[–] 0 points 10 hours ago

I tried Ground News for quite a while. It just didn't curate well enough at all. Al Jazeera is great for their stuff and so I have the problem with "too Middle East" like how you have a problem with "too America". The Daily Show has become too flaunting for my taste ever since Trevor Noah left. John Oliver's humor is not for me. I used to watch The Late Show and that show was awesome to its end. WIRED magazine is wonderful, however, though it still doesn't complete everything.

Which is probably why there's a big thread about it being depressing now.

The war has been going on for years. The biggest atrocities were so many moons ago, even if they're still committing new and smaller atrocities. Yet Lemmy has never felt this low, warlike and devoid of compassion.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 2 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

    what would one use instead to aggregate news of the world? lobsters is too narrow, and simply using feeds from news websites removes quality control for much greater quantity. (i would know, my inbox is spammed with newsletters i hardly read anymore) and then there’s nice forumy posts like https://piefed.blahaj.zone/c/casualconversation@piefed.social/p/1062824/cheerful-tuesday-what-s-made-you-laugh-or-smile-recently

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 23 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    the screenshot cuts off the next paragraph:

    Any other answer is a first step towards splitting our community along the many lines of political and ideological divides that have nothing to do with software freedoms. Right now we have contributors from all over the world, despite the differences in their regimes and political systems, differences in ideologies, and even in the very interpretation of the notion of "freedom". You are suggesting to subject the contributors to some examination of the principles they uphold, the ethics of their day-to-day activities, their views on matters of policies and important international events, etc. This will immediately fracture our community into many different enclaves. And that's exactly my point, and the main reason why I must reject the "Human Emacs" initiative, as it is presented to us.

    i don’t like this argument as i reject nationalism (while accepting geographic self-determination) but it seems most people agree with nationalism, so i’d like to hear others’ thoughts on this.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    two-round systems (which are the same as open primaries) have not been implemented nearly widely enough to have such an effect, and where it is implemented it doesn’t do that because of how safe these states are for a certain party.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    Party bosses worked this scheme throughout the 19th century: rounding up drifters and drunkards, registering them at flophouses in swing districts and herding them to the polls on Election Day. Cunning politicos realized that by relocating just a few thousand voters, they could sway races, elect presidents, shape a nation of millions. Americans called it colonization — a fitting name in an era when political machines settled empires not overseas but in Manhattan or Sheboygan, Wisc.

    Then, after a lifetime of toleration, Americans significantly reformed voting in the early 20th century, closing the loopholes that allowed colonization to succeed. What had seemed like a permanent flaw in our democracy was killed so decisively that it sounds made up today. Perhaps there’s a lesson here, as many look beyond the 2026 midterms and see a future of endless electoral shenanigans.

    one thing is familiar from the 19th century: the dread that our democracy is becoming so permanently gamed that it leaves voters no role. Just as we worry about this “gerrymandering doom loop” today, deep in the Gilded Age the dour editor E.L. Godkin warned that there was “little prospect of escape” from America’s political “doom.” And where contemporary Americans feel a generalized hopelessness about reform, the British scholar James Bryce pointed to a “fatalism of the multitude” corroding Americans in the 1880s, certain that their democracy was beyond fixing. And yet that doomed American electorate managed to rally against, reform and kill off a cartoonishly undemocratic practice. It would be facile to suggest that we could borrow their specific tricks today; but history tells us that it can be done, that it has been done.

    view more: next ›