Here is a list of things that you really would have expected to have radicalized me more.
Wheaties
joined 3 years ago
Although my prefrerrd candidate, Eugene McCarthy, won by far the largest percentage of the popular vote in the Democratic general primaries—approximately 3 million or 38.7% to Humphrey’s 161 thousand or 2.1% in a crowded field of candidates—Humphrey didn’t even bother to enter some of the state primaries. Nonetheless, party officials gave Humphrey the right to carry the Democratic banner as its presidential nominee.
It did this by awarding Humphrey the vast majority of overall delegates in the non-primary states, thereby bringing him over the top in terms of the number of delegates needed. Talk about “rigged elections”!
There's also this. The entire thing is him describing the democrats as party that would prefer to loose by drifting to the right, rather than utilize its left flank.
:socialism-beer:
Woah, imagine just rejecting a leader put forward by a democratically elected coalition
:macron: 
isn't it basically all of them except Shatner and Stewart? Star Trek is usually a career-ender for acting. Luckily, it's also the start of a new career; talking at conventions.
Compare this to Sword Art Online Abridged, which just ends up being better written than actual Sword Art Online
Ok, PBS isn't great but they at least show the tanks drivers didn't run the guy over? Right?
To say nothing of the backlash from Kira being a self-described terrorist
Mexico banned corn syrup from their foodstufs and has thus lost a billion points on the Freedom Index®
The trick is to replace Luthor and try to mainstream a slightly cooler version of Protestantism. If you let that one monarch do divorce, then you can render the whole Anglican Church inert.
Yeah, I pick up a lot of this reading and listening to Penrose.
I kinda think about it like the evolution of eyes. So, for a while creationists liked to point to eyes and say, "how could such a structure slowly evolve, what good is half an eye?" and of course the answer is, "far preferable to no eye whatsoever." And there's evidence of development from rudimentary sensitivity to electromagnetism, gradually improving with lenses and pin-hole apertures and colour specific structures.
So... I think about sentience in that same means of gradually increasing complexity. Cus like you can say a brain is integral, but how does it start? Where doe the phenomenon actually begin? I think it makes sense to suppose some equivalent to that patch of photo-sensitivity that eventually becomes an eye. Microtubuals pose the most likely candidate for that role, though yeah it's still tentative. And... if we're gonna assume some minimal level of awareness, I don't think it's that big of a stretch to suppose it exists in things that react to their environment.
And that's where the similarity to pan-psychism ends. Why should I make that assumption for a virus or a rock or a hydrogen atom? Those aren't cells. They don't react to their environment or reproduce on their own. A universe where those things are conscious would be functionally identical to one where they aren't.
Invasive mice are devouring albatrosses alive on a remote island in the Indian Ocean, so conservationists have come up with an explosive solution — "bombing" the mice.
Mice have been wreaking havoc on Marion Island, between South Africa and Antarctica, for decades. Humans accidentally introduced the mice in the 19th century, and the rodents have since developed a taste for wandering albatrosses (Diomedea exulans) and other threatened seabirds.
The Mouse-Free Marion Project, a collaboration between the South African government and BirdLife South Africa, is trying to raise $29 million to drop 660 tons (600 metric tons) of rodenticide-laced pellets onto the island in winter 2027, AFP news agency reported on Saturday (Aug. 24).
The project plans to send a squad of helicopters to drop the pellets. By striking in winter when the mice are most hungry, the conservationists hope to eradicate the entire mouse population of up to 1 million individuals.
113
it's important to understand how shame and guilt actually work before you try to use it for good.
(hexbear.net)
Not that anybody asked, but I think it's important to understand how shame and guilt actually work before you try to use it for good.
It's a necessary emotion. There are reasons we have it. It makes everything so. much. worse. when you use it wrong.
Shame and guilt are DE-motivators. They are meant to stop behavior, not promote it. You cannot, ever, in any meaningful way, guilt someone into doing good. You can only shame them into not doing bad.
Let's say you're a parent and your kid is having issues.
Swearing in class? Shame could work. You want them to stop it. Keep it in proportion, and it might help. (KEEP IT IN PROPORTION!!!)
Not doing their homework? NO! STOP! NO NOT DO THAT! EVER! EVER! EVER! You want them to start to do their homework. Shaming them will have to opposite effect! You have demotivated them! They will double down on NOT doing it. Not because they are being oppositional, but because that's what shame does!
You can't guilt people into building better habits, being more successful, or getting more involved. That requires encouragement. You need to motivate for that stuff!
If you want it in a simple phrase:
You can shame someone out of being a bad person, but you can't shame them into being a good person.
It was nice to see this put so clearly. This election cycle has left me exhausted and demotivated, and this hits it square on the head.
stolen from https://grungekitty-77.tumblr.com/post/754482938951892992/fun-fact-that-was-literally-what-inspired-me-to
96
International Court of Justice says Israel’s presence in Palestinian territory is unlawful
(www.aljazeera.com)
view more: next ›
my ability to order water pistols on Alibaba, however, will ensure otherwise 🔫