This is an interview with Sanders’ chief campaign strategist about his new book dissecting the 2016 primary. If you don’t care about it then fine, whatever. But you’re clearly commenting on what you imagine the article is, not what it actually is
The article is really about how the situation informs the current landscape and strategy for 2026 and 2028, but I guess you didn’t read it before commenting
You could pick any day in the last 200 years and say that [US President] was trying to [do something to foreign nation]. It means nothing
He had a theory based on spying on someone’s underwear and turning them on with a shirt, so i actually don’t respect that
I wonder if blind people read ado as just ado? What?
Terms like Foid and Maxxing come directly from incel communities.
It’s shitty but also interesting how these places outreach themselves in terms of spreading language, there was a Behind The Bastards episode on it recently I think
In Wales and Ireland the native languages were deliberately subjugated, and are only recently being deliberately re-prioritised. It’s a sore point among both populaces
So to compare the amount of speakers pre and post language erasure isn’t that helpful I don’t think
Did HTTYD ever stop? I think they just did a live action version
People say this a lot but it’s just not true
Well, they did learn from their mistakes. Most of the time these stories are like ‘it affects me now so I’m against it now’, but these people took that selfish starting point and unpacked all the fox propaganda and how it all happened
It is a cult; but some people leave cults
I get that we all have to be really sceptical of ‘reformed’ Magas. Most of them will just be rats fleeing the sinking ship, with no actual reflection or admitted culpability
But at the same time, I’ve marched with a block of skinhead ex-nazis who were violently opposed to racism now. People do change sometimes - people are able to unpick the propaganda they once bought into and grow
So scepticism, absolutely. But a life-long condemnation of anyone who ever bought into Fox News, without exception, is not the way to go
His great grandson Kermit Roosevelt III is alive today, and writes law novels
I got my last 10 bucks on you! No, don’t look at me! Run! No, don’t come over here…
We’ve never been as two-party solidified as the US and our system isn’t thaaat similar really imo
They elect the president by state, with senate and house seats separately
We elect our priminister by voting in mps in constituencies and then the leader whichever party if any has enough mps to vote down the other members is the prime minister
It’s more like, for the US, if the leader of whichever party wins the most members of Congress appoints the president but there’s way more congressmen and smaller constituencies and the senate isn’t a thing
We’ve had hung parliaments and coalition governments - both recently and in the 40s, 10s, etc - and that just doesn’t exist in the US
Don’t get me wrong, our version of FPTP is bollocks and leans toward a two party system, it sucks
But I don’t think it’s really comparable to the US
Why should the lemmy.world instance of comicstrips be censored when you can make a new instance like “safestripsforgoodboysandgirls” instead of fucking over the larger community?
If most people here are in favour of it, then that’s why.
And then you can leave and make a new instance with your preferred amount of bigotry
If I step into your group of friends one evening and start an unprompted 4 hour lecture on 17th Century Agriculture, would it be censorship if you asked me to leave?
Small communities are allowed to curate themselves. It’s not censorship without that power dynamic, and on some level you yourself must understand this since your go-to comparison was ‘billion dollar fossil fuel advocates’
Because a comics sub on Lemmy is not the government or a church or any other powerful organisation that has any reach beyond itself
It’s a small community of people who are allowed to decide not to welcome bigotry
I think a different comic could put out something similar with just a few changes and make the point that you’re getting at
This one though, hard disagree. Like, the way the second woman is a ridiculous over masculine troll makes it seem that the butt of the joke isn’t the company using these objectifying policies but instead the woman herself, no longer an object of attraction for the man
If women are attractive, they’re trying to exploit you. And if they’re not seductive, they’re monstrous and masculine.
Rather than being a critique of the manufacture of non-intrinsic characteristics, the comic instead mocks those characteristics
And you’re maybe right in that I’m biased to read it that way because of the artist, but at the same time knowing how the artist normally portrays gender and sexual politics makes this the obvious reading and hos audience knows this
I do not care about your opinion on an article you haven’t read
My point here has never been defending the article. It’s that you shouldn’t make wrong assumptions based on headlines and comment based on those. It’s bad form