[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 14 points 11 hours ago

Lost in New Vegas.

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 34 points 11 hours ago

CosmicRaySort.

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 30 points 11 hours ago

"Tattoos. Coke. And chronic stress. These were the ingredients chosen to create the perfect line cooks. But Head Chef Marco accidentally added an extra ingredient to the concoction: Chemical Gay."

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 22 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

The deeply, deeply unfortunate parts of intelligence tests to vote are two-fold:

  • The first is that corrupt politicians use them as a cudgel to keep "the wrong people" from voting. This was seen during the US' Jim Crow era, where southern states had intelligence tests to vote. These were intentionally confusing, and – as intended – black voters would be turned away for ridiculous, ad hoc nonsense. Moreover, any degree of intelligence test we can come up with today will have some degree of bias to it. Even clinical intelligence tests which are written and administered by expert neuropsychologists to be as unbiased as possible show some level of cultural bias.
  • The second is that it's ultimately not fair to refuse someone a say in how their life is run. Literally every aspect of our lives is political, and to not give the poorly educated or the intellectually disabled a say in that is simply not conducive to a fair society. It can even further entrench uneducation by removing these people from a process which can give them the right to an education or to special needs protections within that education.

The problem I feel the DNC needs to own up to is that ultimately, it doesn't give the uneducated voters whose lives are worse off than they used to be a target to go after. They're (thankfully) not explicitly bigoted like the Republican Party blaming it on "the other", but they're also not speaking truth to power like they should be; platforming on radical, populist change; and aggressively blaming the real sources of the average American's problems. It's also hugely Republican stonewalling that prevents them from taking the fight to these powerful institutions, but we saw Harris for instance start courting voters by taking a pro-fracking stance, backing off of criticisms of corporate America (who most people fucking hate for some reason or another at this point), cozying up to extremely unpopular politicians like Liz Cheney, and backing off of the sort of populist rhetoric that wins votes in this climate.

Republicans are even more favorable to the institutions that ruin American lives than the Democrats are and are orders of magnitude worse than Democrats, but they give the average person something to divert their frustration toward. Whereas Democrats say "we have some policies to help somewhat improve your lives" while never giving them something to be angry at. And to be clear, the average American has a good goddamn reason to be angry. They're nauseatingly wrong to direct it to the places Trump wants them to and are creating their own and others' oppression, but their poor circumstances broadly are caused by systems which the typical "moderate", neoliberal Democrat kowtows to.

What we need to do is get out there as grassroots advocates and educate them not just about the issues, but about how they've been lied to by Republicans and (centrist) Democrats alike to work against their own interests. Some of them are truly beyond saving, but for the rest of them, we need to meet them where they're at, affirm their right to be angry and show them we are too, and unify. It'll be damn hard, but fascists win because they divide and conquer. Americans need a target, and instead of the ethnic, gender, and sexual minorities, there's an even better minority for them: the rich elite.

18
400

cross-posted from: https://thelemmy.club/post/18931801

Too bad they are missing their Christmas bonuses.

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 8 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

CoD is the common abbreviation for the first-person shooter Call of Duty, and they're definitely agreeing with you. Multiplayer lobbies for Call of Duty are notoriously toxic and bigoted.

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Pseudoscience. Kind of, anyway. Bears produce UCDA which itself has some medical uses, but not for "traditional Chinese medicine", which is largely rooted in pseudoscience.

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago

For those reading this, I have since re-opened the community. This post will remain locked, as I want zero harassment toward pinkdrunkenelephants.

27
submitted 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) by TheTechnician27@lemmy.world to c/vegan@lemmy.world

Fireworks are (often extremely) harmful to:

Even though those using them often justify that they don't care about the risk of damaging their own ears, eyes, brain, and extremities, fireworks also create massive negative externalities for the people and wildlife around them.

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago

I like to post a lot here about small issues/victories, and this is one of them.

  • It wears away at the status quo of using milk powder in potato chips.
  • It gives the dairy industry one fewer outlet to sell their cruel product.
  • It gives vegans more options, thereby making it an easier choice.
14

Be advised that some with milk powder are apparently still on store shelves, but these will eventually circulate through and be replaced with vegan ones.

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago

Hence "4+", because I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 172 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

When I told people that literally every aspect of life will be worse under Trump, I absolutely meant it. Republican poison will seep into literally every aspect of our lives. And this is exactly what I mean when I say "everything is political" to those who only single out a handful of hot-button issues as "political".

With the rise of fascism in the US, just keep "everything is political" in the back of your mind for the next 4+ years, and if you don't believe it by then, I don't know what to tell you.

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

When saying "Israel shouldn't commit genocide" is how you define "SJW shit" (stuck in 2014 with that terminology?), nobody here will take you seriously. (Before you answer that, by the way, understand this community has zero tolerance for genocide denial.)

Edit: maybe I phrased my comment poorly? I'm pointing out that they label people who acknowledge Israel's ongoing genocide of the Palestinians as "SJWs" – to show you how low their bar for "SJW" is.

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Yes exactly! The judiciary is infallible and so that's exactly why the SCOTUS is the least fallible institution there is.

216
28
75
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by TheTechnician27@lemmy.world to c/leopardsatemyface@lemmy.world
374
255
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by TheTechnician27@lemmy.world to c/leopardsatemyface@lemmy.world

Are we back a little too late? Maybe we're just on time with the US general election around the corner? Who knows! But we're back. Please check out the new sidebar. The community is no longer locked to moderators-only.

35
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by TheTechnician27@lemmy.world to c/leopardsatemyface@lemmy.world

I'm pretty sure this is common knowledge among Lemmy's politically engaged userbase, but with this community having been closed for eight months, I'll try to nail down a (verbose) definition here:

  • A person ("the victim") has been treated cruelly and unjustly.
  • The victim directly helped in advancing e.g. a statute, politician, philosophy, or organization ("the leopard(s)") via endorsement, voting, activism, etc.
  • The leopards have substantially harmed a group of people through cruel and unjust actions ("eaten their faces"), and there is a logical throughline from the leopards to the face-eating.
  • The victim knew or reasonably should have known that the leopards would eat people's faces if given the power to. They helped the leopards anyway because they're indifferent to or actively enjoy this group's suffering.
  • The victim is then shocked to find that the leopards have eaten their face as well ("I didn't think the leopards would eat MY face!"). Usually, any reasonable outside observer would have concluded that the victim was likely part of the group whose faces the leopards would eat.
  • A common element is a lack of an apology to anyone the leopards have hurt, tacitly indicating they haven't learned any real lesson in empathy and only care that they have now personally had their face eaten.
  • Another one is the (incorrect and denialist) belief by the victim that the leopards have simply eaten their face in error and need only be informed of their mistake to make it stop. (E.g. pleading on social media to a politician about their specific case).

A prototypical example:

>Adrian Personson relies on assistance they receive through Social Service. They endorse and vote for the Austerity Party – knowing one of their main promises is to slash spending by making sure Social Service doesn't go to the people who "don't deserve it". The Austerity Party wins against the Social Spending Party and ascends to power. To Adrian's shock, they receive a letter months later stating they've been cut off from Social Service. They take to social media to write an outraged post about how they're a good, honest person who doesn't deserve this.

719

Nothing helps stop Trump bleeding support from the senior woman demographic quite like a young whippersnapper punching a 70-year-old woman to the ground for her support of Harris.

215
view more: next ›

TheTechnician27

joined 3 months ago
MODERATOR OF