Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
ismnotwasm
ismnotwasm's Journal
ismnotwasm's Journal
September 15, 2024
ChatGBT doesn't know what faucet Trump was talking about
This is the clip
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTFF218qv/
I asked it directly what he was talking about, and this was the response—I almost told it —“So you don’t know either” lol
Anyway, this is the answer
Donald Trump's recent comments about a "faucet" that could bring water to California likely refer to his broader criticisms of water management and environmental regulations in the state. California has long dealt with droughts, and Trump has frequently suggested that the state's water shortage issues are due to poor water management rather than a lack of natural resources.
In past remarks, Trump has claimed that California's water problems could be solved by better managing water resources, suggesting that water is "wasted" by being diverted to protect environmental concerns like fish habitats. When he talks about a "faucet," he's probably using it as a metaphor, implying that water is available but is being restricted by regulatory decisions, and that it could easily be "turned on" if the regulations were lifted.
This aligns with his broader messaging about the need for deregulation to improve infrastructure and resource management in California.
In past remarks, Trump has claimed that California's water problems could be solved by better managing water resources, suggesting that water is "wasted" by being diverted to protect environmental concerns like fish habitats. When he talks about a "faucet," he's probably using it as a metaphor, implying that water is available but is being restricted by regulatory decisions, and that it could easily be "turned on" if the regulations were lifted.
This aligns with his broader messaging about the need for deregulation to improve infrastructure and resource management in California.
September 13, 2024
The Project 2025 song --amazing
?si=ffj8qkk9V8Uo0SCX
September 12, 2024
https://www.salon.com/2024/09/12/taylor-swifts-childless-cat-lady-endorsement-of-kamala-harris-exposes-what-maga-men-fear-most/
Taylor Swift's "Childless Cat Lady" endorsement of Kamala Harris exposes what MAGA men fear most
This is a pretty good article. It struck me, because I remember ten years ago, twenty, thirty. I remember ten years ago here on DU, when we were infested with “mens rights activists” —the precursor to the likes of Andrew Tate or Charlie Kirk or JD Vance.
I’ve been a feminist for many, many years and to see articles like this, basically saying “fuck the male gaze” is amazing. You know, we all walk in beauty. Some of it is of the farm. Some of it is of the military. Some of it is of the sciences. Some of it is youth or mothers or aging. We are reaching toward presidency, yet again. It looks like we will make it. Women are everywhere. As they should be. A long time coming. Such a long time. Hell no, we are not going back.
There's a flailing quality to this behavior of men lashing out because they can't force women to care what they think. Swift will almost surely wrinkle her nose and say, "ew," of course. But so will most other women.
It wasn't always this way. Even those a mere decade older than Swift can remember how much it was drilled into female heads that we should care for nothing more than male opinion, often with little discernment over what man was offering the opinion. If a man, any man, deigned to render judgment on your looks, your behavior, your waist size, your lifestyle, or the tenor of your voice, there was an expectation that you, as a woman, were to take his opinion seriously. Women's magazines were an endless stream of articles about what men supposedly "liked" and strategies to mold yourself into that form. Men in prestigious publications and TV programs were empowered to offer their behavioral prescriptions for all womankind, and women were expected to apologize for their failure to please the male gaze.
The moment I could feel that tide shifting was probably the Great Vocal Fry Wars of 2013. It started with the standard practice of men opining in public that women, as a group, are Doing It Wrong and must change immediately. Vocal fry is a normal vocal affectation — used by both men and women — where you drop your voice for emphasis. (NPR's Ira Glass does it a lot.) In the 90s, women were castigated for pitching voices "too" high for emphasis. In the 2000s, however, many women went low, instead. Men got mad about that, too. They yelled on social media. They wrote angry emails. They even did podcasts calling women who used low registers for emphasis "repulsive."
Instead of simply bowing their heads and begging for forgiveness, young women revolted. They pointed out, correctly, that they were previously forbidden from going high and now they aren't allowed to go low. They noted that there is no way a woman can talk that won't draw male ire. They concluded that these men don't want women talking at all. And a mass consensus among women began to grow: No one should care what men think. Talk how you like, and stop worrying about the opinions of random men.
It wasn't always this way. Even those a mere decade older than Swift can remember how much it was drilled into female heads that we should care for nothing more than male opinion, often with little discernment over what man was offering the opinion. If a man, any man, deigned to render judgment on your looks, your behavior, your waist size, your lifestyle, or the tenor of your voice, there was an expectation that you, as a woman, were to take his opinion seriously. Women's magazines were an endless stream of articles about what men supposedly "liked" and strategies to mold yourself into that form. Men in prestigious publications and TV programs were empowered to offer their behavioral prescriptions for all womankind, and women were expected to apologize for their failure to please the male gaze.
The moment I could feel that tide shifting was probably the Great Vocal Fry Wars of 2013. It started with the standard practice of men opining in public that women, as a group, are Doing It Wrong and must change immediately. Vocal fry is a normal vocal affectation — used by both men and women — where you drop your voice for emphasis. (NPR's Ira Glass does it a lot.) In the 90s, women were castigated for pitching voices "too" high for emphasis. In the 2000s, however, many women went low, instead. Men got mad about that, too. They yelled on social media. They wrote angry emails. They even did podcasts calling women who used low registers for emphasis "repulsive."
Instead of simply bowing their heads and begging for forgiveness, young women revolted. They pointed out, correctly, that they were previously forbidden from going high and now they aren't allowed to go low. They noted that there is no way a woman can talk that won't draw male ire. They concluded that these men don't want women talking at all. And a mass consensus among women began to grow: No one should care what men think. Talk how you like, and stop worrying about the opinions of random men.
https://www.salon.com/2024/09/12/taylor-swifts-childless-cat-lady-endorsement-of-kamala-harris-exposes-what-maga-men-fear-most/
August 24, 2024
I can’t find this on YouTube, but it is amazing —for what it is
Oh my goodness--this TikTok
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTN3noB6U/I can’t find this on YouTube, but it is amazing —for what it is
August 21, 2024
My husband is going to listen to a repeat of both conventions, or parts of both
He likes to compare and contest. It’s his way, although he’s a solid Democrat
Anyway, I’m listening to Trumps voice right now. He is nearly monotone, and sounds, well, weird. Telling typical lies. Boring. Bitter. Sad. Stupid.
There is really no way to compare the two. The DNC is inspired, laughing, joyful, talented, amazing and amazed. So much hope. With such good people. Gives the aura of both warm kitchens and full bellies and clubbing all night long. Youth and energy, age and, yes, wisdom. Inclusive. No one need fear for their lives walking into our convention because of who they are or who they love. We welcome all good people of good will and good hearts. We welcome republicans who flee their party, looking for refuge.
I want to tell him not to bother, there is no comparison. Plus, as I type this, I’m hear trump say something about Hunter Biden, more lies. Ick. Trump is the most repulsive human I’ve ever seen
June 10, 2024
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/09/opinion/presbyterian-church-evangelical-canceled.html
From Leopards eating my face The day my church canceled Me Was a Very Sad day
Or, David fucking French is sad that racists are racisting
This week, the leaders of the Presbyterian Church in America will gather in Richmond, Va., for their annual General Assembly. The Presbyterian Church in America is a small, theologically conservative Christian denomination that was my family’s church home for more than 15 years.
It just canceled me.
I am now deemed too divisive to speak to a gathering of Christians who share my faith. I was scheduled to speak about the challenges of dealing with toxic polarization, but I was considered too polarizing.
I was originally invited to join three other panelists on the topic of “how to be supportive of your pastor and church leaders in a polarized political year.” One of the reasons I was invited was precisely that I’ve been the target of intense attacks online and in real life.
The instant my participation was announced, those attacks started up again. There were misleading essays, vicious tweets, letters and even a parody song directed at the denomination and at me. The message was clear: Get him off the stage.
It just canceled me.
I am now deemed too divisive to speak to a gathering of Christians who share my faith. I was scheduled to speak about the challenges of dealing with toxic polarization, but I was considered too polarizing.
I was originally invited to join three other panelists on the topic of “how to be supportive of your pastor and church leaders in a polarized political year.” One of the reasons I was invited was precisely that I’ve been the target of intense attacks online and in real life.
The instant my participation was announced, those attacks started up again. There were misleading essays, vicious tweets, letters and even a parody song directed at the denomination and at me. The message was clear: Get him off the stage.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/09/opinion/presbyterian-church-evangelical-canceled.html
April 28, 2024
I just had a horrible thought, re: The puppy killer
Republicans being what they are, especially Maga’s, I can see those assholes deliberately going out and shooting dogs to prove whatever they think is the point.
Ugh.
October 22, 2023
I have started something similar to this process multiple times over the years and quickly get overwhelmed. There is so much. I’ve established bottom lines—Israel has a right to exist, the Palestinians are in a constant Human Rights crises, Hamas is a very, very effective Terrorist organization, that wants Israel obliterated and doesn’t care about the means.
So I asked ChatGBT about the Israeli-Palestine conflict
I asked how I could determine “who is right”
I got a good answer
Determining who is right in the Israel-Palestine conflict is a complex and contentious matter. It's essential to approach the issue with an open mind and consider various perspectives. Here are some steps to help you form an informed opinion:
1. **Educate Yourself**: Start by reading and learning about the history, context, and root causes of the conflict. Understand the narratives and claims from both sides.
2. **Multiple Sources**: Seek information from diverse sources to avoid bias. Consider reputable news outlets, academic sources, books, documentaries, and reports from international organizations.
3. **Listen to Voices from the Region**: Engage with people from the region, both Israelis and Palestinians, to hear their personal experiences and perspectives.
4. **Analyze the Key Issues**: Focus on specific aspects of the conflict, such as borders, refugees, settlements, security, and human rights. Analyze these topics separately to form a nuanced view.
5. **International Law**: Familiarize yourself with relevant international laws and resolutions, such as UN Security Council resolutions, to assess their implications on the conflict.
6. **Historical Context**: Understand the historical events and key milestones that have shaped the conflict, from the Balfour Declaration to the Oslo Accords.
7. **Complexity and Nuance**: Recognize that the conflict is multifaceted with many layers and viewpoints. Avoid oversimplification.
8. **Humanitarian Considerations**: Consider the humanitarian aspects, including the suffering of both Israeli and Palestinian civilians, and the need for a peaceful resolution.
9. **Dialogue and Peace Initiatives**: Learn about past and current peace initiatives and efforts to promote dialogue and cooperation.
10. **Form Your Own Opinion**: After careful research and reflection, form your own opinion, keeping in mind that the situation is continually evolving.
Remember that this conflict is deeply polarized, and people's views can be emotionally charged. It's important to approach this topic with empathy, respect, and a commitment to peace and justice rather than taking sides.
1. **Educate Yourself**: Start by reading and learning about the history, context, and root causes of the conflict. Understand the narratives and claims from both sides.
2. **Multiple Sources**: Seek information from diverse sources to avoid bias. Consider reputable news outlets, academic sources, books, documentaries, and reports from international organizations.
3. **Listen to Voices from the Region**: Engage with people from the region, both Israelis and Palestinians, to hear their personal experiences and perspectives.
4. **Analyze the Key Issues**: Focus on specific aspects of the conflict, such as borders, refugees, settlements, security, and human rights. Analyze these topics separately to form a nuanced view.
5. **International Law**: Familiarize yourself with relevant international laws and resolutions, such as UN Security Council resolutions, to assess their implications on the conflict.
6. **Historical Context**: Understand the historical events and key milestones that have shaped the conflict, from the Balfour Declaration to the Oslo Accords.
7. **Complexity and Nuance**: Recognize that the conflict is multifaceted with many layers and viewpoints. Avoid oversimplification.
8. **Humanitarian Considerations**: Consider the humanitarian aspects, including the suffering of both Israeli and Palestinian civilians, and the need for a peaceful resolution.
9. **Dialogue and Peace Initiatives**: Learn about past and current peace initiatives and efforts to promote dialogue and cooperation.
10. **Form Your Own Opinion**: After careful research and reflection, form your own opinion, keeping in mind that the situation is continually evolving.
Remember that this conflict is deeply polarized, and people's views can be emotionally charged. It's important to approach this topic with empathy, respect, and a commitment to peace and justice rather than taking sides.
I have started something similar to this process multiple times over the years and quickly get overwhelmed. There is so much. I’ve established bottom lines—Israel has a right to exist, the Palestinians are in a constant Human Rights crises, Hamas is a very, very effective Terrorist organization, that wants Israel obliterated and doesn’t care about the means.
September 4, 2023
What she has found is the overwhelming number of horrific crimes are committed by Republicans—not Trans people or drag queens. This is just the actual data. For instance;
- 80% of the top ten highest number of offenders per capita are Republican states.
- 100% of the top ten lowest number of offenders per capita are Democratic/Swing States.
- 60% of the top ten highest number of offenders per capita are in the top half of the most religious states.
- 20% of the top ten lowest number of offenders per capita are in the top half of the most religious states.
https://www.whoismakingnews.com/#welcome
My point is Republicans those who claim to care about children while ignoring facts are just as bad as you think they are.
Who's Making News? --a site tracking sex crimes against children
I follow this woman on TikTok, and I wanted to share her website
Welcome
Hi, I’m Kristen Browde, and this is a site that was set up because people wanted to see the data that goes into my TikTok series, Who’s Making News for Sex Crimes involving Children.
Who is actually committing crimes against children?
Here is the data from the latest 2526 cases, as of Sep 4, 2023 .
Hi, I’m Kristen Browde, and this is a site that was set up because people wanted to see the data that goes into my TikTok series, Who’s Making News for Sex Crimes involving Children.
Who is actually committing crimes against children?
Here is the data from the latest 2526 cases, as of Sep 4, 2023 .
What she has found is the overwhelming number of horrific crimes are committed by Republicans—not Trans people or drag queens. This is just the actual data. For instance;
- 80% of the top ten highest number of offenders per capita are Republican states.
- 100% of the top ten lowest number of offenders per capita are Democratic/Swing States.
- 60% of the top ten highest number of offenders per capita are in the top half of the most religious states.
- 20% of the top ten lowest number of offenders per capita are in the top half of the most religious states.
https://www.whoismakingnews.com/#welcome
My point is Republicans those who claim to care about children while ignoring facts are just as bad as you think they are.
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayMember since: Mon Aug 23, 2004, 09:18 PM
Number of posts: 42,440