I blame the owners of news and social media. How can people make good decisions if they can’t perceive reality?

Don’t worry Rand Paul, your masters control the news and social media so it won’t happen. They’ll just keep a majority of people in an illusionary dream world.

Just a silly joke of course. Gallows humor. In order to combat climate change you’d have to re-design how we live and work and our economic system and reset existing wealth inequalities, re-design and rebuild thousands of industrial processes, and change multiple systems that are in place. For example you’d at least have to:

1. Ban advertising to reduce desire/demand for consumption
2. Ban patents (at least in the current form) so industrial processes can be re-designed and rebuild without roadblocks
3. Nationalize news and social media and turn them into a cooperative under the control of the workers there
4. Invest into R&D for circular economy and development and regulation for long lasting appliances and goods that last decades with repair and maintenance

Basically what we learned is that it’s practically impossible for humanity as a global civilization to stop climate change. Most people can’t even bear to think about the steps it would take.

Of course, developing the technology for a sustainable circular economy for the basic needs (food, energy, education, building shelters, communication etc) is still worthwhile.

Ironically crashing the economy is one of the best things you can do to slow down climate change

Basically amps is capped at 5 ampere, so it’s watts / 5. So for 20V you need 100 watt. USB Power Delivery specification revision 2.0 does up to 240W with 48V which is pretty awesome.

I’d love a 20V battery for power tools that just has a USB3 plug instead of special chargers.

Haha I imagine they need at least unique ip addresses to count. Now I wonder if for clicks to count you need to properly click through and load the target website with the same “browser fingerprint”.

Interesting, was wondering about this. This would also “help” the websites with more ad income right?

I thought the republicans only had to threaten a filibuster but didn’t actually have to do it. But democrats have to do it live?

So if some actor complains about something deplorable, and then there is a huge manufactured fake backlash, is it always ok to write “The actor created controversy by…”?

Lets make your argument more absurd and say there is a hypothetical problem with boots stomping on faces. All day and night these people would randomly pick certain people and start to stomp on their faces. Hypothetically it’s recently been legalized by Trump via executive order.

Is complaining about that creating controversy? Is there any line of deplorable, morally unacceptable behavior that would shift the framing from “creating controversy by complaining” to “spoke out and became a victim of a manufactured outrage by fascists”?

My problem is with the framing and how we’re accepting fascism as legitimate, while hiding the backlash is fake, immoral and baseless. This is the opposite of accepting reality and fighting back. It’s accepting fascism as something that we must respect and tolerate.

I think by now it’s mostly driven by social media which is international in algorithm, access to influence and partly in content. Or useful propaganda is repackaged by european politicians and influences. Monkey see monkey do. And we only have 3 international news agencies, so only really 3 news papers.

As always America is at forefront of the world, and where the USA leads Europe will follow! 😒

The USA would need a reformation and political purge after Trump to become a first world democratic country again. And put a lot of these motherfuckers into prison for life via special tribunals. Including half the supreme court lol

Trump says shit all day like a fire hose just to spread terror and keep everyone muddied. But he’s old and will die sooner than later. The question is if MAGA manages to continue his style.

The other, lesser known Hindenburg disaster is coming. Cue for democratic leaders to talk about how such acts of terrorism absolutely mustn’t be tolerated!

They’ll either keep it quite or make a huge investigation and issue out of this.

That is not how “controversy” is used in the article though. The way the article phrases it “Zegler also stoked controversy…” frames it as a valid point of her doing something controversial - or problematic.

I’d bet you could find actual historic precedence for this. Imagine a german actress making her voice heard in the weimarer republic about the rising power of the NAZI party. Back then, people didn’t know where hate speech would lead. But now we know.

Hate speech must be opposed (see Paradox of Tolerance). If you accept it you help the fascists. There is no valid opinion except opposing it, so it is not controversial. There was no discussion that can be called a discussion. It’s just an attack by fascists.

At least on those two points. It is absolutely VITAL that we call out news media that are supposedly neutral like the BBC. If they accept fascist talking point as a valid opinion in discussion, we have already lost.

This is what I was referring to:

Zegler also stoked controversy with her views after the 2024 US presidential election. Writing on Instagram, she said she hoped “Trump voters and Trump himself never know peace”.

BBC simply shouldn’t take the critique coming from fascists seriously, it legitimizes it as two valid viewpoints.

The article mentions the “shade” but it seems she only commented on the elements of stalking and I guess you can also throw in the somewhat necrophiliac element of the prince kissing her presumably dead corpse lol.

But Snow White is based on a Grimm’s fairy tale anyway, which are quite bloody and cruel and far from the sweet Disney movies, and they also contain centuries of storytelling condensing a cultural subconsciousness and dreams. Disney was always more shallow entertainment going with the times. Enchanted is completely bonkers too but really amazing movie. So it’s all bullshit asking a remake to “stay true”.

PS: Holy shit 1.6/10 on IMDB, the trolls are really mobilizing. It’s like a weird “undead internet” where a large enough mass of people have been taken over by a hivemind to make things like democratic ratings irrelevant.

Nah the next president of the USA would just get the nobel peace price for not being Trump lol. Remember Iraq and Afghanistan?

Seriously? With everything going on this is what people want to rage about? How disconnected do you have to be?

I mean casting her is obvious bait by the producers. But the BBC calling her comments “controversial”? That’s problematic at least. She opposed genocide and illegal occupation and opposed an authoritarian strongman gaining power. That is not a controversial comment in a liberal democracy and the founding values of the western democracy. That BBC article is garbage.