aleph

joined 1 year ago
[–] aleph@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

According to this YouGov poll of least <> most trusted news sources , CNN lands bang in the middle of the pack. So not as bad as FOX, but not as high as PBS or ABC.

As for my own 2¢, all the US cable news channels are varying degrees of bad. Best to avoid, generally speaking.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 20 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Aesthetics, plus the seductive appeal that pre-modern, pre-liberal-democratic societies (when the governments were authoritarian, the women were submissive, and the men "were men") have for reactionaries, incels, and cryptofacists.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee -3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

And what is dropping this wikipedia link supposed to prove?

Does it contradict the scholarly article I cited which supports everything I said?

P.S. who is "you people"?

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago

All true, but that doesn't disprove my point. The risk was non-zero, so it was still worth investigating.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

Yes but the difference is that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that prolonged exposure to RF waves might possibly cause some harmful effects. The WHO didn't categorize radio frequency radiation as a potential carcinogen based on no evidence at all:

https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf

The possibility of there being a link was not absurd, per se.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (7 children)

To be fair, the evidence about a link between cell phone radiation and cancer has been inconclusive for quite some time. After all, a series of null results doesn't mean there is categorically no link -- it could equally mean that more research is needed.

That said, I do agree that if there were a casual link in this case then it would have made itself apparent by now, given the huge increase in cell phone usage over the past few decades.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Actually, it's nothing more than lazy slander pepetuated by duopoly apologists.

There's zero proof Stein is "Putin backed". She once sat at the same table at an international conference and barely spoke to the man. That's it.

Meanwhile, AOC has been publicly performing as a genuine progressive for her voters and constituents all while voting and acting like a corporate Democrat behind the scenes.

 

Short Summary

The article delves into the unsettling ideological influence of Curtis Yarvin, a software developer known for extreme views on societal restructuring. Yarvin advocates for dystopian solutions like converting unproductive people into biodiesel and virtualizing them into permanent solitary confinement, ideas that have attracted influential figures like Peter Thiel and J.D. Vance.

Peter Thiel, a tech billionaire, and Vance, a former Silicon Valley insider and now a Republican senator, are closely aligned with Yarvin's concepts. Thiel, particularly, has funded Vance's political career, elevating him into positions of influence within the GOP. Yarvin's philosophy, labeled neoreaction or NRx, promotes authoritarian governance and dismantling traditional governments in favor of corporate-controlled micro-states called "patchworks."

Vance, shaped by his time in San Francisco and mentored by Thiel, echoes Yarvin's radical ideas, advocating for extreme measures like political purges and the replacement of civil servants to consolidate power. His rise within Republican circles, backed by Thiel's financial and strategic support, underscores a growing convergence of tech wealth and political power aiming to reshape American governance along authoritarian lines.

 

Green Party candidate Jason Call has posted a thread on X. The key points are:

~ The duopoly is going all out to deny third party voices this year

~ The Stein campaign has qualified for Federal Matching Funds, but Congress robbed the fund and Treasury is refusing to pay us $270,000. It is unconscionable and unprecedented….

~ What are Federal Matching Funds? When you file your taxes each year, you’re asked “do you want $3 to go to the Presidential Matching Fund?”

~ It is essentially a fund reserved to help campaigns be more competitive against the flood of big money interests

~ The Jill Stein is the only campaign (other than Mike Pence, no longer active) that has met the threshold for this funding

~ And while the FEC has said we qualify for the match - a payment of $270k at this point - we are being denied that payment

~ Here’s what we are being told: Since the duopoly candidates have rejected that funding for the last 16 years, that $3 per IRS filing grew to over $400 million

~ And this year, Congress decided to “appropriate” those funds for other uses. They took $320mil and gave it to the Secret Service…

~ They took $25mil and gave it to the Justice Dept. They took $55mil for “election security” (ironically securing elections from 3rd parties it seems)

~ Right now we are being denied our earned primary matching funds because there is a “shortfall”

~ What we have earned amounts to 1.5% of what’s in the fund. And they are saying there’s a shortfall? Here’s their reasoning:

~ “We need to wait until the major parties have their convention so we will know if they are going to apply for the funds” Excuse me?

~ Use of matching funds for the general election takes priority over use of funds for the primary, but the only campaigns that can qualify for those funds are the duopoly campaigns

~ The two major parties have not used matching funds for 16 years due to the imposed spending limits

~ But this year, Congress robbed the fund (and if you are a taxpayer and have checked that $3 box, you should be righteously pissed off about this misappropriation)

~ And the Treasury is saying “sorry, we don’t have the money, we might need it for the general”

~ But understand this is a political hit. Congress appropriated that money right when we were messaging that we were about to hit the threshold.

~ The FEC is not the responsible party here. They qualified us, said we were good to go. This is coming from higher up, politically motivated to shut down our traction

~ And it has. It has stifled our momentum. This, and the bullshit lawsuits to keep us off the ballot

~ Democrats say they are defending democracy, but this is how they are doing it. Political trickery and lawfare

~ They are limiting the choices of voters when voters (not BlueMAGA of course, they are cheering on the chicanery) are fed up with the garbage forced on us by the duopoly

~ The Green Party takes no corporate money. We are following the rules. And the playground bullies are continuing to rig the system for the war machine and other corporate interests

~ This is not democracy. It is not justice.

 

As a new user, I'm enjoying Mastodon's vibe so far but the one thing that is a letdown is the trending hashtags. I've been checking them regularly over the past couple of weeks and it seems like they're pretty much always like this.

Even on days with big news stories, people on Mastodon are only talking about what day of the week it is like company employees on some internal message board?

Is there anything that can be done to liven them up a bit?

view more: next ›