mozz

It's pretty well feckin jinxed at this point, it doesn't need my help

I like how it's confirmed gonna collapse within from 1 to 100 years, and everyone's response is just to wait to see while arguing about when it's going to happen exactly

The extreme lengths that Russia goes to in order to influence elections around the world but specifically including the 2016 election are well well documented. Cf the OP article.

The US can absolutely fuck up its own self governance without any outside assistance (probably actually better than most small eastern European states), but a super powerful source of outside assistance is definitely happening, in this case

@some_guy@lemmy.world for telling what is and isn't propaganda, I recommend the RV Jones approach: Just remove from your awareness all the stuff that when you hold it up to the light and look closely, is self contradictory or obvious bullshit (which in my examinations definitely includes all the "2016 wasn't Russia" material I have seen). Everything that remains, in practice usually winds up being pretty coherent and consistent.

When can we arrive at panel 8 pls

Ah yes, the famously wintery coasts of France and Spain.

It's a cool idea, but putting aside the silliness of putting the whole of China in one region only of the US, they very clearly looked at pure latitude without taking into account the effects of the AMOC keeping the whole western coast of Europe about 10-15℃ warmer than it has any right to be given its position on the globe.

So there are multiple tactics to disrupt a social network; I kind of suspect that the propaganda trolls on Lemmy are shifting their tactics from "Genocide Joe" "I'm not voting" and other stuff that they were getting unanimously yelled at for, and into just posting generally unpleasant stuff that turns people off from participating and drowns out human conversation.

Just pure hostility can serve this purpose, but it also can draw attention from the mods, so I suspect that a chorus of aggressively wrong stuff like "Bernie isn't good on Israel and I'm so mad about it" "How dare you disagree with me on that you can't stand the slightest criticism" and other arguments that are just kind of off-putting because of their blatant wrongness and impossibility to engage with productively, but not technically rule-breaking in any way, are the new tactic.

"No Mercy" has a great bit where Redmond O'Hanlon wants to try to rescue an orphaned baby gorilla, and his guide absolutely loses his shit about it. He says I do not fucking understand white people. Anywhere we've been, I can take you a mile in any direction and find actual human being people many of them children who need a fuck of a lot of help. If you want to help them, you could always do that, or maybe your government could stop shooting them or taking all their stuff and leaving them starving. But no: You see one gorilla and you're all sentimental and so all a sudden that becomes the overriding priority of this previously non humanitarian mission when all the rest of it you didn't give a fuck about.

(In Redmond's defense, they did also do a certain amount for the people also; he talks elsewhere about it being an actual problem because they kept giving their medicine away to people who needed it, leaving them potentially in a really really bad spot if they wound up needing it later on.)

I do think there's some fairness to this -- I was talking more to the person reading the article that the person who wrote it. Writing an editorial to put pressure on the candidate sounds fine to me.

At the same time, I don't think you can say the ask has been stated loud and clear, when the article says not "I won't vote for Joe Biden unless he does X" but "I am not going to vote for Joe Biden and will not change my mind; at this point I prefer to enable a much worse outcome for the Palestinians instead."

The stringent military control of the Iron Curtain has left a large green corridor across Europe. An initiative is underway to protect this former involuntary wilderness as a European Green Belt.

For some reason this makes me real happy

I think we're done here 🙂

That comic is actually a really good illustration of how to use propagandistic framing (take a sensible thing and put it in the mouth of a character who's dislikeable) -- in this case, making it seem like "Sounds like you're talking bollocks about something I care about, can you justify what you said?" is a rude thing to ask.

(Edit: He edited the comment maybe? This is the comic which was part of the comment before he edited it)

His organization was the one that got us OSHA, the Freedom of Information Act, and the Consumer Product Safety Act. What have you done that makes you qualified on producing change in Washington?

I understand perfectly well, you don't need to keep repeating or pretending that the issue is that I don't understand.

Trump is siphoning money that he didn't raise away from downballot candidates

Biden is raising money, then you're saying that he's probably not giving enough of it to downballot candidates (while admitting you have no idea whether that's actually happening; you're just assuming it because of what Hillary did)

Right? Do I have that summary correct?

If your main concern is that you're upset that all this stuff is legal in America, I fully agree. I think directing anger at the system that made it legal and try to make it illegal again sounds like a great idea. Since it's legal though, it seems weird to say that it's a huge problem that the better candidate in this election is doing it (to try to raise money and win the election).

I don't even understand how Biden's name came into this and why you're trying so hard to link this particular type of legalized corruption with his name, specifically under an unrelated story about Trump inventing a whole new type of kneecapping-downballot-candidates to do.

(I mean, I have a theory for why you're so eager to bring Biden's name into it and bring up shady things Hillary Clinton did 8 years ago; I'm just pointing out that it's an odd thing to be so eager to bring into discussion about this story.)