it’s about time we replace PE with pro wrestling

i wonder how much of that has to do with the e sports scene.

soon we will have state supplied brain worms capable of eating up any virus that happens to enter our systems

i can understand history not being on trumps side, but i don’t understand how “precedent” is not on his side. the precedent from the last several years is that the supreme court does not care too much about “precedent”.

this is absolutely the kind of company that would be using the word “content” when referring to images and videos.

no better way to eliminate bureaucracy than by making new rules that everybody has to follow

how long until they come up with a reality tv show about the daily lives of everyone in trumps orbit? there’s already enough drama for at least a few seasons

well you see, the problem is that the criminal case is just reeeeeaallly inconvenient for him

what’s insane was that these could have been released earlier, but the house ethics committee has rules that stop negative reports from being released too close to an election. (source)

as if it might be a bad thing that someone doesn’t get re-elected because they were found to have done seriously unethical things.

they could probably get him to forget by giving him a kiss on the cheek and a pat on the back

i’ve only ever seen tankies complain about the word “tankie” being over used. i guess us non-tankies just don’t hear it very often.

there’s also this false dichotomy i’ve seen many tankies present where they try to argue that people are either liberals or tankies. it is possible to be a leftist and not support authoritarian governments.

hmmm yeah it is kind of hypocritical of her to both criticize a part of the government and want healthcare

for some reason, the article does not provide a link to the study it is describing. but i believe this is the study they are referring to.

one of the things i was most curious about is how the study defines “influencer”. the article does not mention this, but the study does:

In this study, we use the term “news influencers” to refer to individuals who regularly post about current events and civic issues on social media and have at least 100,000 followers on any of Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter) or YouTube. News influencers can be journalists who are or were affiliated with a news organization or independent content creators, but they must be people and not organizations.

so, the 20% figure does includes people who obtain their news by following journalists on youtube. however, the “key findings” section does explicitly mention that 77% of the examined news influencers have “no affiliation or background with a news organization.”

honestly, i thought all of the key findings were very interesting and that section was very accessible. here’s another highlight: the percentage is higher for adults under 30: 37% of adults under 30 get their news from an influencer.

no, that’s an influencer reading an associated press article. however, they will likely be reading it out loud on social media. and then some questions arise:

• why this article?
• are they reading the full article? if not, what parts are they omitting?
• are they adding any kind of commentary to the article? if so, is that being properly backed up with citations?

can you do mine next

they could be zionist antisemites

it’s not too late to get a sad lamp. they really help me out when the sun starts to set at 4.

not for long!

why does it seem like every major news organization has just learned about the word “era”? are we in the era of new eras?

do we really even need to do a background check on gaetz to know that he’s a bad idea? i’m pretty sure they’d find even more skeletons if they background checked him, but there should already be more than enough information to know he’s a bad candidate.