Aesthetics, plus the seductive appeal that pre-modern, pre-liberal-democratic societies (when the governments were authoritarian, the women were submissive, and the men “were men”) have for reactionaries, incels, and cryptofacists.

Well you haven’t provided any solid evidence or reasons to believe that, so your arguments come across as pretty empty.

I think your perspective is very…binary. Politics is mainly shades of grey.

I have no idea how this relates to my previous comments, and as you don’t seem inclined to elaborate I guess we’ll move on.

You don’t know if kamala wants to appear sympathetic or actually is.

The issue isn’t whether Kamala is genuinely sympathetic or not; it’s whether or not she has the will and political capital to take action on a view that is so politically controversial. Not only would she have to stand up to the entire Republican party in the House and the Senate , she would have to deal with backlash from Pro-Israel Democrats and from military and pro-Israel lobbyists. Kamala is a pretty typical corporate Democrat and has done nothing to suggest that she is willing to deviate from Biden’s policy except in terms of PR. If you want to argue that she is, you’ll need something amazing to back it up.

If you think there is no difference why protest at all.

I didn’t say that protests don’t make a difference – they certainly can, given the right circumstances. The key is the public applying pressure at the right place and the right time – when is typically when politicians are seeking election, as Kamala is now.

why not protest at trumps rally.

And what would be the point in that? Trump certainly doesn’t care, nor has he a vested in interest in paying attention to pro-Palestine protesters, unlike Kamala.

Well actually, while the binary choice is almost the norm in US, it quite often happens everywhere else in the world on all levels of governance.

But not nearly to the same extent. Even in countries like the UK, which have historically been dominated by two main parties, members of smaller parties still win elections and hold seats in the national legislature. When was the last time a member of Congress represented a party that was not either Democrat or Republican?

Lobbyists are strong, but defeatist attitude is the only reason they have the strength they do.

Uh no. The actual reason is money and political capital.

Big changes can happen when participation is high.

Such as?

But in the current situation when the candidates are so far apart on the subject, but so very close in the polls, I don’t see logic in undermining the chances of the only candidate who might be considering a change of politics.

Except she isn’t. Her strategy is to appear sympathetic in public but maintain the status quo regarding Israel in terms of policy.

Politics is often a binary choice.

Well, the binary choice thing is almost solely a US problem. Pretty much all other democracies have a number of viable political parties to choose from. That’s kinda part of the reason why the US political system is in such a mess. But I digress …

then you try to push it the direction you want.

And unfortunately that’s where this argument completely falls apart – The US is more of an oligarchy than a democracy. There have even been academic studies that show that the general public in the US has virtually no influence on government policy whatsoever, given the overwhelming influence of lobbyists and billionaire/corporate donors.

Unless the elites would allow an arms embargo on Israel (and, surprise surprise, they wouldn’t), the likelihood of progressives pushing Kamala to the left on this issue is basically zero.

The run up to an important election is the best opportunity for citizen groups to apply pressure on candidates because it’s practically the only time that they can muster enough leverage to outweigh the interests of the billionaire class and the military-industrial complex.

30 is way too many. Ideally, you want about 4-5 parties in order to maintain a healthy democracy without getting bogged down.

Either way, the two party corporate duopoly of the US ain’t it.

Like it or not, Twitter is still the de-facto place for breaking news stories. You just have to sift through the dross.

As much as Mastodon is a far nicer and healthier social platform, it has a long way to go before it gets anywhere close in this particular regard.

Elections bring these issues into sharp relief, so of course people are talking about it – especially since this particular election features the two most deeply unpopular candidates in US history.

It’s never the wrong time to condemn the two-party duopoly for the facade of democracy that it is, or point out that the sentiments and circumstances that led to the rise of Trump need to be tackled at their roots before they go away.

Even if Biden somehow manages to beat Trump in November, there will be no meaningful political change until the dominance of the corporate two-party system is broken up and the financial burdens of the working classes are alleviated.

EnLiGhTeNeD cEnTrIsM is not the view that there is no middle ground ever; it’s the assertion that there must always be a middle ground, even in situations where there is no reasonable compromise.

Or, to paraphrase the late James Baldwin: we can agree to disagree unless your disagreement is rooted in my right to exist.

And of course all the ‘enlightened centrists’ on Twitter are posting shit like:

So the state is now a parent, California?

Over this legislation. So they’re either cynically misrepresenting what the law actually is supposed to do, or their reading comprehension isn’t sufficiently developed enough for them to be voicing their idiotic takes in public.

I’m a fan of atmospheric horror too, so I’ll give Longlegs a watch.

Recently, I’ve also seen:

• Late Night With the Devil - really good retro horror flick. They got the feel of the late 70s just right, and i enjoyed the way the tension gradually builds to a crescendo.

• A Quiet Place: Day One - was a big fan of the first movie, but the sequels have been increasingly disappointing. This one was definitely the weakest, IMO, but still somewhat enjoyable if you still feel like seeing a little more of the same.

• Furiosa - it was never going to be quite as good as Fury Road, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. It leant a little too much towards the grotesque at times, but the central performances and the world building were still good.

• Immaculate - Sweeney is pretty good and it has some atmosphere but by the end it got a little too silly for me. A fairly passable religious genre horror, all round.

• Dune: Part Two - as a big fan of the books, I have to say it was a little disappointing. Villeneuve nailed the look and feel of Arrakis no doubt, but this part felt rushed and unsatisfying - It really needed another 30 or 40 minutes to allow some of the central plot points to land and to give the characters more room to develop. I enjoyed it, but it’s not the masterpiece it could have been.

There is no rule that says the universe must make sense to human beings. In fact the more we learn about it - subatomic particles, quantum mechanics, the multiverse, etc. the stranger it becomes and the less it appears to operate in ways that are intuitive to our primitive primate brains.

Hell, even space and time might not be fundamental properties, and could themselves be abstractions which emerge from an even deeper underlying reality…

All of which is to say your list should have an extra option:

D. Who The Fuck Knows?

As someone married to a JW and who is friends with several others, I will say this: like any group of people, they can be a mixed bag. Some are more closeted and “in the truth” whereas others are more outgoing and “worldly”.

One the things that I actually admire about them (the individuals, mind you, not the Watchtower organization) is that they really seem to try and live by the teachings of the Bible and study it frequently. Much more so than, say, your average evangelical Protestant.

As someone who is mostly agnostic, those who belive that absence of evidence equals evidence of absence belong in psychotherapy.

This position is a straw man. Atheists generally do not argue that God categorically does not exist. Instead, we usually say that we don’t believe in God because there is insufficient evidence. Much like the proverbial invisible unicorn in your backyard - since there is no evidence that it exists, there is no reason for it to affect how we go about our daily lives.

When it comes to whether you’re agnostic or atheist, I think it helps to answer the following question on a scale of 0 - 10: How confident are you that God exists? If you say around 5, then you’re agnostic. If you say around 1 or 2, then you’re an atheist.

I prefer the original version with the Rupert Murdoch allusion.

I’d say a good-sized part of it is simply the American preference for watching beautiful, weathly people doing beautiful, wealthy people things. Hollywood rom-coms and US TV shows in general clearly skew towards upper middle class settings when compared to the equivalents from, say, the UK.

In other words, I reckon US media prefer their fictional characters to be aspirational whereas other cultures prefer theirs to be relatable.

More frequent kernel updates.

• requires a fair bit of post-installation configuration (suboptimal OOTB experience for newbies)
• Uses btrfs by default but comes with no snapshots or GUI manager pre-configured for system restore
• Less software availability compared to Ubuntu or Mint
• More likely to break than Ubuntu or Mint

The Death of Stalin is great.

But isn’t this something you can tweak within your DE configuration? I’m on Gnome and don’t have this issue.