So I think we largely agree on the situation, but the contention here is that we seem to disagree on branding and terminology. I am referring to them as "leftist" (though I don't mean to say that they're actually "far" left) because they present themselves as such. Their grift is centered on being the group for people that care about climate change, universal healthcare, UBI (IIRC, they may not advocate for that...), Unions/labor and other policies that are broadly considered "leftist" (even if the views are largely mainstream at this point.
I could see not calling them "far" left, at least in the international sphere, but they at least present as leftist, and have many people convinced that they are as such.
I'm the same way, Joel Osteen and the other "prosperity gospel" are grifters and charlatans PRESENTING as Christians. But when enough "Christians" believe them and support their policies, a simple dismissal of them as "not Christian" falls into the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Doing so allows you to hand wave away more and more things that others within (your group) that you disagree with. Westboro Baptist Church? No True Christian. Church has an opposite opinion as you on LGBT rights? No True Christian. (And the Christian you're talking to will have arguments on WHY they're not really a Christian).
That issue is not unique to Christians, or to right-wingers, or to other groups that you and I are likely not a part of. But we must acknowledge that OUTSIDERS will regard them as leftist whether or not you or I do. And dismissing them out of hand tends to shut down dialogue and ostracize those who may be caught up in said grift. I myself used to be interested in the Green Party until I saw enough of their bullshit to realize that they were not a group I would want to represent me (probably around 2015-ish). But there are good people with good ideals that do identify with the Green Party either because they haven't looked into enough of the problems surrounding the party or because they've been convinced of the bullshit after agreeing with good points the party has made.
They may be wolves in sheep's clothing, but they certainly TARGET leftists, which is the point. That's what grifters do.
JustAnotherRando
I agree that the Green Party is a grifting party, but they are the farthest left that has a national stage / ballot access. There are also decent leftists within the Green Party, because they want to affect change at a local level and that's the closest thing to a party that would represent their views if the DSA doesn't have a presence.
But I think it's too dismissive to simply write them off as "not left" because at a surface level, they represent several leftist viewpoints, and they're, unfortunately, a lot of people's first exposure to leftist politics (especially back in the 2000's and 2010's before the DSA started growing). Like yes, they are at this point a grift, but they weren't always that way and a lot of people aren't aware that that is the case. They're "not left" in the same Sense that the Tea Party was "not libertarian" - which is to say that they're not good-faith proponents of the ideology, but are good at attracting people who don't know better and have a corrupting effect on the movement.
Dr. Jill Stein is, I would argue, a scammer. I was interested in the green party, but the more I read about their - and particularly her - positions on some issues and some of the things she claims, she's either an educated idiot or a grifter. She certainly has some good positions, but also pushes a number of pseudoscience ideas from anti-vax and anti-gmo to scares about "Wi-Fi hurting our kids" (not Internet usage but electromagnetic waves from Wi-Fi). She also pushes Russian propaganda, especially around the Russia-Ukraine war, and has met with Russian officials (including Putin himself) on a number of occasions.
So unless you're going to "No True Scotsman" the Green Party as not being leftist, then yes. There are grifters on the left as well. Further, you should avoid assumptions like "there aren't any bad actors in OUR camp" because grifters and charlatans will find a place in any community should they figure out an effective method to do so, and letting your guard down because "we're the good guys" is the fastest way to let that happen.
I went with a classic Moscow Mule tonight. Been a while since I've had one and I love the bite of the ginger beer.
Interesting read, thanks for sharing!
The way to actually make progress in this regard is to start at low level. City, county, and eventually state positions have to be the focus if we want to get a broader range of parties into the conversation.
Man I Loved the Strike games when I was young, definitely going to be looking out for this one.
So I don't think it's the only solution, or that anyone that doesn't care for C# is wrong or anything like that, but it is a suitable language for large segments of development and is both a good career and, in my opinion, rather pleasant to work with. Looking at the languages listed in that list you shared, I see a lot of C, C++, and Java, which I have no interest in working in again unless i have a good reason for it. The other languages there are fine but I never had a big interest in Go (Google's language) - it seems fine, but in my area I don't think there's much of a community around it.
The .NET community is pretty active where I live which is a plus, there are lots of jobs in the language and lots of professionals that are proficient in it. I'm going to try to avoid sharing too specific of information, but I've used C# in industries from healthcare, to automotive, to HR, to fitness. There are absolutely no shortage of companies using the technology - according to Statista, it's the 8th most popular language, and they are including SQL and bash in that listing. I'm not sure I believe that data, but it was the first result I clicked in a very quick Google search.
I agree that popular != good, but if we are going to use "what companies are doing," there are clearly plenty of people that have found it to be the right choice for their projects.
I will say that if your last exposure to .NET was like 5-10 years ago, it's worth taking a look at what it offers now - not necessarily to use it yourself but to at least understand that it does bring a lot to the table. I tend to see a lot of people that make references to C# as it related to .NET Framework (e.g. "you have to use Windows") that haven't been the case since .NET Core came out in 2016. I will absolutely agree that it's not always the right choice and there are aspects to the .NET world (Microsoft has the most obnoxious versioning - .NET Framework up to 4.x -> .NET Core up to 3.1 -> .NET 5 up to 8). And I fully get not wanting to work on it because it's Microsoft because everyone has their brands that want as little to do with as possible, but it is a good object oriented language.
It very much depends on what you're trying to do. C# is pretty great for developing APIs, especially in an enterprise environment involving a lot of business logic. I don't have much of an opinion on Django as I haven't spent enough time looking into it, but I have looked at enough Node.js code to know I don't prefer it for most of the projects I've been involved in.
My Python experience is largely based in working with things like Raspberry Pis, and relatively simple jobs where Python made the job pretty easy. I don't know enough experience with larger Python projects to have a feel for what good architecture in a complex application looks like.
With C#, I can go into a large application using good practices and quickly navigate the code and be productive.
I work in C# and I find it highly preferable over working in Java or C++.
Modern .NET (i.e. .NET Core and later) is cross platform. In fact, .NET APIs now are routinely run in containers not based on Windows.
You're now being hostile which is quickly souring any chance of productive conversation. You're accusing me of saying things I've not said, you're blatantly ignoring anything that's inconvenient to your point of view, and You're making attacks/accusing me of "helping the enemy" because I disagree on how to deal with them. Not only are you not making any manner of argument on how you're NOT engaging in "No True Scotsman", you're becoming actively hostile at an ally because I only agree on 99% of the topic.
I've not once called them "far left" - I've called them the "farthest left (at least at a surface level) party with national exposure." That's not exactly a high bar. It also ignores the fact that there are genuine leftists that identify with the party. They operate WITHIN the leftist sphere, and they are grifters. You can't dismiss it out of hand and say that "well they are really leftists" - yeah, no shit, that's what grifters fucking do. Fucker Carlson doesn't believe in 1/10th of the shit he spouts off, but it doesn't make home not a far right grifter.
I'm not helping them, I'm trying to make sure that allies, both to my left and to my right (I wouldn't call myself "far left" but would call myself "leftist") keep some level of guard up against grifters that operate within our spaces.
My POV is: we are not immune to grifters in our spaces, you should maintain guard. Here's one example of a grifter within our space. (FTR, I could have also pointed to ML tankies that defend the actions of Russia and China in spite of the fact that neither are remotely Communist, socialist or leftist of any form). Your POV as it comes across SEEMS TO BE: Well, they're not REALLY far left (unclear if you only mean to exclude from "far" left or leftist in total), so no we don't have grifters on the left. If this is not your point of view, then far more time has been spent arguing about minutiae and leftist in-Fighting than explaining why you don't believe that grift is not a problem within this space.
And look, I really do not want to be hostile here, because I do Believe that we are largely allies (I don't know that we would agree on policies exactly as this is a narrow discussion, but we're so far from what either of us would likely want that it should prevent us from wanting to work together). I am however, not interested in engaging further if the discussion is just going to be hostile. I ain't got time for that shit.
Edit: Sorry, there is a point that you mentioned that I want to touch on: you mentioned that I am "just calling people what they want to be called" while you Believe in looking at their actions over their words... The thing is, we can only see that their actions are inconsistent with a leftist ideology because they have visibility and have been around long enough that we can now know that they are grifters. A decade+ ago, we did not have that information, so as far as most people could know, they were "leftist". I'm not including them to exist their actions, I'm using them as an example of our space but being immune to the grift. They may not be "true leftists", but they ARE "left-wing grifters." Because it's not about who they are, it's about who they target. There are farther-left grifters (likely including some who are state actors of foreign governments), but it's not as easy to identify who is and is not a grifter because we don't have as much info on them.