News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I'm a actually not that cynical of it. In her book she was critical of who the establishment in the Biden administration treated her.
Worse case is she's endorsing him to make her self look good. But honestly I think it's great she did endorse him. It will go a long way with causal/centrist democrats and centerist independents.
It's kinda how I feel about corporations supporting good things. People will point out that they're only doing it for money or whatever, but I don't care. If they all start supporting and normalizing good things, I don't care that it started for dumb reasons.
I studied environmental sciences in school, so the metaphor I think of is that of indicator species, which provide information about the state of an ecosystem. For example, the presence of mayflies indicates good water quality, since poor water quality disrupts part of their lifecycle. Similarly, corporations supporting good things indicates that they feel it is profitable to do so. It indicates the state of public sentiment, and I don't see how that's anything but good news.
Same with Harris (indirectly) endorsing Mamdani: Maybe she's just bending with the wind, but it's good news because of the way the wind is blowing.
good business just backs both sides, hence why media like Time will release editions with "conservative"/democrat leaning cover-arts, for specific parts of the country.
anything and everything to keep people inside their bubbles
Depends on the company, for the most part i'm with you, but if say Monsanto and Phillip Moris are backing things, it makes you ponder what you don't know and if it's a bad thing.
I disagree. Does only the end goal matter? Or does intention also matter?
I would argue that intent is actually more important in the long run. I could perform an act today that helps people, but if my intent wasn’t to help people, then the act will be singular. There will be no “drive” toward greater acts that help even more people. No continuous improvement. No learning from mistakes and growing. Why? Because if I don’t actually care about helping people, none of that background stuff is happening which actually moves you toward your goals in the long run
I would rather you do one act today that helps people for completely selfish reasons and never again, than have you do zero acts that help people.
What is the intent in each case? I perform one act today with selfish intent that happens to help someone, but what about tomorrow? Or the next day? Am I improving on the act to see if I can help more people tomorrow? Not with selfish intent I’m not.
Today I tried with good intention to help someone. It doesn’t work. But, my true intent is to help- so I learn from my mistake today because I genuinely care, and tomorrow I now help one person with my act. I continue to improve and grow as a person, and over the next few years, I am helping out many others and bringing joy into the lives of those around me, inspiring others to also live their lives with good intention, creating a ripple effect.
I believe that is much more important than any kind of selfish intent, no matter how much the selfish act happened to help today.
Intent matters but it's not more important than the act itself.
Person A does a helpful act today for selfish reasons. Person B wants to help people but wants to make sure they are helping in the right way, so they don't do anything today while they try to figure out the best way to do it. Tomorrow they both get hit by a bus.
What's more important? That Person B had good intentions, or that Person A actually fucking helped someone?
Long term growth vs short term gain. Person B reflects and realizes they spent the day trying to be perfect, since they have good intention, and thus will reflect on their actions in an effort to improve. Next day they stop trying to be perfect and instead act.
Of course, both getting hit by a bus tomorrow makes my argument null, since it’s predicated on long term growth over short term gain. But most people aren’t getting hit by a bus tomorrow.
Do they? You invented a lot there about someone you don't know.
Person B continues to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. They keep getting overwhelmed by options and never end up helping anybody.
Person A helped in order to get recognition at work. It worked and helped give that extra push that got them promoted. They continue to do this on a yearly basis despite not liking it because it makes them look good to their employer.
It can go either way, someone helping for selfish reasons might be the start of them helping for genuine reasons or might be the last time they help at all. You can't know. I'll still gladly take someone helping for selfish reasons than them not helping at all.
Would it be better if they had good intentions? Of course! But it would also be worse if they didn't act at all.
I'm taking the broad position that last-minute endorsements of Mamdani are just saving face for the establishment. That window closes in mid-October or so.
Want change in the party This is how it happens. Purity tests leave you a political outsider. Welcome each endorsement and they can be reminded later.
Yeah but it’s still just PR to save face. Zohran can use all the endorsements he can get but let’s make sure these ghouls are replaced ASAP.
Nope. I'd rather have any Democrat in office than more Republicans. Your logic is how Gore lost the 2000 election. The Green votes for Nader were the decider. Gore wanted to address climate change 25 years ago.
I don’t think you understood my point. Your comment about preferring a Democrat over a Republican in office doesn’t make any sense.
Didn't Gore win the 2000 election ? The Bush clan stole it and apparently the US just didn't care much.
Gore lost the legal cases. A few more votes in Florida from Democrats who didn't apply purity tests and voted Green instead and the world would be a much better place.
Gore lost because instead of talking about his actual passions and knowledge, he listened to his advisors and repeated their focus group tested talking points. He came across as not very sincere & charismatic as wet cardboard and lost. Alot of people who never supported him changed their opinion of him after seeing An Inconvenient Truth.
He lost because of Nader and a confusing ballot in PBC.
Instead of actually giving voters what they want, Democrats made being "the lesser of two evils" their main campaign strategy and it could only work for so long until people got numb to it which is happening.
idk, Trump has done more to mobilize the left these last couple cycles than the last...30 years.
He mobilized the right more.
idk about that, made them more confident...sure. but look at all these local/state elections, flipping seats that have been solidly/establishment-D for decades to independents/progressives.
people are turning out in record numbers to vote for independents/progs would suggest that the "Left" in america isnt dead...maybe they've just been demoralized from decades of disappointment and Trump and Co. was the wakeup call they needed
not trying to dismiss your concern, things are bad and they are probably only going to get worse for the forseeable furure...but...giving up is exactly is the first/biggest move these psychopaths have, it's a truly insidious system we've managed to imprison ourselves in...
Worse case is she's going to insincerely try to take on the appearance of a progressive
But she's just one of many figures being groomed to do this, so hopefully it just helps cement Mumdani as the spiritual leader of the party
Worst case is he made a bunch of centrist concessions to get her on board, leaving him as just another establishment dem.
No shot...He has nothing to gain there, he's leading by massive numbers and his eyes aren't empty and soulless
But that would put out the last spark of hope within me if it did happen
Nobody believes her, just like nobody believes Hilary. The constant fence-hopping goes beyond someone learning new information and switching stances, its pure opportunism, and thus not genuine.
And honestly, her endorsing him is more a disservice in my eyes than helping him. She's performed poorly and make others think that Mumdani is not genuine by association.
The difference between her and Hilary is that Harris is an avatar of the party, Hilary was (and still is to a lesser extent) a major player in the party
Harris is just like Biden... Her position is the party line. So if Harris is endorsing Mumdani, that signals some faction of the party might be finally waking up and realizing progressives are going to sweep the next election
As for the endorsement itself...I don't think it dings Mumdani in any way. If anything, I think it just makes him look stronger, because he hasn't budged an inch and the Democratic establishment is slowly coming to him
she and hochul are probably supporting him, to prevent too much support, takeover of the party from more progressive candidates, basically placating progressive to not do anything drastic.
With what leverage? Mumdani wins with zero support, a pattern that is repeating across the country with every new election
I'm sure they have the worst of intentions, but reality favors us. When they capitulate to our boy, they flirt with reality. And reality is left leaning
shes probably still looking for political career somewhere in the future, just not now.