Skip Navigation
  • That’s it. Neither party will do it, therefore neither represents the people.

    Except that's not actually true. There's one party that's unanimously against a ceasefire, and one party that's split. If more people voted for the party that's partly for a ceasefire, maybe the pro-ceasefire side would get a majority in government. Problem is, of the people that want a ceasefire, very few vote or they protest vote instead of picking people who can actually move the needle.

  • SSDE
  • That's pretty misleading because it depends on what you mean by "the people". And the more complicated, less-emotionally satisfying reality is that both candidates were essentially chosen by different groups of "the people" in contested primary elections in 2016 and 2020. The system is inefficient and in fact designed to uphold the status quo, but still allows people to change it. And trying to change it by voting is a far more effective strategy than not participating and hoping the extremely status-quo biased corporate media somehow gives you attention and takes your side as a result.

  • Zelenskyy says Ukraine has taken back control in areas of Kharkiv region, aerial attacks continue
  • I've been using which has proven accurate and reasonably up to date in the past. When things are moving fast though it may fall behind.

    There's a bit of uncertainty principle at work. The more accurate the data, the less up to date it's gonna be.

  • Meme Manager needed...
  • If you want an honest answer, it's because for every 1 of the "stop the genocide" people, there's 2 people who support Israel's campaign to bomb Palestine. Mainly because Hamas is often seen as representing the Palestinian people and have done everything in their power to destroy sympathy for Palestinians, and secondarily because US-based advocates for a free Palestine have used methods that seem primarily designed to piss people off like setting up camps in public spaces and accusing random passers-by of partaking in genocide.

    Source: Even after a shift away from Israel, only 37% think the US should even encourage Israel to stop the campaign. To me military aid to Israel makes exactly zero sense. But I also live in reality, and cutting off aid entirely would be political suicide until advocates for it do a better job of actually being convincing.

  • Meme Manager needed...
  • Young people: "Please provide an alternative to Democrats who are moving too slowly to help minorities and the poor"
    Trump campaign: "We need plans for a christofascist oligarchy literally run by a billionaire and his spoiled kids"

  • Someone stop the ride, I want to get off
  • I deleted this comment because I realized I don't actually wanna take part in an extremely tribal ethno-religious debate. I'll just say the following things everyone should agree on:

    • Any government anywhere that holds one ethnicity or religion above another is fundamentally wrong and oppressive
    • Everyone who minds their own business has a right to be safe from violence
    • Maximizing good things and minimizing bad things is good, obviously. But this also applies to voting.
  • [serious] If Project 2025 becomes a reality. Would you fight in a civil war?
  • According to wikipedia:

    Under a minimalist definition of democracy, rulers are elected through competitive elections while more expansive definitions link democracy to guarantees of civil liberties and human rights in addition to competitive elections.

    Feel free to edit if you disagree.

  • Don't worry, I'm sure you'll be privileged and safe
  • How would they know that? Why wouldn't they take the opposite lesson, and assume that Biden losing is because of opposition to perceived liberalism in the Biden administration and support of Trump's alt-right policies?

    Because that's certainly what Trump's gonna be claiming in his victory speech. "Today we won a great victory over the woke leftists who want to poison our blood..."

  • Students walk out during Jerry Seinfeld’s commencement speech at Duke
  • Chappelle I'll grant you, but I'd put Chappelle in the category with Seinfeld of a once super-popular comedian who has passed his prime, and now just shakes his cane at Gen Z in frustration instead of creating new material.

    As for Bill Burr and John Stewart:
    Bill Burr Stuns Bill Maher by Declaring Cancel Culture ‘Over’
    Jon Stewart Is "So Fucking Sick" of "Anti-Woke" Culture: "I've Lost Two Words in 35 Years"

    There's a difference between thinking cancel culture has gone too far and complaining endlessly that it has "ruined comedy". One is an opinion, the other is an excuse.

  • Students walk out during Jerry Seinfeld’s commencement speech at Duke
  • I mean to be honest, yes. How many times have you seen someone really laugh their ass off at George Carlin? Being an edgelord doesn't mean you're wrong necessarily, it means you're being edgy for being edgy's sake. And that was kind of Carlin's thing. The joy you get from watching 7 Dirty Words is more from watching something bordering on an act of civil disobedience than from any actual ha-ha-funny stuff in the routine.

  • Students walk out during Jerry Seinfeld’s commencement speech at Duke
  • I can't help but notice all the comedians who complain about society being took woke for comedy are has-beens. John Stewart's back to crushing it at the Daily Show, is he complaining? No, it's only the guys who've run out of material and have nothing left to do but shake their canes at gen Z kids.

    I challenge anyone to go to the "good old days" and find me a comedian who was actually funny and not just being an edgelord. You know who the most popular comedian was in the 80s? Andrew Dice Clay. That's right. That's was peak comedy, dirty nursery rhymes. Sure, I get that some people are nostalgic. But let's be serious for a minute - do we really wanna go back to that kind of comedic void?

    Society hasn't gotten too woke, rather comedic standards have evolved to the point where merely being offensive in itself no longer counts as comedy.

  • Blocking users is easy

    Being a mod carries great powers and pretty much no responsibility.

    New rule: multiple rule violations results in a ban. Applies ex post facto.

    Is it dumb to create a wiki in this day and age?

    I have a vague idea to create a wiki for politics-related data. Basically, I'm annoyed with how low-effort, entirely un-researched content dominates modern politics. I think a big part of the problem is that modern political figures use social media platforms that are hostile to context and citing sources.

    So my idea for a solution is to create a wiki where original research is not just allowed but encouraged. For example, you could have an article that's a breakdown of the relative costs to society of private vs public transportation, with calculations and sources and tables and whatnot. It wouldn't exactly be an argument, but all the data you'd need to make one. And like wikipedia, anyone can edit it, allowing otherwise massive research tasks to be broken up.

    The problem is - who creates a wiki nowadays? It feels like getting such a site and community up and running would be hopeless in a landscape dominated by social media. Will this be a pointless waste of time? Is there a more modern way to do this? All thoughts welcome.

    InitialsDiceBear„Initials” ( by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (
    Posts 3
    Comments 156