Happened to me a few days ago, and I just can’t believe how bad this redesign is!!
It’s hard to comprehend what goes into the heads of that dev team, but they basically ruined everything nice about the platform. The API changes were pretty much a fatal shot already, but this new redesign seems to be what tipped the scales for me, and hopefully many more.
It’s a great time to switch to Lemmy, and I think I’m going to make the effort to stick around and abandon the habit of opening reddit multiple times per day.
Do you think forcing this re-design will bring more people here? I’m hoping for that. Reddit betrayed us and I can’t find it me to keep forgiving them for every horrible, anti-user decision.
I noticed in some moderator subreddit, that it is planned to kill new.reddit.com as well. Old will likely stay for longer, but new is what I got used to, and if they take it down I won’t bother getting used to the newer, garbage UX.
I don’t think many consider a Social Democrat radical.
Social Democrats don’t wish to dismantle Capitalism. Hardly a radical take.
On the contrary, I think your information bubble is pretty limited if you think that a social-democratic position isn’t on the leftward fringe of the Overton window in America, where large parts of the political spectrum believe “the invisible hand” obviates the need for market regulations, and even the most basic and punitive of social safety-net programs get tarred as “communism!” by the mainstream right.
Yeah America isn’t the world and I don’t listen to the opinions of people who are ignorant on this topic (to be clear I’m not directing that at you) what I’m saying is that people certainly do hold the view you’ve described; that a Social Democrat is radical left, but that simply is not the case when you have some cursory knowledge of political theory (I assume you agree with this).
No… the point I am trying to make is that whether a position can be described as “radical” depends on the larger social and political context. Supporting communism was a radical position in Russia in 1915, but in 1925 it was mainstream. Supporting the monarchy was a mainstream position in France in 1785, but in 1793 it was dangerously radical. You can’t just arrange every political ideology that’s ever been imagined on a chart and then declare them “radical” or “mainstream” simply based on how far away from the center of the chart they are, because what’s mainstream (and how far away away from that you can drift without being seen as an extremist) depends on the larger sociopolitical milieu.
I suppose we disagree then.
I think the case can be made that certain political ideologies are radical regardless of whether the society at large considers them radical or not.
How else do we distinguish what is truly radical and what is not then?