this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
468 points (98.5% liked)

News

36994 readers
1525 users here now

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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


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. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


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.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 86 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The GOP thinks poor = lazy. They are completely out of touch with reality.

[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 78 points 2 years ago (2 children)

No, the GOP knows that in order to sustain their own laziness, they need a hard-working, desperate class of poor people, and anything that elevates them might mean that they might need to contribute closer to their fair share.

[–] Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

“There are men who, through ownership of land, are able to make others pay for the privilege of being allowed to exist and to work. These landowners are idle, and I might therefore be expected to praise them. Unfortunately, their idleness is only rendered possible by the industry of others; indeed their desire for comfortable idleness is historically the source of the whole gospel of work. The last thing they have ever wished is that others should follow their example.”

― Bertrand Russell

[–] kemsat@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

They do keep causing fights to protect their way of life at the expense of everyone else.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 32 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Only the well-off republicans do. The poor republicans think that they’re poor because of immigrants.

[–] Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Yeah, no good lazy immigrants that just want to steal our jobs and also never do any work and just steal our welfare money somehow and also.... just, like, steal? I think? They're bad.

/s

[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

good ol' Schrodinger's immigrant : both lazy and hard-working until you actually meet one in person and the wavefunction collapses

[–] Veraxus@lemmy.world 44 points 2 years ago

Look at it this way: if we let Congress use our tax money for our benefit, then there would be less available for them to plunder, misappropriate, and generally hand out to their rich buddies.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 35 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If you are poor, it is your fault and thus you do not deserve anything good happening to you.

Also, if you sleep on the street, which, remember, is your fault because you are poor, that's illegal and we'll send you to jail.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

And remember, if you've been sent to jail, a background check tells us you're a criminal and unfit to hold a job. Good luck affording a place to live without employment!

[–] pirrrrrrrr@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 2 years ago (3 children)

No internet means the gullible masses will remain uninformed and vulnerable to manipulation.

The GOP wants a solid foundation of uneducated poor to exploit as the base workforce and voter base.

Cheap idiots to fuel their companies.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

Not that I disagree with you, but the internet has also made a massive amount of people uninformed and vulnerable to ~~the internet~~ misinformation. See: any point in the last 20 years.

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah "cheap broadband internet to rural America" basically means increasing the market for Fox News in HD.

[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That can't be right, otherwise they would back it.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

their conceit here is they spent 40 years saying the government can't do anything so even if it helps them in the long run they're opposed to the government doing anything but wasting money on an ideological level.

[–] scottywh@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Smartphones are more responsible for the widespread distribution of misinformation than the internet itself.

[–] TurtleJoe@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

It seems that this is more about killing a popular program that Dems are responsible for, and could point to during election season as a reason to vote for them again.

[–] Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 years ago

The opposite thing happens more often

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 32 points 2 years ago

Gaslight
Obstruct
Project

[–] scoobford@lemmy.zip 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I have complicated feelings on this. On one hand, I believe internet access, like all utilities should be affordable, if not considered an entitlement.

On the other hand, this is just a subsidy program. The government is indirectly forking out cash to ISPs in a way that temporarily helps poorer customers. To be blunt, I find the idea of giving an industry as notoriously corrupt as telecom more government money to be insane. There should be price caps.

[–] melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

no fuck price caps

if theres a government, they should just be the network.

its not like the isp's dont immediately hand every packet over to the NSA anyway.

[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago

Indeed, we should regulate the prices of necessary utilities, and internet has become one even if it's not officially recognized as such. That alone wouldn't be enough to cover people with the lowest of incomes, though.

The program discussed here does cap the subsidy, and at least some (maybe all?) internet providers that accept it now have service plans that stay within that amount. The result is effectively a price cap for people who are eligible.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

. . . Amongst a boatload of other useful and good things the GQP is blocking.

Honestly, let’s stop acting like it’s even newsworthy. It only serves to extend the time they get away with it.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Why would NOT talking about it help anything...?

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago

It helps remind the voters with goldfish memory and gives sources to use in discussions with people who keep on with the "Both Sides" bullshit.