Perhaps he’s objecting to having the alleged hand gesture referred to as feminist. A bit of a quibble, but not completely baseless.

Then again it may not be fair to claim that whenever feminists do hurtful things in the name of feminism, that it’s not real feminism. Feminism can do bad things too. Any philosophy can.

I know some areas have laws mandating certain minimal coverages. I wonder if the insurers would even be allowed to issue policies that didn’t cover wildfires.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba?wprov=sfla1

TIL Lemmy zeitgeist says investment portfolios should be acts of passion.

I think it’s more about being able to play as the oppressed, and whip up their base. There have been many platforms where they could post their hate. Censoring speech just fuels outrage and invites the Streisand effect.

But in this case I don’t think Zuck really cares about enabling these right-wing messages. It’s about saving money by cutting a bunch of expensive fact checkers, and displaying friendliness toward the new president; either because they don’t want to be singled out for punishment, or they hope to be rewarded with some largess.

I really don’t think so. If the process was so simple as writing false or hurtful things, and then your political opponents are blocked from power, then why doesn’t the left just become a bunch of shitposters and kick all the fascists out?

I think a more plausible explanation for why the left has been excluded from power is simply that American politics runs on donor money, capitalists have lots of money, and they have a class interest in excluding the left. You can certainly get deeper than that, but that’s sort of the heart of the issue.

Note here that Zuck and Meta are capitalists, and were never going censor the narrative contrary to their interests.

I still think this whole idea that we were going to get big tech (or anyone really), as owners of the modern mediums of communication, to act as the arbiters of truth and harmful messages was always a ridiculous notion. It’s both not in their interests and not in their power.

The mainstream of the liberals and the left seem to have become so obsessed with policing speech that they’ve nearly completely given up on meaningfully improving the material conditions of people’s lives. You win the narrative by delivering real results that people can see and feel, not by trying to ban charlatans from spinning bullshit.

Change the world, and the narrative will follow. Not the other way around.

Utter nonsense

Maybe you’re not wrong, but at this point, that battle is long lost.

We should have culled all these cows, and kept culling them until nobody and nothing tested positive. And done it all a year ago. But apparently that was too hard, and now it’s really just luck whether this becomes the next global catastrophe.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/how-america-lost-control-of-the-bird-flu-and-raised-the-risk-of-another-pandemic

Not that I’m any kind of authority on the biases of publications, but I tend to think of ProPublica as more about investigative journalism than any political theory.

• Jacobin
• Mother Jones
• Democracy Now!

Just off the top of my head

Martial law?

Space marine 2 seems like a good example of this.

Single player campaign: mediocre

CoOp missions: mediocre

Competitive multiplayer: poor

Seems like dropping one of those might have allowed the remaining two to earn a “pretty good”