Blackbeard

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] [email protected] 5 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

I heard, "This...motherfu-- former president."

[–] [email protected] 3 points 21 hours ago

Just wanted to direct folks to [email protected], which is a brand new community for exactly these kinds of discussions. Cheers!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

We dont need congress to expand the SC court…

Literally all four of those options require legislation to move through the halls of Congress. Did you even read that source?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Removing for editorializing the title, and locked due to multiple violations of Lemmy's ToS.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The problem in NC might be atypical, though. State office pays $13,951 per year, and I'm not sure if that's comparable to other states but it damn sure isn't enough to entice anyone who isn't already independently wealthy (and who can take 6 months off per year and not lose their job).

To be sure, the NC Democratic Party is utter dogshit at recruiting new talent, but they're also fighting a seriously uphill battle in trying to find people who are willing to make literally below poverty level just to serve.

[–] [email protected] 73 points 6 days ago (4 children)

Wait, was he the good guy with a gun or the bad guy with a gun?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Well put. I'll also add that in left-leaning communities there's almost always more attention being paid to dark money flowing into our elections from groups like AIPAC than there is being paid to dark money flowing into our elections via third parties. Dark money is certainly a corrupting influence if it gets injected directly into the campaign process for one of the two major parties, but it's equally troublesome that third parties are frequently (if not always) funded from the ground up by an opposing party specifically for the purpose of ratfucking an election. Whether or not third parties are in on the game or simply willingly ignorant stooges, their effect is always the same. And the fact that they're essentially invisible except during presidential election cycles provides a strong bit of evidence for the latter.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 week ago (2 children)

When analysts first noticed Spamouflage five years ago, the network tended to post generically pro-China, anti-American content. In recent years, the tone sharpened as Spamouflage expanded and began focusing on divisive political topics like gun control, crime, race relations and support for Israel during its war in Gaza. The network also began creating large numbers of fake accounts designed to mimic American users.

Spamouflage accounts don't post much original content, instead using platforms like X or TikTok to recycle and repost content from far-right and far-left users. Some of the accounts seemed designed to appeal to Republicans, while others cater to Democrats.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I argued against the bot for a week. I hated the damn thing, and I pointed to the negative feedback as evidence in my discussions. I also held off on making sweeping assessments or making any rushed decisions because a vote manipulation ring was simultaneously uncovered, and we had no idea how deep the manipulation went. Could the feedback have been manipulated? No idea! Should we go by votes only? No idea!

I took the time to let the team read the feedback and discuss the costs and benefits, and in the end the votes were only part of the picture. Another part is the visceral commitment of a vocal minority to overwhelming the community with commentary (and reports) to such an extent that the people who are calm and supportive get drowned out and downvoted, along with anyone who happens to agree with them. Not entirely sure those folks have committed as much energy to downvoting every critical comment as was the case on the other side though.

The team took 12 days to work through disagreements (there were many) so we could come to a consensus position, and lo and behold, the bot is gone. The fact that the people who want the bot gone feel like they're being dismissed is flabbergasting to me. It's gone. Mission accomplished!

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 week ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Yeah, we were told they disrupted a downvote ring. I have no fucking idea where those accounts voted, except that we took vote totals with a grain of salt because we were in the dark. I'm frankly used to being bombarded with downvotes every time i comment in this community (edit: One person went out of their way to downvote each of my last 7 comments, for example.). So in my eyes, votes were (and continue to be) compromised, and we were informed about the ring while we were deliberating bot feedback. I tried to connect the dots with incomplete information because I'm not an admin. What else are you looking for here?

5
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

After a bit of discussion with @laverabe, we've agreed to update the sidebar with a more specific rule set. We have about 2 decades of moderation experience between us, and we're more or less on the same page about how to kick-start the community and get things rolling.

To put it simply, we are significantly less interested in enforcing our rules on opinions or content than we are on behavior and your treatment of others. Barring truly horrific opinions (which probably violate Lemmy's ToS in the first place), we're open to any and all perspectives, no matter how tasteless, crass, or toxic other people may believe them to be. There is no shortage of people on the left who think people on the right should be censored, just as there's no shortage of people on the right who think people on the left should be censored. We will not censor opinions because they're liberal, conservative, libertarian, egalitarian, utilitarian, humanitarian, Rastafarian, muggle, sith, Borg, etc. We will remove content that's abusive. So just don't be an asshole and everything will be peachy.

This forum is not meant to be focused on any particular topic or region, but we reserve the right to remove content on the rare occasion that it doesn't suit the purpose of the community. Given that nearly everything is political nowadays, that might be an entirely moot point, but just in case we ask that you not post lasagna recipes, driving directions, product reviews, or other unrelated stuff.

Content Rules:

  1. Self posts only.
  2. Opinion pieces and editorials are allowed on a case by case basis.
  3. No spam or self promotion.
  4. Do not post grievances about other communities or their moderators.

Commentary Rules

  1. ~~Obey the golden rule: treat others as you would like to be treated.~~ Don't be a jerk or prevent honest discussion.
  2. Stay on topic.
  3. Don’t criticize the person, criticize the argument.
  4. Provide credible sources whenever possible.
  5. Report bad behavior, please don’t retaliate. Reciprocal bad behavior will reflect poorly on both parties.
  6. Seek rule enforcement clarification via private message, not in comment threads.
  7. Abide by Lemmy's terms of service (attacks on other users, privacy, discrimination, etc).

Please upvote/downvote based on quality of contribution to the discussion, not based on whether or not you agree with the post or comment.

Since our rules are new, we'll probably issue a lot of warnings in the early stages. We're not expecting to issue any bans unless something is truly out of bounds and unproductive. We're also just humans who have actual jobs, so we just don't have time to babysit folks who can't be cooperative.

Please provide your thoughts on anything you think should be more or less specific, as well as added or removed. We can't promise that we'll see eye to eye, but we'll make every effort to help you understand where we're coming from and how we see the community developing.

Edit: Updated rule 1 to be more specific, in case someone decided to be rude because they get their rocks off by fighting.

 

The Federal Reserve is ready to cut interest rates, confident that inflation is easing to normal levels and wary of any more slowing in the job market.

“The time has come for policy to adjust,” Fed Chair Jerome H. Powell said Friday, in his most anticipated speech of the year. “The direction of travel is clear.”

Powell did not specify a timeline, or forecast how much Fed leaders were preparing to lower rates. But his remarks came as close as possible to teeing up a cut at the Fed’s next policy meeting in mid-September. Rates currently sit between 5.25 and 5.5 percent, where they have remained since July 2023. The open question now is whether officials will opt for a more aggressive cut next month — a half-point instead of a more typical quarter-point.

 

On the final, and most anticipated, night of the four-day Chicago convention, Harris, 59, promised to chart a "New Way Forward" as she and Trump, 78, enter the final 11 weeks of the razor-close campaign.

After days of protests from Palestinian supporters who were disappointed at not getting a speaking spot at the convention, Harris delivered a pledge to secure Israel, bring the hostages home from Gaza and end the war in the Palestinian enclave.

"Now is the time to get a hostage deal and a ceasefire deal done," she said to cheers. "And let me be clear, I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself."

"What has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating. So many innocent lives lost, desperate hungry people fleeing for safety over and over again. The scale of suffering is heartbreaking," she said.

 

They said tens of thousands of protesters would be here. They claimed they would “shut down the DNC for Gaza.” Like the Chicago riots during the 1968 Democratic convention, their demonstrations would snarl the city, shake the party and doom the candidacy of “Genocide Joe.”

Then came Kamala Harris — and the protest fizzled.

Organizers anticipated there would be 30,000 to 40,000 protesters on hand for Monday’s kickoff. But only a few thousand showed up; police estimated 3,500

 

In December 2022, early into what he now describes as his political journey, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut gave a speech warning his fellow Democrats that they were ignoring a crisis staring them in the face.

The subject of the speech was what Mr. Murphy called the imminent “fall of American neoliberalism.” This may sound like strange talk from a middle-of-the-road Democratic senator, who up until that point had never seemed to believe that the system that orders our world was on the verge of falling. He campaigned for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders during the 2016 primaries, and his most visible political stance up until then was his work on gun control after the Sandy Hook shooting.

Thoughtful but prone to speaking in talking points, he still comes off more like a polished Connecticut dad than a champion of the disaffected. But Mr. Murphy was then in the full flush of discovering a new way of understanding the state of the nation, and it had set him on a journey that even he has struggled sometimes to describe: to understand how the version of liberalism we’d adopted — defined by its emphasis on free markets, globalization and consumer choice — had begun to feel to many like a dead end and to come up with a new vision for the Democratic Party.

...

Mr. Murphy is a team player and has publicly been fully supportive of Ms. Harris, but he also wants Democrats to squarely acknowledge the crisis he believes the country is facing and to offer a vision to unmake the “massive concentration of corporate power” that he thinks is the source of these feelings of helplessness and hopelessness. Only by offering a “firm break” with the past, he believes, can Democrats compete with Republicans like JD Vance, who, with outlines like Project 2025, have a plan to remake American statecraft in their image and who are campaigning on a decisive break with the status quo.

Academics, think tanks and magazines are buzzing with conversations about how to undo the damage wrought by half a century of misguided economic policies. On the right, that debate has already spilled out into the public view. But on the center-left, at least, very few politicians seem to be aware of this conversation — or at least willing to talk about it in front of voters.

 

Since 2008, Congress, with bipartisan support, has spent billions on rental aid for unhoused veterans and cut their numbers by more than half, as overall homelessness has grown. Celebrated by experts and managed by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the achievement has gained oddly little public notice in a country in need of broader solutions.

Progress in the veterans program has slowed as rising rents displace more tenants and make it harder to help them regain housing. But while homelessness among veterans rose last year, the increase was smaller than other groups faced. Admirers say the program’s superior performance, even in a punishing rental market, offers a blueprint for helping others and an answer to the pessimism in the debate over reducing homelessness.


As concerns about returning service members grew during wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Congress in 2008 revived a pilot program, called HUD-VASH, that pairs vouchers from the housing department with case management from the veterans department. Voucher holders pay 30 percent of their income for rent, while the federal government covers the rest up to a local ceiling.

After expanding the program every year, Congress has created about 110,000 vouchers, meaning veterans have much shorter waits for rental aid than other homeless groups. The vouchers cost more than $900 million a year.

“The fundamental reason why homelessness among veterans has fallen so much is that Congress has provided resources,” Mr. Kuhn said.

Notably, the rental aid comes with no conditions: Services like drug treatment or mental health care are offered but not required. That approach, called Housing First, once enjoyed bipartisan support but has recently drawn conservative critics who say it promotes self-destructive behavior.

 

The state Board of Elections voted to authorize the alternative We the People party, allowing presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to appear on North Carolina ballots in November.

The Board rejected with a 3-2 vote along party lines the Justice for All party, Cornel West’s alternative party. Democrats rejected the Justice for All attempt to become a recognized party in part over questions about signatures on its petitions.

Tuesday’s votes came after weeks of deliberations, a request from Democrats on the board for an investigation into the petition efforts, and pressure from state and congressional Republicans to have both parties approved.

 

Republican-appointed leaders of the Environmental Management Commission have twice declined to advance proposed rules that would restrict industry’s release of some “forever” chemical pollution into drinking water supplies across North Carolina.

To further complicate things, the groundwater committee also asked DEQ to remove five of the eight chemicals from the list of what it wants to regulate.

An increasingly frustrated DEQ Secretary Elizabeth Biser, appointed by Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, said the commission is stalling full committee evaluation of the new rules, a departure from previous practices. “I hate to say that it wasn’t a huge surprise that they once again found reasons to move the goalposts and to not take action. It’s very frustrating,” Biser said.

 

After last week’s debate disaster, some Democrats are trying to circle the wagons to protect President Biden, noting that Barack Obama lost his first debate as an incumbent president, too.

But this one doesn’t pass the smell test. Mr. Obama wasn’t 81 years old at the time of his debate debacle. And he came into the debate as a strong favorite in the election, whereas Mr. Biden was behind (with just a 35 percent chance of winning).

A 35 percent chance is not nothing. But Mr. Biden needed to shake up the race, not just preserve the status quo. Instead, he’s dug himself a deeper hole.

Looking at polls beyond the straight horse-race numbers between Mr. Biden and Donald Trump — ones that include Democratic Senate candidate races in close swing-state races — suggests something even more troubling about Mr. Biden’s chances, but also offers a glimpse of hope for Democrats.

 

President Biden’s policy agenda is incredibly popular, much more popular than his opponent’s. But Biden the man? Not so much.

The question now is whom to blame for the approval gap between the president and his agenda: voters, the media or Biden himself.

Democrats have long argued that their policies are more popular than those of Republicans. In a recent blind test conducted by YouGov, that was unmistakably true. The polling organization asked Americans what they thought about major policies proposed by Biden and Donald Trump without specifying who proposed them. The idea was to see how the public perceived ideas when stripped of tribal associations.

Biden’s agenda was the winner, hands down.

Of the 28 Biden proposals YouGov asked about, 27 were supported by more people than opposed them. Impressively, 24 received support from more than 50 percent of respondents.

 

Mod has been inactive for a year, and I’d like to take it over and help it generate more traffic.

 

The frequency and magnitude of extreme wildfires around the globe has doubled in the last two decades due to climate change, according to a study released Monday.

The analysis, published in the journal “Nature Ecology & Evolution,” focused on massive blazes that release vast amounts of energy from the volume of organic matter burned. Researchers pointed to the historic Australia fires of 2019 and 2020 as an example of blazes that were “unprecedented in their scale and intensity.” The six most extreme fire years have occurred since 2017, the study found.

view more: next ›