Oh I didn't even think about that. Yeah lock climate and direct to climatechange, since it has more subscribers.
Mod has been inactive for a year, and I’d like to take it over and help it generate more traffic.
The six most extreme fire years have occurred since 2017, the study found.
> The frequency and magnitude of extreme wildfires around the globe has doubled in the last two decades due to climate change, according to a study released Monday.
> The analysis, published in the journal “Nature Ecology & Evolution,” focused on massive blazes that release vast amounts of energy from the volume of organic matter burned. Researchers pointed to the historic Australia fires of 2019 and 2020 as an example of blazes that were “unprecedented in their scale and intensity.” The six most extreme fire years have occurred since 2017, the study found.
Lol, yep. Oh you spray lots of stuff that's designed to kill bugs? I think it might be killing lots of bugs!
> The latest insight comes from a study on butterflies in the Midwest, published on Thursday in the journal PLOS ONE. Its results don’t discount the serious effects of climate change and habitat loss on butterflies and other insects, but they indicate that agricultural insecticides exerted the biggest impact on the size and diversity of butterfly populations in the Midwest during the study period, 1998 to 2014.
Part of your anger seems to stem from me saying that this whole thing isn’t moving forward fast enough and somehow you think that’s a critique of your personal work. I assure you that wasn’t my goal. But you have to admit that we are, globally, not moving fast enough.
No, the part that bothers me is you're completely ignoring the point I've made multiple times, namely that this protest is counterproductive and doesn't actually do anything to change the situation. It just pisses people off. It doesn't promote climate action or change the amount that people care about it or want to do something about it.
The connection to the fight for racial equality is interesting but I’m not sure how well this applies. How do you suppose you can do anything equivalently “not accepting the rules we want to protest” in the context of climate change? Because before there was a big movement there were just a few people breaking the unfair rules. Which where likely talked similarly about as you are talking about these activists right now.
With the exception of the first, none of those sentences form a complete thought, and I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say or if there's a question buried in there somewhere.
some forms of activism that I deem valuable would have detrimental effects on the other form of activism if done under the same name.
WHY?
This is so far beyond the point of the article I'm just not sure why you keep falling back on this singular argument. Why is that relevant? This thread started because I said the people currently sitting in prison are being lazy because they painted a rock rather than doing something productive. You've now latched onto some weird scenario where they can do multiple kinds of protesting but can't do it in one organization and have to form or join splinter groups to do multiple kinds of organizing? It like you've convinced yourself that what JSO is doing is fine because its members are doing something else less disruptive in another group, which is so disconnected and irrelevant as to be utterly meaningless. Not to mention it's a thing which (as far as I can tell) is entirely made up on the spot!
So again, why is one detrimental to the other? So far you've only said it's confusing, but you haven't said why it's confusing, and you also skipped over the part where painting a rock to protest oil is also confusing.
And I'm saying one does and one does not. You've yet to actually demonstrate that these protests have any value or have ever moved the needle in the right direction.
You are still arguing from the perspective that activism needs to please people or else it’s “embarrassing” or “shameful”. I do agree that there is activism that displeases people, I think that is still valuable and nothing to be ashamed of.
No, I'm very clearly saying these are "more likely to cause friction and disagreement than sympathy for a cause." For some reason you have committed to this weird hypothetical where the people currently sitting in jail have some other secondary organization they use for grassroots organization, which was a stretch when you first brought it up. I'm only speculating that you made that situation up because deep down you understand the need to disassociate yourself from these protests, and it's increasingly clear to me that you see their value in some kind of shell game strategy, where no one knows who's pulling the strings. But again, you made that up, not me.
But I can acknowledge that there are people that do not see that as something that should be supported. Different forms of activism have different target groups and different wanted effects. It’s just a rational thing to address different target groups and produce different effects under different names.
And water is wet. I'm saying that these protests are stupid and counterproductive. You're now veering off into platitudes that don't actually contribute anything to the conversation.
I want the issue front and center in the public discussion. You and I are both aware that people aren’t 100% of the time participating in the public discussion but spend time doing their own thing. Which is partially influenced by what is happening in the public discussion. If climate change is a topic, even if just tangential, that still helps influence people to think about it in the times they spend outside of the public discussion.
And what you still haven't grasped is that climate change is not a problem because people don't know about it. This isn't some kind of pink ribbon campaign where we're bringing attention to an issue that's too often ignored as nonexistent. Climate change is front and center, it's all encompassing, and it's deeply imbedded with the way that our entire global economy operates. The reason we can't deal with climate change isn't awareness, it's capacity and political will. If you bring up that I'm not eating enough fruit, and I tell you that I can't afford to buy fruit on my current salary, then pelting me in the face with oranges isn't going to get me to eat more fruit. It's just going to piss me off.
Painting Stonehenge or pouring soup on a priceless piece of art isn't doing anything to shine light on bad actors, or to challenge us to think about the problem differently, or to provide more information, or anything else like that. It's just blind rage. The people who weren't allowed to sit in whites-only cafes didn't protest by dumping piles of trash in the street, they protested by sitting in the whites-only cafe and refusing to move. They didn't protest having to sit in the back of the bus by painting the walls of the town hall. They protested by sitting in the front of the bus and refusing to move. They protested as throngs of people in the streets and marching across the country. This is two spoiled little shits spraying paint because they want to be the center of attention, and per your very words because they don't want us to be able to do anything except focus on them. This kind of protest is absolutely, unequivocally ridiculous.
Again I want to thank you for your work, we need people like you. But I don’t think that’s all we need. It has become apparent that just silently working on this at the grassroots level hasn’t shown the necessary progress. So people have decided to express their opinion in more loud and disturbing manners.
No offense, but you can take a hike. There is so much actual, tangible work that happens behind the scenes that I'm actually stunned you'd say something so flatly asinine. We are making progress, and we're doing it within existing governmental systems. We're doing it with marketing campaigns. We're doing it with land acquisition. We're doing it by working with these organizations, and these organizations, and these organizations, and these organizations.
Which really just reiterates that it's not awareness that's the problem. It's capacity. And painting a rock is like taking a shit in the middle of the street to protest climate change. Like, what the actual hell are you expecting to come from painting Stonehenge? And you're trying to tell me that hundreds of thousands of people working tirelessly day in and day out to solve this issue isn't enough, but a bunch of spoiled brats painting rocks is going to make a difference? Give me a fucking break.
Again, this protest isn’t about sympathy. I don’t think anyone is having the illusion that a majority would be happy about this kind of protest. But I think “no one gives a shit” is pretty evidently a lie. People very demonstrably give a shit about Stonehenge being orange for a little while.
I have no idea why you keep trying to twist my words. I'm saying that by doing this the only people who are going to sympathize with the cause the protestors are trying to highlight are the people who were already sympathetic with the cause the protestors are trying to highlight. And what I'm saying to you is that you're not convincing anyone who's not already convinced. In fact, you're probably pissing some of your allies off in the process, so it's quite literally counterproductive to do stupid shit like this. It hurts more than it helps.
So again, don't come back with that same platitude that protests have to be inconvenient to be effective. I'm not saying they shouldn't be. I'm simply saying that this is a stupid form of protest that does more harm than good and likely alienates some of your potential allies while converting and convincing absolutely NO ONE.
The fact that we are talking about this and not about climate change is also partly your decision. You are free at any point to disengage this thread and focus your energy on more productive things. The fact that you’re not doing this is just one example of humans being humans and not always doing the best of all things. Me still arguing with you is of course another example.
No one in this thread or any other Lemmy thread about this situation is talking about climate change. Everyone is talking about paint on rocks.
I can repeat this as often as you want: people want to engage in different kinds of activities under different names because the actions do not relate and the messaging becomes confusing. I can both disturb the operation of a pipeline and try to mobilize locals to support the building of a solar power plant. Doing both under the same name makes everything more complicated even if there is personal overlap. I really don’t get why you are so hung up on this.
Because if you're not embarassed or ashamed of the pipeline disturbance/damage, then you shouldn't have a problem openly associating yourself with it. The fact that you're trying to hard to suggest it's prudent to distance oneself from a disruption/protest tells me that deep down you understand these things are perceived negatively and are therefore more likely to cause friction and disagreement than sympathy for a cause.
I don’t exactly get the question here. I’m not saying any of those options is particularly confusing. I’m saying doing both under the same name might get confusing for people not intimately familiar with your group and their actions.
And painting a rock is confusing to people who don't understand what the paint or the rock have to do with climate change. Yet you're her cheering for rock painting. Why are you worried about confusing the public in one instance but not worried about confusing the public in the other instance?
The hypothetical that you are posing instead of what I’m actually arguing for. You then argue against that hypothetical instead of my actual points. That’s a classic example of a strawman.
No, it's a hypothetical that's followed by a question mark. It's also called a "thought exercise". Nowhere did I attribute the argument to you in order to debunk it. You need to read the definition of strawman fallacy more carefully.
Yes I’m advocating for bothering people in public. Where else would you bother people?
You would bother people who aren't already on your team and in a way that leads to a productive conversation, rather than in a way that's completely detached from the cause and in a way that completely distracts from the issue.
That’s a choice the public is making. And again I think this is fine.
Also known as a shittily designed protest. If you set out to accomplish a goal and the public responds predictably in a way that doesn't help you achieve that goal, you should probably reflect on the fact that your methods were shit.
That’s also fine. It’s not like there aren’t any publicly available sources on how to fight climate change. If the people are interested they can go talk to the many many local groups that engage in productive activities.
Ah, so now it's enough to acknowledge that public resources exist and people can find it if they want? Because seconds ago you were cheering for people to paint rocks in a public place to keep people from talking about anything else. Seems you're not quite sure what you believe or how you think it should be accomplished. So what is it? Should it be shoved into people's faces so they can't ignore it? Or should they be left to find their own resources?
This thread is a prime example of people like you who could be allies here and engage people who aren’t yet convinced that we need to take action, that instead take up a lot of time and energy to argue about the kind of protest.
I am an ally. That's what you don't understand and refuse to entertain as a possibility. I'm an environmental advocate both personally and professionally, and I've been working on climate change and environmental issues for over a decade. And even I'm telling you that painting a rock is stupid and counterproductive. The only people who give a shit and empathize with it are people who were already on your team.
Nope, it only shows "Joined" and "Create a Post" below "deleted by creator".
I deleted it when it didn't gain enough traction, and I'd like to revive it.
So I take it you’re taking a different course of action to bring awareness to the dire situation we are in? Or are you just posting here tarnishing Blackbeard’s name with some boot licking?
Broseph, I've spent more time in the past 6 months advocating for this cause in a personal and professional capacity than you and your entire family have devoted to environmentalism in the past two decades. But keep going with the petulant, baseless namecalling, child.
All these historic pieces will be destroyed by the climate, and the ones that aren’t will be rendered moot as no humans are around to appreciate them. Its a message and you don’t grasp it. Thats okay. But you should really stop punching down and laterally.
I'd link you my graduate thesis on climate change and emissions regulation to convince you to stick your righteous indignation where the sun don't shine, but...you know...doxxing and all that. Keep showing your ignorance and people will keep pointing it out to you.
This is for the deniers
"Climate change is a liberal hoax! They just want to tax us to death! Look at all the research they fabricated in Climategate!"
sees people spray orange paint on a rock
"Wait a second. I think I was looking at this all wrong!"
Amen. Plus some of us do prioritize it. We've minimized our carbon footprint, we've dedicated careers to environmental awareness and protection, and we spend countless hours in our own lives to communicate the reality of the situation to others, but we resent the fact that these protestors push people away from the rest of our messaging by making us look like a group of unhinged, attention-seeking morons.
You and me are arguing a non-provable hypothetical. Yes time they spend in jail is time they aren’t doing anything productive. That doesn’t mean they don’t do anything productive in their time they do not spend in jail. Also: The repressions they face as a consequence of their activism is part of the activism in my book.
Yes. We're arguing in circles because the protestors are the story, climate change isn't.
I’ll argue that without that stunt we’d be talking about something different entirely likely unrelated to the climate crisis. Which would be even less helpful.
I'd argue that we're still not arguing about the climate crisis. Not a single person in this thread has said a single word about climate change or how to solve it. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.
As I have explained already: it’s about communicating to the public. Doing things under a certain name helps the public associate the current actions with past actions under the same name. If you do two vastly different things it helps to separate those by name too, otherwise it can get confusing for people that are not interacting with your group often enough.
Why do you not want these actions associated with the other group?
Furthermore, you don't think painting a fucking rock is confusing to the people who want to discuss climate change, but having one interest group perform varying kinds of direct activism and grassroots organizing is confusing to the people who want to discuss climate change?
That’s quite the strawman you’ve put up here.
It's a hypothetical, not a strawman, which should have been obvious when the sentence began with "if".
I’m not advocating for bothering random people at their home and that’s not what JSO is doing. As far as I can tell they are targeting people of public interest, big events, and popular public places. Which is the “right” people because the climate crisis is about all of us. We all are contributing to it be it daily choices or our choices while casting our democratic votes.
You're advocating for bothering random people at a tourist attraction, and you're doing it in a way that a) distracts from talking about actual climate change, b) leaves them virtually NO information about how to address climate change, and c) is potentially affecting people who already do what they can to address climate change. See how this entire thread has been about painting rocks, instead of daily choices we make that contribute to or affect climate change???
No one is saying they did or acting like they did. What we're actually saying is that the methods were fucking ridiculous and counterproductive.
Gods I hope so. The amount of damage he did convincing people that vaccines cause autism is incalculable. Especially to people on the spectrum.
All I see are things that will cost them money. Spraying paint somewhere wouldn’t result in a lot of jailtime. If that’s the case in the UK well that’s weird.
And time. You know, because time spent with other organizations is what we're talking about here? It takes time to fight a criminal charge. Besides, we're now nitpicking about how much time they'll spend in jail, rather than you proving with any evidence that they're doing anything more constructive than performative stunts. Rather than show actual good they're doing, you've just supposed that they might be doing it, and challenged that I can't prove that they don't. I hope you see how ridiculous this is.
Every second we spend on this stupid conversation is a second that proves the effect of the protest is to make the stunt the subject of the conversation, rather than the climate.
So no you didn’t show that. And even if I want to thank you for your engagement, that doesn’t give you the right to tell everyone else how they are supposed to engage themselves. You are entitled to your opinion but that isn’t a definitive fact.
I just pointed you to their website. The proof is in the pudding, and I'm not going to try to prove a negative.
It’s not a front. It’s just possible to engage in different forms of activism and if those differ in style it makes sense to separate them into multiple organisations.
If the protest accomplishes their goals, then why separate them? Why have a separate organization at all? What's the point of that?
There is a common misconception that activism needs to please people to be valid or effective. I think we just differ in opinion on this. Which is fine but we don’t need to waste time on arguing about this as it seems we are both pretty convinced of our respective stance on this.
No, activism doesn't need to please people, it needs to be targeted to inconvenience the right people.
If I show up at your home first thing in the morning and pour colored powder on the car you use to get to work, and I tell you "I'm helping spread the word about starvation in Africa", you're going to wash the powder off and then yell at me for being a fucking idiot and taking it out on you. You're not going to stop what you're doing and send a donation to feed children in Africa because I vandalized your car.
> A major expansion underway inside Iran’s most heavily protected nuclear facility could soon triple the site’s production of enriched uranium and give Tehran new options for quickly assembling a nuclear arsenal if it chooses to, according to confidential documents and analysis by weapons experts.
> Inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed new construction activity inside the Fordow enrichment plant, just days after Tehran formally notified the nuclear watchdog of plans for a substantial upgrade at the underground facility built inside a mountain in north-central Iran.
> Iran also disclosed plans for expanding production at its main enrichment plant near the city of Natanz. Both moves are certain to escalate tensions with Western governments and spur fears that Tehran is moving briskly toward becoming a threshold nuclear power, capable of making nuclear bombs rapidly if its leaders decide to do so.
You have to wonder if American “friends” of Israel have any clue about the nature of Israel’s government.
> Israel is up against a regional superpower, Iran, that has managed to put Israel into a vise grip, using its allies and proxies: Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Shiite militias in Iraq. Right now, Israel has no military or diplomatic answer. Worse, it faces the prospect of a war on three fronts — Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank — but with a dangerous new twist: Hezbollah in Lebanon, unlike Hamas, is armed with precision missiles that could destroy vast swaths of Israel’s infrastructure, from its airports to its seaports to its university campuses to its military bases to its power plants.
> But Israel is led by a prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who has to stay in power to avoid potentially being sent to prison on corruption charges. To do so, he sold his soul to form a government with far-right Jewish extremists who insist that Israel must fight in Gaza until it has killed every last Hamasnik — “total victory” — and who reject any partnership with the Palestinian Authority (which has accepted the Oslo peace accords) in governing a post-Hamas Gaza, because they want Israeli control over all the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, including Gaza.
> And now, Netanyahu’s emergency war cabinet has fallen apart over his lack of a plan for ending the war and safely withdrawing from Gaza, and the extremists in his government coalition are eyeing their next moves for power.
> They have done so much damage already, and yet not President Biden, the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, nor many in Congress have come to terms with just how radical this government is.
> Indeed, House Speaker Mike Johnson and his fellow G.O.P. mischief makers decided to reward Netanyahu with the high honor of speaking to a joint meeting of Congress on July 24. Pushed into a corner, the top Democrats in the Senate and the House signed on to the invitation, but the unstated goal of this Republican exercise is to divide Democrats and provoke shouted insults from their most progressive representatives that would alienate American Jewish voters and donors and turn them toward Donald Trump.
A federal judge blocked most parts of the law propelled by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis that banned gender-affirming care for children, and limited it for adults.
> A federal judge blocked most of a law championed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) that strictly limited transgender health care for adults and banned it completely for children.
> In his decision, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle rejected a common mantra of the DeSantis administration, saying that “gender identity is real,” and that the state cannot deny transgender individuals treatment.
> “Florida has adopted a statute and rules that ban gender-affirming care for minors even when medically appropriate,” Hinkle wrote. “The ban is unconstitutional.”
More efficient manufacturing, falling battery costs and intense competition are lowering sticker prices for battery-powered models to within striking distance of gasoline cars.
> More efficient manufacturing, falling battery costs and intense competition are lowering sticker prices for battery-powered models to within striking distance of gasoline cars.
Automakers and dealers are starting to offer discounts, low-interest loans and other incentives to lure buyers as the supply of cars grows.
> For much of the last four years, automakers and their dealers had so few cars to sell — and demand was so strong — that they could command high prices. Those days are over, and hefty discounts are starting a comeback.
> During the coronavirus pandemic, auto production was slowed first by factory closings and then by a global shortage of computer chips and other parts that lasted for years.
> With few vehicles in showrooms, automakers and dealers were able to scrap most sales incentives, leaving consumers to pay full price. Some dealers added thousands of dollars to the manufacturer’s suggested retail price, and people started buying and flipping in-demand cars for a profit.
> But with chip supplies back to healthy levels, auto production has rebounded and dealer inventories are growing. At the same time, higher interest rates have dampened demand for vehicles. As a result, many automakers are scrambling to keep sales rolling.
> Netanyahu reportedly met this month with three foreign policy envoys working with former president and current presidential candidate Donald Trump — who could yet win the election despite being convicted Thursday on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in his New York state hush money case.
> Netanyahu, who benefited immensely from Trump’s first term, is arguably hoping for a similar dividend in the event of a second. In the interim, he has openly rejected the Biden administration’s hopes for the Palestinian Authority to take the lead in the postwar administration of Gaza, and he and his allies have shown no interest in even engaging in the White House on reviving pathways for a Palestinian state. And contrary to the Biden administration’s wishes, Netanyahu may soon act on a Republican invitation to address a joint session of Congress.
___
> It’s not just Netanyahu who is waiting for Trump. The evidence is more clear that Russian President Vladimir Putin is holding out for a Trump victory, which would probably help the Kremlin consolidate its illegal conquests of Ukrainian territory. My colleagues reported last month that Trump and his inner circle have outlined the terms of a potential settlement between Moscow and Kyiv that they would attempt to usher in if in power. “Trump’s proposal consists of pushing Ukraine to cede Crimea and the Donbas border region to Russia, according to people who discussed it with Trump or his advisers and spoke on the condition of anonymity because those conversations were confidential,” they reported.
> Such a move would fracture the transatlantic coalition built up in support of Ukraine’s resistance to Russian invasion. It would cement the Republican turn away from Europe’s security at a time when Western resolve around Ukraine is flagging. And it would be yet another sign of Trump’s conspicuous affection the strongman in the Kremlin.
Though pro-Palestinian protests have drawn in many progressive candidates this primary cycle, the more traditional liberal wing of the Democratic Party has shown resilience.
> Essentially, today’s 213-member Democratic caucus breaks down into a few categories, the largest of which are traditionally liberal lawmakers who come from cities or inner suburbs and are comfortable with incremental victories in helping the working class. There are dozens of moderates who are more friendly toward business but believe in socially liberal values.
> And there are dozens of far-left liberals, hailing from the progressive caucus or the small-knit “Squad,” who have clashed with leaders for not pushing for a more purely liberal agenda. This group has been on the rise over the past half decade, both at the ballot box and inside the caucus.
> But now, at this stage of the primary calendar, this wing is facing tough political headwinds.
I don’t think Biden fully understands his “old friend” Netanyahu. Israeli defense officials are sending a clear warning.
> If you are keeping score at home, you have surely noticed that the two most important defense officials in Benjamin Netanyahu’s war cabinet — Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and the former military chief of staff Benny Gantz — warned last week that Netanyahu is leading Israel into a disastrous abyss by refusing to present any plan for non-Hamas Palestinians to govern Gaza and appears to be contemplating a long-term Israeli military occupation of Gaza instead. Gantz said he would leave the government if there was no plan by June 8.
===
> “Netanyahu’s acquiescence to the extreme right, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, has generally been seen as motivated out of his need to keep his coalition together and himself out of jail,” Friedman told me. “Now it seems that he has willingly sold his soul to the extreme right. One explanation is that the extreme religious right projects a Messianic image onto him that corresponds with his own sense of having been called to save Israel and the Jewish people. He has a plan for the day after and it’s very clear to anyone who listens: ‘Total victory’ — and eventually the return of Jewish settlement there. Israel is on the way to reoccupying Gaza.”
> If that happens, Israel will become an international pariah and Jewish institutions everywhere will be torn between Jews who will feel the need to defend Israel — right or wrong — and those who, with their kids, will find it indefensible.
Democracy requires a new, progressive capitalism.
We care about freedom from hunger, unemployment and poverty — and, as FDR emphasized, freedom from fear. People with just enough to get by don’t have freedom — they do what they must to survive. And we need to focus on giving more people the freedom to live up to their potential, to flourish and to be creative. An agenda that would increase the number of children growing up in poverty or parents worrying about how they are going to pay for health care — necessary for the most basic freedom, the freedom to live — is not a freedom agenda.
Champions of the neoliberal order, moreover, too often fail to recognize that one person’s freedom is another’s unfreedom — or, as Isaiah Berlin put it, freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep. Freedom to carry a gun may mean death to those who are gunned down in the mass killings that have become an almost daily occurrence in the United States. Freedom not to be vaccinated or wear masks may mean others lose the freedom to live.
There are trade-offs, and trade-offs are the bread and butter of economics. The climate crisis shows that we have not gone far enough in regulating pollution; giving more freedom to corporations to pollute reduces the freedom of the rest of us to live a healthy life — and in the case of those with asthma, even the freedom to live. Freeing bankers from what they claimed to be excessively burdensome regulations put the rest of us at risk of a downturn potentially as bad as the Great Depression of the 1930s when the banking system imploded in 2008.
Mod has been inactive for months, and I'd like to take it over and help it generate more traffic. They have dozens of other communities they gobbled up during the API protests which have also been abandoned, just fyi.
Also forgot to add, I messaged them a few weeks ago about joining the team to revive the community, and haven't received a response.
The conflict between a restaurant and conservative neighbors is tearing at the fabric of The Plains, Va., population 250.
I can see that there are posts that have been made to my community, but when I go straight to the community they are not visible to me. I have "Show Read Posts" toggled on, my language selection is "Undetermined", the community's language selection is "Undetermined". What am I doing wrong? Is this a bug, or is there a selection I'm missing?
Also, can someone explain what "Warning: If you deselect Undetermined, you will not see most content." means and why it's necessary?
Noob mod here. Zero experience with the fediverse, so go easy on me.
This post: https://lemmy.world/post/421577
Doesn't show up on https://lemmy.world/c/collegebasketball when I visit the community.
Why can't I see it? Am I just missing something incredibly obvious, do I have a setting wrong, or is there something I need to do to approve the post so it's visible within the community? Or is it visible to you and I'm just an idiot?
