dachshundwithadesktop [any, they/them]

This is what anti-tankie teststeria defederation has wrought.

Did it work from hexbear?

@remindme@mstdn.social 130 weeks

Edit: No.

And I now see your reply to your other comment (it didn't load until after I asked on this one).

Has this been reported yet? Hadn't seen this on hexbear yet

Yeah, it has been reported here, here, and here. I don't think anyone linked that exact Financial Ttimes x thread you linked though.

I did already put the ballot in the box but yes it looks like we're in complete agreement. I went with NO on 34 as I learned more about what it really was, partly thanks to another reply I got here. I still very much appreciate your response though and that guide does appear to be good and helpful. Maybe I can consult it on the next round of the electoralism circus, but more importantly if it's put together by some actual comrades who are organizing locally, that is worth looking into.

I was reluctant on 2 because I used to work at a community college back when another bond got passed. I was happy to see that it meant a much needed new building was set to be built. Even though there were time limits and stipulations on when it had to be done, they dragged their feet and it took almost a decade to happen (by that time I was gone). But I was still there long enough to watch the president of the college give himself and all his immediate associates massive bonuses. They may have done that anyway, but all the faculty (who were facing pay cuts if they weren't tenured, so most of them) said that it was the bond money that allowed the president to hand out raises to his favorite sycophants while cutting the staff and faculty. Soured me on ever wanting to vote for bonds with the purpose of improving schools. But on the other hand, the schools do need it, and if any of it really does get to them, then, probably the right thing.

And I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought 34 was written really suspiciously. I saw that there were some groups claiming exactly what you said, that it was targeting the AIDS foundation, but most of these groups have names that sound like good advocacy groups even when they're not. (Unless "family" is in the name, then it's usually a sure bet they're the vile fundamentalist rich chud-adjacent ones). Fucking slimeball shitstains though, the billionaire landlords. It will almost for sure pass.

Thank you for the response, it's helpful. I think I'll go ahead with yes on 2 but I now know it should be NO for 34.

I have zero emotional attachment to her, but I also recognize that not an insignificant number of people look to her, especially the budding political activists of her generation, as a kind of benchmark for the rare genuine politically-aware activist that sometimes gets the limelight. She is influential in that respect. It's similarly why so many chuds and now libs hate her. I want her to get it right because I want those who look to her to get it right too. But if people in this thread really are getting too attached, then I agree that's not a good thing.

Is there anyone who doesn't mind outing themselves as living in California who wants to share how they voted on the California shit?

I was reading @ziggurter@hexbear.net's comment here and I responded:

Would you mind sharing what you recommend for the different props? I'm voting right now (at home with a mail in ballot I get to drop off at a polling station in a few hours) and wouldn't mind your opinion. For California state wide, it seems almost everything is good except for 36. So far I've got YES on 3, 4, 5, and 6. YES on 32, 33, and 35. Big fucking NO on 36. I'm thinking it should be YES for 2 and 34 but I can see how potentially those could just be rich "administrators" (the capitalists who own private schools and medical facilities respectively) pocketing the proceeds.

Also yes, Kopmala can burn in hell. I'm voting Claudia of course (De La Cruz).

Any Hexbear but especially Californian input is welcome.

Would you mind sharing what you recommend for the different props? I'm voting right now (at home with a mail in ballot I get to drop off at a polling station in a few hours) and wouldn't mind your opinion. For California state wide, it seems almost everything is good except for 36. So far I've got YES on 3, 4, 5, and 6. YES on 32, 33, and 35. Big fucking NO on 36. I'm thinking it should be YES for 2 and 34 but I can see how potentially those could just be rich "administrators" (the capitalists who own private schools and medical facilities respectively) pocketing the proceeds.

Also yes, Kopmala can burn in hell. I'm voting Claudia of course (De La Cruz).

We don't have much weiner posting

It's true. But this is something that should be rectified.

Show

He actually wrote and published a scifi book, right? Did anyone here read it? Was it good?

What do you think we are? Just lapdogs here to perform for you?!

From one dog on a computer to another, good luck and massive positive (pawsitive? sorry) vibes to you, comrade!

@shipwreck@hexbear.net / @Kaplya@hexbear.net curious what your take is on this from the perspective of MMT. Part of Biden's actually intelligent plan? Or a a huge misstep in his advancement of US imperialism?

Oh shit! I just now realized I completely misread your comment. I thought you said you hate Valve and CDPR much more than the others.

Sorry, pls disregard.

Just curious, why? I'm not too into what goes on in the game world, so I don't know who has been doing what. I just remember the hatred for Microsoft for monopoly, EA for some kind of anti-consumer practice, and Ubisoft for making shitty open world games and the microtransaction lootbox bullshit. What did CDPR and Valve do?

It's not even on the orange kitten on the left. It's all concentrated on the mom kitteh. Look at the water they're wading in, the rain is torrential but just directly around her.

Yeah, I think that's pretty much how it is on most instances. Some don't even publish a modlog. You just have to message a mod of that comm when that happens and if correcting it is important to you, even if you don't know if it was the mod who removed it.

Also, if you are posting only articles that reinforce the western narrative on global events, you might be considered with some suspicion around here, and for good reason. This place is a leftist space, and the kind of thing you might get praised for posting on reddit, here will be seen for what it almost certainly is: pro-US/pro-NATO propaganda. Even so, that doesn't mean your posts will (or should) be removed if they're posted in good faith, from a reliable source, etc. At the very least, it gives good leftists the opportunity to debunk the nonsense. However, it is very rare that someone post only those kinds of articles and genuinely are participating in good faith.

Edit: For example, this post, the thread of which we're making these comments in right now... it really is a trash article as has already been pointed out by Robinnn and CloudAtlas. The title alone is blatantly false. I would understand if this post got removed for misinformation as well as being from a reactionary source, even if your other post sourcing The Guardian should not have been.

You know, I saw that in the modlog (this post that got removed) and thought that was a rather odd. The Guardian may be a very liberal outlet, but it's actually towards the better end of the spectrum when it comes to that sort of thing. Maybe a mod mixed it up with something else and made a mistake? I didn't read the article linked to in the removed post, but I can see where a mod might have made the assumption that it was yet another racist anti-China misinfo article of the kind that do get posted too regularly and are from trash tabloid sites. There was also another commenter around that time who was unironically spouting Falun Gong cringe garbage that maybe you were mistaken for. I don't know. Bad article or not, it does seem to me that that post did not deserve removal for rule 1.

Edit: Yeah, I just checked and there are a ton of posts posted on lemmy.ml/c/worldnews aka !worldnews@lemmy.ml that link to The Guardian. Must have been an error.

The fact that you think liberalism isn't a conservative ideology just goes to show how sheltered and ignorant you are. You may be surprised to learn this, but there is a whole big wide world out there beyond your little bubble.

This is you: "I'm not a conservative, but literally everything I have said in this thread is a well-known conservative talking point! I don't need a political party to think for me, but for some reason I can't think of anything to say except what a far right-wing American political party is famous for dribbling out to their propagandized reactionary followers."

What a weird coincidence.