The process of going "mainstream" is typically when the political ambitions of the movement are stripped away while the aesthetics become defanged and made 'appropriate' for popular consumption. This isn't a victory for a counter culture movement, it's capitalism wearing a corpse of another ideology as a fashion statement.
For example, wearing an Indian warrior costume to a dress-up party doesn't get first nations any closer to getting their land back.
I just saw the title and assumed it was talking about The Wild Robot and was confused, the movie did really well.
The plot point that listening to animal sounds will decode a generative grammar is obviously fantastical, and it's a relatively basic fish out of water/found family story. But the world hinted at taking place in the background is absolutely fascinating. Extreme weather events on a disrupted planet, large-scale rewilding, advanced robotics in the service of agriculture, and geodesic biospheres drop into the story without exposition or explanation. Perhaps it gets away with its radical messaging because it remains in the subtext.
But have you considered the fact that yes?
This link is definitely going into the "things to reply to MBFC bot with when it claims that Semafor is least-biased" folder.
It think it's a good reason to hold a grudge against Semafor for doing this, but it's not just a Semafor problem. Even the most prestigious journals have shilled for oil companies; it's not as much a failing of the organization as much as it is a feature of the capitalist system.
I like the idea of rewarding individuals with principles and integrity. We should be posting more of Bill Spindle's stuff. Cipher News appears to have good reporting as well.
It sounds like extremely toxic organic chemistry. I imagine the waste from the reactions has special disposal requirements. Do you think the powder is hazardous as well?
Let's be clear that I am anti-Putin and anti-Kim.
Ad-hominem means "to the man" -- that is, instead of attacking the message, one attacks the credibility of the messenger. This also includes when instead of defending the credibility of a message, one defends the credibility of the messenger. Ad-hominem is exactly the purpose of the MBFC bot. Instead of fact-checking the individual article, it tells you if the article is credible or not based on its clearly biased assessment of the article outlet.
You are correct in that ad-hominem is generally a terrible way of judging credibility. I am not making an ad-hominem fallacy. I am responding to an ad-hominem fallacy that has been spammed in every thread in this community.
Groups like MBFC use their position as gatekeepers of the political spectrum to disguise radical ideas as centrist positions, and it’s ironic that !world using such a biased propaganda platform to tell its readers what is credible.
Bias is not the same thing as propaganda, propaganda is not the same thing as misinformation. Articles should be evaluated on how factual they are, and there are plenty of platforms that are doing the hard work of verifying information without putting their political ideology above their credibility. This bot is a mistake.
Before removing the bot, !news mods removed comments critical of the bot, and ignored the overwhelming negative feedback and the consensus that the bot should be removed when they opened the discussion up to the community.
!politics and !world now appear to be willing to change course. The vote to "Kill" -- stop their bot from advertising MBFC in all of their posts -- appears to be leading in both communities.
If you upvote the Kill comment so that this lead becomes a landslide, you can make it even more embarrassing and difficult for them to claim 'bots' or backtrack.
MBFC is claiming CNN is Left-Center, when it is owned by conservative billionaire John Malone. This is an example of MBFC's intentional distortion of the political spectrum by falsely representing it as dominated by a left-wing bias.
An example of CNN's actual right-wing bias is when they put an obvious Trump Supporter on their televised panel of 'undecided voters'. According to Parker Molloy from The New Republic, this isn't "an isolated case of questionable representation in CNN’s voter panels. In fact, it appears to be part of a troubling pattern stretching back years." She suggests it could be "a potential willingness to mislead viewers for the sake of compelling television." - media ownership and their profit motive, and complicity of the media elite are sources of bias that MBFC does not adequately account for.
!politics and !world now appear to be willing to consider backing away from MBFC. The vote to "Kill" -- stop their bot from advertising MBFC in all of community posts -- appears to be leading in both communities.
If you upvote the Kill comment so that this lead becomes a landslide, you can make it even more embarrassing and difficult for them to claim 'bots' or backtrack.
ABC News is a brand of Disney Advertising. It is lead by a conservative billionaire, and is not a left-biased organization.
Fact-checking is an essential tool in fighting the waves of fake news polluting the public discourse. But if that fact-checking is partisan, then it only acerbates the problem of people divided on the basics of a shared reality. Dave Van Zandt has admitted to a US-centric bias in MBFC's ratings. It's fairly easy to notice an American conservative lean in MBFC's bias ratings, as well as their credibility ratings.
A consortium of fact-checking institutions have joined together to form the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), and laid out a code of principles. You can find a list of signatories as well as vetted organizations on their website. MBFC is not a signatory to the IFCN code of principles. As a partisan organization, it violates the standards that journalists have recognized as essential to restoring trust in the veracity of the news. Partisan fact-checking sites are worse than no fact-checking at all. Just like how the proliferation of fake news undermines the authority of journalism, the growing popularity of a fact-checking site by a political hack like Dave M. Van Zandt undermines the authority of non-partisan fact-checking institutions in the public consciousness.
Please choose "Kill" -- to stop giving free advertising to MBFC on Lemmy.
Voice of America (VOA) is a state media network funded by the United States of America, whose purpose is to project soft power through journalism. In 1948, Voice of America was forbidden to broadcast directly to American citizens to protect the public from propaganda by its own government. The restriction was removed in 2013 to to adapt to the Internet age.
In 2005, the Washington Post reported that suspected Al-qaeda operatives were flown into Thailand to be detained and tortured. VOA's remote relay radio station in Udon Thani province has been widely suspected to be the torture site.
Most people do not believe that propaganda is anything that disagrees with the United States Government's foreign policy, and find the idea that the VOA is less biased than the New York Times laughable. Lemmy.World endorses these absurdities by advertising Media Bias Fact Check in every post in their community. You have a limited time to let !politics and !world know what you think.
This is a valid reading of the subtext. It puts the amoral and implacable collector bot in a more appropriate context as well.
It still has the solarpunk message that the modern world is headed for disaster and we will be forced to change whether we are prepared for it or not, and it doesn't celebrate the authoritarian aspects of the human society that serves as the underlying antagonist.