Maybe, just maybe, liberal democracies need to do a better job solving problems for constituents and less time fellating billionaires.
That might help.
I mean, when I see a right-wing populist telling me they can fix all my problems, I know they’re a lying, opportunistic piece of shit, but I can also see the appeal because at least they’re saying that there’s problems and that they’ll do something, which is more than milquetoast centrists will do.
Way to go, Bibi. Putting all of Israel and every member of the Jewish diaspora at risk just to save your corrupt political skin.
Oh, and killing tens of thousands of innocent people.
Again, it’s “Don’t quote the troll”. Some of us learned this in Usenet in the 1990s.
Saying “This is bullshit” or “You’re weird” without engaging with their ideas stops the contagion from spreading.
It is, though. Studies in disinformation have proven this. This is why right-wing bullshitters are so eager to engage in debate: just getting the chance to show up and be refuted in a legitmate setting, like a major newspaper, gives them an audience for the ideas and credibility, that their position is one worthy of refute.
This is how we got the alt-right in 2015: by taking neo-Nazis seriously.
This is what the media doesn’t understand, and why fact-checkers are getting–correctly–rolled on social media. Every time you bring up one of these lies, even to fact check it–especially to fact-check it–you give it credibility.
This is why the Harris/Walz campaign’s tactic of ridicule is working so well. Instead of saying “No, you’re wrong about XXX because YYYY and ZZZZ”, they’re saying “What is wrong with you? You’re weird.” The latter doesn’t give the lie any oxygen.
“Liberal” doesn’t mean what many people think it means.
It doesn’t mean “leftist” or “progressive” or “humane”. There might be some overlap, but these are not the same things, despite conservatives trying to define them as such.
Yes it is.
You might not wish it to be, but fact-checking absolutely does amplify fake news, especially if you give details.
A simple “this story is bullshit” is all that’s needed
And now you, the mainstream media, are amplifying it and giving it oxygen.
It’s like y’all never learned the old Usenet adage: “don’t feed (quote) the trolls”.
You really should read Karl Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance to understand why this is important, and why “the only way to counter speech is with more speech” isn’t just wrong, it’s actually counterproductive.
Here’s the short version, if it helps.
You already won the election. You don’t need to try so hard to be “not Jeremy Corbyn” any more.
“If everyone is covered in mud, it makes it less obvious that you’re covered in shit.”
This is Liz and her cohort trying to “both sides!!” away the behaviour they incited.
It’s crab-bucket PR: if they can get enough of the media saying how bad the left is, it makes the right-wing pogroms less horrifying.
Trump did the same thing post-Charlottesville, conflating BLM and Antifa with the rich-setting, “Jews will not replace us” chanting, protestor-merdering neo-nazis who supported him.
The UK already had the BBC; maybe this would make a good adjunct service the Beeb could offer? Sort of like the social media equivalent of iPlayer.
Every UK citizen can get an account.
I really wish Bluesky could federate with other Mastodon servers.
Also, fuck Threads.
Literally or figuratively?
Both sides!!!
/s
And this is why the rich are trying so hard to get right wing governments elected worldwide.
They know they’re running out of runway, and the next few years could be their last chance.
I’m not saying the usual crop of centrist ditherers are great, but they’re better than fascists bought and paid for by tax dodging tech bros.
I’m sure we’re not very far from Erdogan blaming a minority and maybe stirring up a small war.
There’s a manual somewhere; “Despotism for Dummies” I think.
You couldn’t throw a ball without hitting something branded as “Open” in that era.
Does this represent a taxable benefit for Trump’s campaign?
Stable means different things in different contexts.
Debian being stable is like RHEL being stable. You’re not jury talking about “doesn’t crash”, you’re talking about APIS, behaviours, features and such being assured not to change.
That’s not necessarily a good thing for a general purpose desktop, but for an enterprise workstation or server, yes.
So it’s not so much that Debian would replace Fedora, it’s the Debian would replace RHEL or CentOS. For a Fedora equivalent, there’s Ubuntu and the like.
Hello there, fellow Ontarian!
In seriousness, Ford is a great example of my point because he talks to how people feel. It doesn’t matter that it’s bullshit at best or whitewashing of his latest grift at worst, he’s at least acknowledging enough voters’ concerns and fears, and while tossing a bauble here or there (eg, booze in corner stores, buck a beer) to look like he’s doing something for the common person.
His opposition doesn’t do this. Stiles gets ignored, and Crombie just seems like a weak Ford impersonator.
The polticial left needs to do better. Yes that would probably mean getting called socialist, but since that’ll happen anyway they may as well own it.