LemmeAtEm

Do you really not understand that titling any fucking post ever is doing the same thing? Fucking clown.

If the title was a NYT headline with two words changed: "Kamala Harris makes an official statement in condemnation of political terrorism" you wouldn't be clutching your pearls, now would you? OP's title is far more factual though, and that's what you actually don't like. You people are so transparent it's laughable.

Posting news in a news comm of a presidential speech that is literally a link to the official government website of that president is "intentionally inflammatory and trolling"? This is a joke, right? You're doing a bit and playing a caricature of a typical lib clown?

"Now is not the time to oppose genocide."

Your reprehensibility is confirmed. History will look upon people like you as on those who supported Nazis but pretended the concentration camps were just a bit much.

you: "Yes you absolutely should tacitly support genocide. If you don't tacitly support genocide then you're an accelerationist."

There are other candidates you can vote for that are vastly lesser evils than both the fascist democrats and fascist republicans; candidates who are not actively funding and perpetrating genocide but actually, get this, opposing it. If instead of voting for one of those, you still choose to support a party committing genocide, you aren't just an accelerationist and wrong, you're fucking despicable, evil.

Oh yeah, just look at all that genociding going on!

No, it's people like you refusing to accept reality but rather willfully hiding in your racist propagandized little bubble who can't be taken seriously.

Did you just look at the pictures or did you actually read the text? It's not about who gets cheered for and who doesn't. The issue is people (in the US) saying it's not possible that a Chinese athlete did that and that he somehow cheated, which is not only childish and cringe, but extremely hypocritical given the context.

I posted this as a reply to another comment from a user on another instance, but your instance doesn't allow you to see hexbear, so I'll reply here too.

Yeah, it's a bit unfortunate using the word design that way. However, it's not completely wrong, it's almost more a problem of the baggage that the word design carries, obviously "intelligent design" as a concept for evolution is bullshit and if you can't separate the concept of "design" from intent then you're still just as wrong. All that said, I think it's fair to talk about species being designed, there is just absolutely zero intent involved anywhere,* with no forethought, or any "thought" at all from the designer. A species is "designed" entirely by the forces of circumstance. The material conditions, if you will, of their environment.

Making this comment because I'm seeing some of these issues crop up in the comments, and in comments from different instances that can't see each other, so rather than reply individually, I'll just make a separate standalone comment.

It bugs me a little whenever people talk about how old a species is. There are different levels to how wrong it is possible to be about this. The worst level is where people think that it's the individuals that are somehow ancient. No. The individuals from those times are as long gone as all the other individuals from that time. Most people don't think that, but it happens. Another level is a bit less wrong, but still is. That the species itself is ancient because it somehow avoided evolution. Nah, it's just retained a lot of characteristics. Theses species still underwent evolution, it's literally unavoidable. It's just that the way they adapted to an ancient environment still works as adaptation to the current (and intervening) environments. They haven't gone through as many drastic visible changes because the way their ancestors lived still works for their modern iterations.

So it is definitely fair to say a species is old, but it's important to realize that that doesn't mean it's literally old in that it hasn't evolved. If they are impressed by species that haven't gone through a lot of apparent changes over the eons, they should check out stromatolites.

Then they have the correct position, at least on the second part (and honestly I doubt anyone there doesn't care). Voting won't make one goddamn lick of a difference on this issue and if you think it will, you're painfully naive.

Personally, I for one would really appreciate it if you provided the archive link in the OP especially if you're posting paywalled articles. When the OP is the one who does it, then all the readers who want to follow the link that the OP posted won't have to, and the people who don't even know about archive sites will still get to read it when they wouldn't have otherwise (and maybe even learn about what archive sites are as a result). In that sense, it's not about entitlement, it's about one person doing it one time rather than (for example) 30 people all having to do it while others may not even be aware they can do it.

Another thing is that while it may be ultimately just a drop in the bucket, it does help cut down on the amount of traffic that mainstream western media sites will get, which I think you would agree is better than helping increase it for them. It's for that reason that just as a reader browsing, I almost always archive any MSM news articles I read, including the ones I see in posts here. On the occasion I do post, I always make a point to link the archive or frontend (like piped/invidious for youtube, redlib for reddit, used to do nitter for twitter, etc.) It's a very minor annoyance to have to do, as either the reader or as the poster, but I'm all the more appreciative of posters who do do it and wish that more would.

It's not like you have to, but it would be courteous and considerate if you did.

A large portion of the personal wealth in America is concentrated in real estate (mortgage debt).

When Obama became president, he could have easily bailed out the 9 million American homeowners (predominantly low income black and Hispanic families), but instead he chose Wall Street, effectively facilitating the largest transfer of wealth from the black community to private capital in history.

In this sense, Obama prevented future generations of black communities from ever becoming homeowners again.

Similar trends are also happening under Biden’s policies today, the so-called “Bidenomics” where black unemployment has risen much faster than other demographics. These are all austerity measures designed to make poor minorities bear the brunt of the economic impact if only to slow the crumbling of the system itself.

But since "the government actually profited" it's all good, right?