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.

All true, but that doesn’t disprove my point. The risk was non-zero, so it was still worth investigating.

Yes but the difference is that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that prolonged exposure to RF waves might possibly cause some harmful effects. The WHO didn’t categorize radio frequency radiation as a potential carcinogen based on no evidence at all:

https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf

The possibility of there being a link was not absurd, per se.

To be fair, the evidence about a link between cell phone radiation and cancer has been inconclusive for quite some time. After all, a series of inconclusive or null results doesn’t mean there is categorically no link – it could equally mean that more research is needed.

That said, I do agree that if there were a casual link in this case then it would have made itself apparent by now, given the huge increase in cell phone usage over the past few decades.

Just don’t take it too seriously, I would say. Not every news piece from the same source is going to be of the same quality or bias.

When I was on in Reddit I used to do it all the time, but writing everything out, organizing it and including citations etc. can be rather time-intensive.

These days, I’ll leave a quick comment on a post if I have enough time, but nothing major.

I used to be a fan of it, but in the past couple of years I’ve seen MBFC rate sources as “highly credible” that are anything but, particularly on issues involving geopolitics. That, plus the inherent unreliability of attempting to fix an entire news outlet to a single point on a simple Left <-> Right spectrum, has rendered it pretty useless, in my opinion.

There days I’m much more of the opinion that it’s best to read a variety of sources, both mainstream and independent, and consider factors like

1. is this information well-sourced?
2. is there any obvious missing context?
3. is this information up to date?
4. what are the likely ideological biases of this writer or publication?
5. What is the quality of the evidence provided to support the claims made in the article?

And so on. It’s much better this way than outsourcing your critical thinking to a third party who may be using a flawed methodology.

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.

As someone who has lived in Thailand, I get why Thais were pissed. The hotel, the taxi, the public transport all look like they’re from 30 years ago. Yes, you do still find run-down buildings and tuk-tuks in Bangkok today, but it’s generally a lot more developed and modern than westerners expect on first arrival. Instead of showing the reality, the creators of this ad went out of their way to portray an outdated caricature.

To an outsider it might seem like nitpicking, but Thais are fed up with being presented this way to an international audience.

Being profoundly ignorant on a topic has never stopped him from tweeting about it.

Because he is the owner of the very platform that helped to stir up the recent neofascist riots in the UK that led to POC being attacked and terrorized and properties looted and burned. His tweets are seen by millions of people, and greatly contribute towards online extremism and polarization.

Yup, sorry you’re right - it was World News, not News.

I’m not necessarily fully agreeing with OP’s thesis that MBFC is a pro-Zionist project, but something is very much amiss if UNWatch is considered to be a “highly credible” source.

I myself debunked a highly flawed and biased article from UNWatch that was posted to News@Lemmy.world* last month. The post was removed by the moderator (@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world) after being determined as disinformation. (I can’t link to it, since it has been removed, but if you want to see the details of my critique, check out this screenshot of my comment)

Having seen that first hand, I would absolutely say that MBFC’s credibility rating system is, at the very least, questionable.

• edit: World News

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.

Oh, don’t get me wrong - Budweiser/Coors/Michelob etc. are all awful. However, most US states have good local breweries and craft beers. Lagers are generally not as popular as IPAs, but you can still get good ones. Admittedly, this varies quite a bit depending on where you are in the US.

1. No it’s not.
2. I already use salted butter for toast – American is still worse.
3. Yes it is.

As a cooking ingredient, maybe, but if you’re using butter on toast, bread, etc. then Irish/French/British butter is clearly better.

Also, the superiority of European chocolate isn’t to do with the cocoa content or the sweetness - it’s just creamier and has a smoother texture.

I’ll agree with you on the beer, though.

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 lead to the rise of Trump need to be tackled at their roots before they will go away.

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.