is deeper than it seems, and deserves our good faith imo.