Wow! Hosting terrorists on your stream is so perfect! So is blasting propaganda music with flags saying "death to the jews" on them!
The "hosting terrorists" part would be referring to the Houthi soldier he interviewed on stream. I personally don't have a problem with having controversial people on for stuff like interviews but the problem was more that Hasan was trying to make him seem more appealing and only giving him soft-balls.
- The Houthi guy was talking about guarding captured foreign merchant ship crews and making them dance and Hasan was talking about how much fun that must have been.
- Hasan later cut him off and redirected when he started talking about how the knife on the shelf behind him can't be sheathed until tasting blood.
- Hasan ran out of prepared questions pretty quickly so he started asking him about what his favorite anime was and what fast food they had available there. He was just generally trying to make him seem relatable.
- Someone in chat wanted Hasan to ask about if they would release the hostages if peace or a ceasefire was negotiated and Hasan something like "I'm not asking him that, of course he would".
- He later described it as "like talking to Anne Frank".
The "blasting propaganda music" refers to him showing a Yemeni propaganda music video on stream to a guest and viewers. The lyrics were mainly about all the weapons and war supplies they wanted, and what they would use them for. It honestly was just bizarre and left everyone confused since there wasn't really context for showing it.
I love how people (rightfully) called out Pewdiepie for jokingly paying guys to put "death to jews" on a sign, but when hasan does it unironically its okay
Not sure if the "Death to Jews" thing is referring to something specific or just that Hamas is very vocally anti-Israel.
Yeah maybe you're right about Kamala's unpopularity being reflected on Democratic congressional candidates. Everyone's quick to point fingers about why the election results are the way they are (myself included of course), but it's honestly hard to say which factor had the most impact.
And I feel the same way about the electoral + popular vote thing. If the Democrats are going to lose anyway, a convincing defeat can at least be a wake up call for change. And this way we don't have to worry (much) about people claiming it was rigged.
That sucks, but good on you for looking out for others. What community was it? If you want to call out bad mods, you could make a post on yepowertrippinbastards or fediverselore. Besides letting others know about the injustice, hearing about the drama can be very entertaining.
I really suggest people don't block it. Lemmy needs active users and communities engaging with each other and while it is going to have some crazies just from how many people are on it, it should also be the least vulnerable to group think. When I hear of another instance defederating I always suspect it of being a fringe echo chamber.
Honestly though I would defend the man too. Take from that what you will, but I'll just say it's usually good to be exposed to people who disagree with you.
The dotnet conference is happening right now and I was surprised to hear a couple of the speakers advertising their Bluesky. They had accounts on other social media too, but that seemed to be their main one. These are tech enthusiasts so it makes some sense, but it's always seemed like an afterthought whenever I've seen profiles linked before.
On reddit there was r/comedyhomicide for these cases where someone felt the need to tack on a random reaction to something funny. As if the viewer needs to be guided to what their reaction should be. It always reminded me of a laugh track.
The obvious answer is that it's fast, tasty, and requires minimal effort for the consumer, especially if it's getting delivered. But it also tends to be very cheap compared to dining out. I don't know what you are ordering where a combo is so much but I normally get a bunch of food from Taco Bell to eat over the course of two days. I can get 2000 calories of food I like to eat for $12.
It's true that Trump had a simple majority of votes, but you can win the electoral college and lose the popular vote; this is typically what happens for Republican victories. Kamala lost MI, PA, and WI by 3% or less. If those had flipped, she would have had her 270. You are right that third party votes wouldn't have been enough though. The bigger problem was reduced turnout from people not voting at all.
The fact that Republicans also managed to do so well in Congress to me suggests that the problem for Democrats wasn't really just their choice for presidential candidate. Voters really care about immigration and inflation right now, and those tend to be stronger for Republicans.
This is actually a very good comparison, thank you.
You are still participating by choosing to be a bystander to injustice. Abstaining when you can support something less bad only says to others that you do not care how bad it gets.
It is rich to criticize the Democrats for claiming moral superiority while doing nothing, as a justification for not voting for the candidate who would at least try to put a leash on what Israel is doing to Gaza.
If you want what's best for a suffering people, you should vote for the candidate not trying to give their oppressors a blank check. All of America is responsible for what the president we chose does next.
It's important to remember the Holocaust happened largely because people didn't do enough to stop it. "First they came for the Communists..." and all that. The Nazis were a fairly minor party for years, but they were able to consolidate power because their opposition wouldn't rally against them. Coalition requires compromise.
I am not happy with the Democrats either, but they were the better option. And abstaining from a decision between bad and worse doesn't help anyone. By allowing Trump to take power again when we might have stopped it, we are all responsible for what comes next.
Honestly, there is a reasonable chance he gets assassinated this term. No one is out of reach from the sword of Damocles.
I don't see why you would think that. Someone like Bernie was too radical for the American left to win a primary, no way he would be considered more appealing to America at large in the general.
It's frustrating because Biden/Harris are too moderate to capture far left voters and too radical to wrestle the center from a populist like Trump. And it seems many disenfranchised voters are content to stay at home because better isn't good enough. I'm not trying to absolve them of responsibility, but I genuinely think Democrats could make great strides if the left was as good at banding with each other as the right. Instead, the Democrats lost the popular vote for the first time in twenty years.
Trump is projected to win the popular vote too, the first time a Republican presidential candidate has since 2004. There are more of the other guys showing up at least.
I felt the same way (spoilers for whoever hasn't read it). The protagonist just kept encountering significant people where it seems like there's going to be a struggle to overcome, leading to character development and newfound maturity, but no. He just moves on to another scene instead and they're not seen again. It was just annoying.
The teacher that feels he's not living up to his potential? The private school friends that he hangs out with but often finds frustrating? The childhood friend who he shares unexplored romantic tension with? The nuns whose meals he pays for despite having dwindling funds? The prostitute he just wants to have a conversation with? Her pimp, who attacks him? The potentially rapist family friend? For pretty much all of them a relevant conflict is initiated just for him to leave it unresolved, probably after labeling them a phony.
The only exception is his sister, who he sees like two or three times. And then the final conflict at the end is like: "Hey sorry for taking your birthday money so I could keep wandering around these past couple of days instead of talking to our rich parents." "That's ok, I forgive you. You're my brother and I love you. But I worry about you sometimes." "Yeah anyway, I'm bitter about the world so I kinda want to disappear into the wilderness." "Please don't do that." "Ok I won't."
I always took the phrase "She is someone's [whatever]" not to suggest that the recipient isn't thinking of them as a person, but that they are thinking of them as a stranger. As in, "How would you like it if you knew someone was treating your [person you care about] like that?". It's still a criticism for the recipient, but it doesn't go as far to accuse them of dehumanizing anyone. Instead, it suggests you should treat them like you would someone you are close to and care about more deeply.