AnIndefiniteArticle

Fantastic resource, thanks for sharing

Good point, they probably focused this press release on the content of this initial dataset.

Read parent comment.

Upvote parent comment.

Read child comment.

Post reply to child as if you upvoted parent before reading it.

Good catch! Thanks for checking the source.

deleted by creator

Yeah, I gave up reading at

it’s a shocking reminder that there are forces outside of the internet that still affect our digital lives.

Take two pieces of string with wooden knobs at the ends and hang them up together.

Put your arm between them and pull down quickly.

Repeat, and notice how a fraction of the time those wooden knobs may wrap around each other and become tied by a knot held by the downward force of your arm until you pull up which you can’t do if you’re hanging.

The best part is that when cornell sent out their email admonishing the action, the only example of violence they could cite was an officer’s bodycam getting bumped. It was a non-violent act of civil disobedience.

Remember when Bernie had a bird fly up to his podium during a speech?

It’s also what the dems are playing into by chasing the center and the voters who are on the fence to swing the top of the ticket, but don’t support downticket candidates. If the dems want anything more than the white house, they need to excite their base. Trump is trying to scare her away from being a progressive by calling her “Comrade Kamala”.

As in 2016, he’s not appealing to the centrists. He’s letting the Dems do that. Dems go center, he picks up the anti-war and anti-government side of the Dems looking for a molotov cocktail to throw at the military industrial complex. Gabbard and RFK are an attempt to ruse enough of the left that is fed up with big government and big military. Trump in 2016 won because he was a molotov cocktail while Hillary took the center. In 2020, the primaries presented a progressive alternative that excited the base. 2024, the Dems have decided to revive Hilary’s strategy of camping the center, folding to the military industrial complex, and disenfranchising their base; likewise Trump is playing the anti-establishment dove. Trump won in 2016 like that. Maybe fewer people will be tricked this time after seeing what happened last time he was in office? Or that’s just wishful thinking.

It doesn’t matter if he scares off the center. In spite of the strong start, I see Kamala lining up to lose this election by copying Hilary’s strategy of collecting the center and establishment. It gives me the jitters. Dems need to run on a progressive path forward, not joyful ignorance while they stoke the fires of war. They need a platform that excites enough voters for downballot races. They need to stand up to the problems in our systems of governing that Trump is offering to burn down which might accelerate some sort of change before we die of ecosystem collapse. Clock is ticking, and the voters may decide we need a kick in the ass if the Dems decide to cozy up to the military like in 1968.

s/Fire/Nationalize/

deleted by creator

I don’t know who that is

Back when I was growing up 15 years ago, “faggot” was reclaimed. I still have trouble processing it as a slur. I don’t know how it fell back into being a slur and became denormalized.

All of that behavior is problematic, but not “weird” in the context of people in power throughout American/world history.

It frankly is normal. That’s why he has such a large base. That’s why he’s dangerous. That’s why our whole country needs to face its alarmingly common dark tendencies.

Maybe I’m out of the loop, but I’m not really seeing much evidence of them reacting badly or the messaging being effective. The article claims it, but then mostly just talks about what Pete Buttigieg and MSNBC have to say about it.

Interesting perspective. My exposure to MAGA folks has tended to be from edgelords who take pride that they aren’t “normies” and that they are different from the mass of “sheeple”.

I suppose it depends on whether you associate MAGA with the alt-right or with traditional conservatives. Both are important voting blocks for trump. I don’t know many traditional conservatives that haven’t jumped on the centrist neoliberal bandwagon.

I associate a desire for “normalcy” and a rejection of those who have “weird” opinions with the aging neoliberals in my life. They often use attacks on the “weird” to resist progressive and inclusive actions that don’t fit within their neoliberal boomer mindset. The non-centrists reject normality and embrace weird and unusual ways of approaching the problems in our country, at least in my social exposure. It’s one of the ways that I’ve seen both extremes differ from the center. The difference between the left and right extremes are just the brand and direction of deviation from the crumbling and untenable centrist positions. One side celebrates weirdness and diversity, the other celebrates what they think makes them superior to normal, and therefore worthy of surviving the genocide they advocate for.

This I can almost get behind, except that “weird” has a lot of queer and diverse and non-white connotations/baggage that can’t be ignored.

A white-on-the-inside coconut may not see it immediately if she was raised in a California context. That word didn’t just fall out of a tree, and it exists within the context of all the uses that came before hers.

Sure, we can reframe what behavior is acceptable vs not, but “weird” does not mean and has never meant “unacceptable”. Weird Al is generally considered to be acceptable. “That’s weird” is usually quoted as the fundamental driving statement of advances in science. Rejecting weirdness is fundamentally antithetical to progress, and carries with it baggage of rejecting solid portions of the democratic party’s base.

Then call him malignant. Weird is a word that has mostly positive connotations and it sounds like she’s complimenting him when quotes are taken out of context and put into a headline.