My issue with ground news is it doesn’t give any weight to funding sources when making its’ bias ratings, which makes it easy for billionaire-funded media conglomerates with a “neutral and unbiased” front to fly under the radar.

I believe there are a lot of government orgs that could be forces for good if they weren’t completely at the mercy of powerful corporations.

I wish for once I could just have a civil conversation about my views without people immediately jumping down my throat and accusing me of being a CCP or Russian shill, or a dirty liberal, or a filthy communist. This is what I’m talking about when I say I just end up getting shit on from all sides. Every unsavory label in the book gets stuck to me before I even get a chance to clarify my views.

Care to elaborate on that?

As an anarchist this is me on a good day. I more often find myself in the middle getting shit on from both directions.

If you too want to get out of the liberal vs communist showdown and smoke weed on the side come to slrpnk.net where only our memes community has liberals and communists fighting in the comments.

Would you prefer more or less genocide.

That this is the choice our “elected representatives” are asking us to make is sick beyond measure. I actually want to just thank you for cutting the bullshit and just asking the question directly so I can respond to it in the way any sane person should, by rejecting the premise that these are our only options. The answer is no, not more or less, none. I acknowledge that the third option of no genocide is not achievable through electoral means, which is why I support the protests, encampments, and uncommitted delegates.

I’m from Kentucky and I feel pretty alien most of the time. Would not be surprised to find out my ancestors came here in a flying saucer instead of a covered wagon.

I like how the New York, Florida, and Texas tristate border still makes my homeland of western Kentucky instantly recognizable by the weird little nubbin that is the Jackson Purchase.

That’s the thing with sov-cits though, the institutions they butt heads with are legitimately corrupt and oppressive, the sov-cits just lack the intellectual base from which to critique them.

I’m speedrunning this shit.

Slrpnk.net leans anarchist, and historically there has always been a vocal subset of anarchists who advocate abstaining from electoral politics on principle. The upcoming US presidential election is the perfect storm for this stance to thrive and still it is a minority position even among the most anarchist instance on Lemmy, so I’m pretty happy with the diversity of opinion expressed there. I think it’s important we hear those minority voices and a bit unfair to call them shills.

That does make me wonder if maybe I use my inner voice as a bit of a crutch when I’m reading, but I think it helps me infer tone and get immersed in what I’m reading. Perhaps I am sacrificing some reading speed but I do believe it helps me with comprehension and memory.

Though I will add that it’s more the concepts that I remember than the words themselves. Give me a quote and I couldn’t tell you what page and where on the page it was, but I could tell you what was happening in that scene, what happened before and after, what the character was feeling and why they said it, who they said it to and so on.

Perhaps! I also think internal monologues can develop just from learning to read and write silently. Having an inner voice makes it easier to absorb the information in a book or to plan out your writing in advance.

Your anecdote seems to support that it’s a learned behavior/skill, which tracks for me. I have a very active internal dialogue that’s difficult to turn off. I say dialogue instead of monologue because I often make up “other voices” that bounce ideas off each other, and this generally happens without my conscious effort. I think I developed this because as I was growing up I was encouraged to pray regularly, and I was very fanatically religious as a kid so I did so as often as I could. I prayed silently so often in fact that my thoughts were basically a constant one-sided monologue directed to god. Whenever I would daydream or let my imagination wander I would imagine god responding, and eventually the constant monologue became a dialogue. I would work out problems or make decisions by having conversations with an imaginary god. When I stopped believing in god the second voice never went away, I just started recognizing it as my own.

Imagine enforcing shitty copyright laws on yourself like some code of honor. We developed the technology to make infinite copies of any media and then spend endless resources fighting it because it undermines our parasitic economic model.

Imagine for a moment that society embraced the full potential of digital technology. We could have a library of all human art and knowledge ever produced available for free, instantly, everywhere. If book libraries didn’t already exist and were proposed today the excuses for rejecting it would be the same. The answer is also the same, change our economic model to support people’s basic needs unconditionally and directly subsidize the production we need/want (like art).

Who is this man?

Some random white dude in historical clothing.

How does his death help us?

I don’t know, should I be concerned? Is this man in danger!?

Why is it important that we remember him?

I don’t who this dude is, why do you want him dead? Should I contact the authorities!?

If anyone’s interested in a hard sci-fi show about uploading consciousness they should watch the animated series Pantheon. Not only does the technology feel realistic, but the way it’s created and used by big tech companies is uncomfortably real.

The show got kinda screwed over on advertising and fell to obscurity because of streaming service fuck ups and region locking, and I can’t help but wonder if it’s at least partially because of its harsh criticisms of the tech industry.

The tv show Pantheon figures it will work, but it will be very disturbing.

Does the rule only apply if they’re name-calling other commenters and not the subject of the article? If not then mke_geek’s original comment should be removed since he directly calls the subject of the article an awful person with no conditional.

Personally I think this rule is being a bit over-enforced and none of these comments should have been removed. Being overly strict with civility rules allows bad actors to take advantage of “civility politics” to shut down dissent.

Edit: except maybe the one calling them a dickhead, I get why that one was removed. The ones that just reflect their own words back at them I think should be left alone.