the conspicuous lack of much corresponding effort by the same people to talk up Mamdani himself.

who are “the same people” that you’re referring to?

is “people” singular, or plural?

how many people, specifically?

because the last time I asked you for a concrete example to back up a sweeping claim like this, you brought up one guy who was a petty tyrant forum moderator you had a beef with. and you were still salty about the beef like a year later.

making sure Kamala Harris lost the election, to teach the Democrats a lesson about genocide

do you have any concrete evidence (preferably something more substantial than “Lemmy comment from a guy I got into an argument with a year ago”) that people not voting for Kamala because of Gaza actually changed the election outcome and caused Harris to lose?

because…ballots are secret, right? you can’t actually know who someone voted for. they can tell you, but they’re not obligated to tell you the truth, they could lie.

there are exit polls…but by the very nature of exit polls, you can’t capture people who stay home and don’t vote.

every time I hear this argument about “Democrats who stayed home because of Gaza” it seems like they’re Schrodinger’s voting bloc: so large that it swung the entire election. but also, so small that Democrats were correct to not try to appeal to them (Umberto Eco has a principle that fascism requires an enemy that is simultaneously strong and weak…but I’m sure that’s just a coincidence)

doesn’t come alongside making sure that Mamdani wins the election

I live in Seattle. you’re saying I’ve been slacking off about making sure Mamdani wins? OK, tell me what I should do.

“In other words, these conversations with a social robot gave caregivers something that they sorely lack – a space to talk about themselves”

so they’re doing a job that’s demanding, thankless, often unpaid (in the case of this study, entirely unpaid, because they exclusively recruited “informal” caregivers)

and…it turns out talking about it improves their mood?

yeah, that’s groundbreaking. no one could have foreseen it.

if you did this with actual humans it’d be “lol yeah that’s just therapy and/or having friends” and you wouldn’t get it published in a scientific paper.

it’s written up as a “robotics” story but I’m not sure how it being a “robot” changes anything compared to a chatbot. it seems like this is yet another “discovery” of “hey you can talk to an LLM chatbot and it kinda sorta looks like therapy, if you squint at it”.

(tapping the sign about why “AI therapy” is stupid and trying to address the wrong problem)

An insincere apology is not newsworthy

is there an article with better framing that you think I should have posted instead?

because I certainly agree the apology was forced and insincere…but the original comment about executing homeless people was definitely newsworthy, don’t you think?

and annoyingly, I didn’t see any major news outlets covering his comments, until he was forced to issue the apology.

so it’s kind of unclear if you’re just complaining for the sake of complaining, or if you have any constructive criticism to offer.

Jones was talking on “Fox & Friends” on Wednesday about public money spent on trying to help homeless people and suggested that those who didn’t accept services offered to them should be jailed.

“Or involuntary lethal injection, or something,” Kilmeade said. “Just kill ‘em.”

hypocrisy from the right-wing with regards to advocating/endorsements of “political violence” has been on full display recently

…but this is just very lazy and heavy-handed from the writers of this season of Reality. come on, try to be a little bit subtle.

the excellent Knowledge Fight podcast, which does media criticism of Alex Jones (and other right-wing ding-dongs) has the concept that big news events like this have a period of “wet cement”

when the cement is still wet, you can write whatever you want in it, and it’ll harden with your message written in it.

if you wait until the cement dries, you can’t do that.

the entire right-wing has been desperate to carve “transgender” into the wet cement of Charlie Kirk’s shooting. the exact details don’t matter. the important part is getting there before the cement dries.

You need better mental health care.

you start off by saying you’ve always thought you’re on the left

but the moment you disagree with someone, you start shit like this, which is a very common pattern of argument from right-wingers.

“I think your opinion is so wrong that it’s a symptom of mental illness” is just fucking stupid. do better. or, if you refuse to do better, stop attempting the “I’ve always been on the left but…” shtick. it is absolutely see-through and does not fool anyone.

here is the official NASA press release. primary sources are always preferable, especially compared to this fuckass “digital trends” clickbait website.

“This finding by Perseverance, launched under President Trump in his first term, is the closest we have ever come to discovering life on Mars. The identification of a potential biosignature on the Red Planet is a groundbreaking discovery, and one that will advance our understanding of Mars,” said acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy. “NASA’s commitment to conducting Gold Standard Science will continue as we pursue our goal of putting American boots on Mars’ rocky soil.”

quick fact check: it was launched in 2020, but announced back in 2012. giving Trump credit here is idiotic, but it’s about what you’d expect from Sean Duffy, he’s a Trump crony through-and-through. before being the NASA administrator he was Trump’s Secretary of Transportation, and before that he was a Republican congressman, and reality TV contestant (on The Real World and the *checks notes* Lumberjack World Championship)

I think it’s important to remember that everything, even basic scientific research, is liable to be politicized if it suits their ends. so it’s totally possible this biosignature is legitimate, but it’s also totally possible that they’re hyping up questionable findings because they want to persuade Trump that funding a NASA mission to Mars would boost his TV ratings.

I haven’t. It was omitted from the article in question. I stand corrected.

keep standing…because here’s the 5th paragraph of the article:

Political analyst Matthew Dowd was fired from MSNBC on Wednesday after speaking about Kirk’s death on air. During a broadcast on Wednesday following the shooting, anchor Katy Tur asked Dowd about “the environment in which a shooting like this happens,” according to Variety. Dowd answered: “He’s been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that is the environment we are in. You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place. And that’s the unfortunate environment we are in.”

a contributor who made an unacceptable and insensitive comment about this horrific event

have you read the actual statement that got him fired?

from wikipedia:

On September 10, 2025, commenting on the killing of Charlie Kirk, Dowd said on-air, “He’s been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that is the environment we are in. You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place. And that’s the unfortunate environment we are in.” Dowd also speculated that the shooter may have been a supporter.

you can agree or disagree with the decision to fire him (I’m not shedding any tears, Dowd was the chief strategist for the 2004 Bush re-election campaign, it’s ludicrous that he was working for a supposedly “progressive” network like MSNBC in the first place)

but characterizing that statement as “celebrating murder” is just bullshit.

How the fuck does the government have this much control over the media?

wealthy oligarchs purchased the media, and purchased the government. so it’s not the government controlling the media directly, it’s just that they report to the same boss.

would you like to know more?

Newsom launched a podcast earlier this year.

if you were launching a podcast, you’d put a lot of thought into the first episode, right? it introduces the show to people, gives an example of what the rest of the episodes will be like.

Newsom’s guest on that first episode was Charlie Kirk.

and it was a very friendly interview. Newsom said he “completely aligns” with Kirk on trans issues:

He then later said that he “agreed” with Charlie Kirk that it was not right transgender athletes should play and that he was “completely aligned” with Charlie Kirk on this issue, blaming a law put in place before he became governor: “It turns out in 2014, years before I was governor, there was a law established that established the legal principles that allow trans athletes in women’s sports. The issue of fairness is completely legit. I completely align with you, we have to acknowledge it.”

…

When Newsom platforms someone like Charlie Kirk, he isn’t fostering a “discussion” on transgender people in sports—he is handing a known hate monger a microphone to denigrate an already vulnerable community. That’s the real objective. Newsom isn’t engaging in open dialogue or debate; he is recalibrating his political stance to make targeting transgender people seem palatable, selling that shift to his base as a strategic necessity. And he’s doing it by giving one of the most notorious anti-LGBTQ+ extremists a seat at the table.

Newsom praising Kirk like this wasn’t surprising at all, if you’ve followed any of the critical coverage about him. he’s been trying out his “post like Trump” shtick which had a bunch of MSNBC viewers clapping like trained seals, but it can’t cover up his fundamental character. he’s allegedly a Democrat, but he’s also a fucking vile excuse for a human being. he completely lacks any principles or morals and will do or say anything if he thinks it will help him get elected president.

There is nothing centrist about supporting his hate.

the only mention of “centrist” in the paragraph I quoted was “centrist columnist Ezra Klein”

so I’m not really sure what your point is. are you saying Ezra Klein isn’t a centrist, but instead farther to the right?

Yesterday, Gavin Newsom tweeted that we should “continue the work” of Charlie Kirk and honor his memory. This morning, centrist columnist Ezra Klein published a column titled “Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics The Right Way.”

…

In one interview with Riley Gaines on Real America’s Voice, Kirk railed against “the decline of American men” and blamed it for transgender equality. Then he added that people should have “just took care of” transgender people “the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and 60s.”

the article has several other quotes from him, but that one is pretty much enough to tell you all you need to know.

my lawyer has advised me to state that I believe murder is bad. also, fuck Charlie Kirk, and fuck anyone who’s working to whitewash his image.

from a YouTube channel called “Combat Veteran News”? I haven’t heard of him before, looking at his channel it seems to be fairly generic “combat veteran reacts” shit, mostly to Ukraine war footage, but his 2nd most viewed video is “US Army Combat Veteran Reacts to Failed Cash-In-Transit Heist Because Driver Has Nerves Of Steel”

meh. pass. every single professional-opinion-haver in the world has an opinion on Kirk’s shooting, I’m not sure why this guy’s is particularly notable, and the clickbait title sure doesn’t give me any hints. if he wrote a blog post or something I might skim it, but I’m not wasting 20 minutes on a video.

all of them are meant as examples of the general trend of right-wing people celebrating political violence when it suits their goals.

but if you want an explicit Charlie Kirk connection, here you go. he tweeted “Daniel Penny is a hero”:

https://xcancel.com/charliekirk11/status/1866612931485634821

now remember kids, political violence is never acceptable, under any circumstances, no matter how much you disagree with someone politically, you should never celebrate harm coming to them.

times like this are when it’s very important to put aside our political differences and remember our common humanity.

totally unrelated:

here’s Charlie Kirk comparing Kyle Rittenhouse to Jesus. it’s a lesser-known Bible story but when he was 17 years old Jesus killed two Black Lives Matter protesters with an AR-15.

3 months ago, 2 Democratic state legislators in Minnesota were murdered. and here’s an exclusive interview that Glenn Beck’s website The Blaze did with the alleged shooter

after Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul was attacked in their home: Prominent conservatives share online disinformation about Paul Pelosi assault

Former Republican President Donald Trump has so far remained silent online about the Pelosi home invasion, but his son Donald Trump Jr. retweeted a proposed “Paul Pelosi” Halloween costume featuring men’s underwear and a hammer, saying “The Internet remains undefeated.” Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.), who sits on the House Homeland Security Committee, embraced a false anti-LGBTQ conspiracy surrounding the attack, tweeting and then deleting a post suggesting the perpetrator was a “male nudist hippie prostitute.”

…

Beyond Trump Jr. and Higgins, pro-Trump commentators from Charlie Kirk to former Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr. also weighed in online to raise questions about the investigation based on unfounded and false claims. Among those baseless claims: that a third person answered the door when police arrived at the Pelosi home, which San Francisco law enforcement has said is untrue; and that DePape was in his underwear when apprehended, a falsehood taken from a since-corrected local news report.

Jordan Neely was strangled to death on the NYC subway by Daniel Penny. subsequently Penny was invited to attend the Army-Navy football game as Trump’s guest, and was hired by the VC firm Andreessen Horowitz.

Mariners’ 32-run 3-win streak sparks talk of fan’s ‘curse-lifting’ with an Etsy witch

Steven Blackburn of Lake Stevens joked on social media that he had hired a witch on Etsy to lift a curse on the team.

He said he never expected anything to come of it, but the Mariners went on to score 28 runs in just two days after his request.

based on the available evidence, Etsy witches are 2 for 2 with a 100% success rate.

uhhh…so like one line of my previous reply was about how it seemed like you were salty about a random Lemmy moderator banning you almost a year ago.

but holy shit

if Uma Thurman’s “the Bride” character from Kill Bill were real, she’d tell you that holding on to grudges like this isn’t healthy

Anyway, the main point was, you asked me for examples. Here are my examples. If you don’t like them, then okay.

yeah uhh thanks, the next time I ask someone for an example like this I’ll make sure to clarify up-front that I’m looking for examples that don’t center around “I have a blood feud with them because of an internet forum moderation dispute but also I dislike their politics”

Jezebel, 2 days ago: We Paid Some Etsy Witches to Curse Charlie Kirk (archive link)

So, did my Etsy curses work? Time will tell. The forces move in mysterious ways, and as the Priestess reminded me, “Spellwork is a collaboration between the caster, the client, and the universe itself.” For now, we can only trust in the timing of the great unknown.

well, uhh…I’ve been an atheist my whole life, but I guess this is my “road to Damascus” moment. I’m off to the bookstore to see if they have any used copies of Wiccanism For Dummies.

Here’s a dbzer0 admin being super condescending about how important it is not to vote

OK…sort of a glaring problem - the source you’re citing doesn’t actually back up the claim you made.

you said, emphasis added:

Mostly what I am criticizing here is this whole strategy of just not voting, and hoping that that alone and nothing else

and then, the top comment in the thread you linked:

Can you outline those things that actually matter, that you are doing?

Direct action for mutual aid. Anarchism. I’m helping my fellow humans outside of the capitalist system with my every waking moment that is not dedicated to survival.

every time I’ve seen a “don’t vote” argument put forward seriously - no one actually says what you’re claiming of “don’t vote, and don’t do anything else”.

voting happens one day out of the year, and not even every year. even if you count primaries and one-off special elections you’re still only looking at a handful of days (here in WA they have a very stupid fondness for having both a February special election and an April special election, usually for ballot initiatives they want low turnout for)

so the actual non-strawman argument goes, that the impact of voting once every 2-4 years is minuscule, compared to the impact it’s possible to have on the other 364 days of the year, by getting engaged in things outside electoral politics, with mutual aid being the most well-known example.

but anyway, that user gets pressed for examples of what they actually do, and they say they do FOSS stuff. and you’re assuming that’s all they do. which, maybe it is. but Lemmy posts are not depositions - that user isn’t sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. besides FOSS shit, maybe they crochet socks for homeless people. maybe they sabotage oil pipelines. maybe they crochet socks for oil pipeline saboteurs.

I have some friends who are anarchists, or on the anarchist spectrum. every single one of them has very good opsec. there is a strong cultural norm of “don’t brag about shit online”.

I’ve done shit in the past that I will never post details about online. or, maybe I haven’t, maybe I’m just saying that hypothetically to prove a point. (if a lawyer or fed is reading this, I absolutely have not, I am 100% a couch potato and my political beliefs never spill out into the real world, I have never taken any overt acts in furtherance of anything that may or may not have been a criminal act in that jurisdiction at that time)

those opsec-minded friends would probably chide me even for posting the joking paragraph above. people have gone to jail because they got goaded into forum arguments that started with “you’re just a keyboard warrior, you don’t do anything in the real world” and then they bragged about circumstantial details that seemed anonymized enough that it’d be safe to post them online.

so if you see someone online saying “I don’t vote”, and they don’t mention anything else they do that’s politically involved…don’t assume that means they don’t do anything. maybe they just have good opsec.

but for the sake of argument, let’s say that user you linked to truly doesn’t vote, and doesn’t do anything political other than running some Lemmy servers. so what?

like, yeah, it’d be good if they voted, and it’d be good if they joined their local Food Not Bombs chapter or whatever. but you going on Lemmy and trying to scold them into voting is never gonna persuade them.

in general, the thing I wish more centrist Democrats learned was scolding doesn’t work…you can try to scold someone into voting, but you can never scold someone into being excited about voting. excitement means they tell their friends, they put up yard signs and bumper stickers, they volunteer for the campaign, they stand in line to vote even if it takes 8 hours because of voter suppression, etc.

Here’s a huge thread with a bunch of people weighing in, on the topic of whether or not “electoralism” should be permitted on a political post in an anarchism forum. Pretty much all the Lemmy mods and admins involved opined that it should not.

I’m not familiar with that corner of Lemmy…but it looks like you went into a sublemmy that is explicitly for anarchists to talk with other anarchists, tried to pick a argument with them, got banned, and then made a post on a different sublemmy that is exclusively for “I want to complain about getting banned from a sublemmy”

and IDK man…honestly it seems like you’re salty about getting banned and are holding a collective grudge against every anarchist on Lemmy?

So yes, it’s common on Lemmy to see people advocate for not voting and that being the extent of your involvement with the official political process.

so as i’ve said, I don’t think the “that being the extent of your involvement” part holds up…but also, remember that Lemmy is a tiny slice of the internet, and the two examples you linked to are from anarchism forums on Lemmy, which are going to be a tiny slice of a tiny slice. that first thread you linked has 24 upvotes and 12 downvotes, showing that it’s just an incredibly small niche, but also that it’s somewhat controversial even among Lemmy anarchists.

usually, when we talk about protest votes, the concern is there being so many protest votes that it swings the election. and like…anarchists on Lemmy are simply never going to be numerous enough to matter.