Nobody fucking cares where the money is coming from or about the terms of who will pay for it, the bare fact is that Iran will receive $300 billion as part of the deal to end a war no one asked for and whose goals have been repeatedly walked back as the conflict has gone on. We were primed with talk about "liberating the Iranian people," which then turned into denuclearization, which then downgraded to "eroding Iran's military capability" and you have to make the biggest dislocating reaches ever to pretend like any of this was meaningfully accomplished. What do we suppose Iran will do with that money, regardless of who provides it?
Maybe if you guys could be the least bit honest about how far the deal falls short of the war's purported goals, people would be a little more congenial. As it stands now, you people give the impression that you'll say anything to whitewash what a waste of time this was. Don't pretend like Levin is some kook, Trump kissed his ass and so did all the war cheerleaders, so that's who you are now.
Never forget social media bans are ENTIRELY a response to young people not being supportive of Israel.
For 20+ years kids under ten have seen the most obscene sex acts on porn sites with ZERO government interest in stopping it... Because of who owned the porn sites.
Yet Young people start objecting to the mass slaughter of children and start questioning the boomer moral-regime that carves out a special super-legal moral victim status for one specific religious-ethnicity...
And suddenly it is all-hands-on-deck to nearly crush the entire US tech economy, and destroy the international media/free speech ecosystem.
Suddenly the Trump regime and even Elon are nearly completely silent about half of America's allies conspiring to fundamentally alter the functioning of US tech.
You do not hate the regime enough
Two men adopt a healthy, happy baby. His grandmother, who looks after his sister, objects. She asks for the baby to be fostered for a few months until she is well enough to take him. This is denied.
His adoptive "father" abuses him until he dies.
@FriedrichSeidel@lichtstifter »Nekromantik« dürfte international um Längen bekannter sein als durchschnittlicher deutscher »Kultfilm«krempel wie »Der Eisbär«, »Tattoo«, »Antikörper« etc. pp.
Ihr könnt es drehen und wenden, wie Ihr wollt: Ein möglichst weitreichendes Social-Media-Verbot wäre mit das Beste, was überhaupt passieren könnte. Tausende Hurnalisten würden arbeitslos, weil »investigative Recherche« plötzlich nicht mehr via Google möglich wäre. […]
@mayrhofer_x Im großen und ganzen läuft die Argumentation der Kameraden von der Fraktion »gEsIcHt zEiGeN« doch so: Social Media mobilisiert junge Leute zu Aktionen für Content für Social Media zur Mobilisierung junger Leute zu Aktionen für Content für …
Exclusive from @oliver_wright
Dartmoor ponies could be subject to mass culling to reduce the impact on biodiversity after a controversial ruling by the government’s environmental quango
Natural England has demanded that all livestock grazing on the moor is reduced by about 75 per cent to protect other habitats, plants and species
The move looks set to result in the culling of up to nine in ten of the semi-wild ponies as farmers prioritise their own cattle and sheep to remain within Natural England’s limit to minimise the impact on their own livelihoods
Natural England argued that the move was necessary to protect the diversity of Dartmoor, which is a designated site of special scientific interest
However, the plan goes against a government commissioned review into the future of Dartmoor, published two years ago, which concluded that Natural England “should not take actions likely to result in a reduction in pony numbers”, adding they were “invaluable for conservation grazing”
The move has led to claims that the quango is acting as judge, jury and executioner of the ponies — a species which is itself seen as endangered
Dartmoor ponies could be put to death under biodiversity plans
https://t.co/s8L8nBJwlk
Servicetweet:
Wenn der kapitalistische liberal-multiethnische Staat sich nur noch durch Repression selbst erhalten kann und sich dabei immer eindeutiger mit Klauen und Zähnen gegen das Volk wendet, dann ist das kein »Faschismus«.
Das Verständnis von Begriffen ist die Grundlage jeder sinnvollen politischen Betätigung.
Nachdenken. Danke.
Fred Rogers met with a child psychologist every week for 22 years to build his show. She shaped everything: every script, prop, and song. The whole point was to give a child's nervous system time to slow down. In 1984, a single regulatory decision ended all of it.
The psychologist was Dr. Margaret McFarland, who co-founded the Arsenal Family and Children's Center alongside Benjamin Spock and Erik Erikson. She and Rogers understood that the prefrontal cortex in children, the part of the brain that controls impulse, emotion, and attention, takes decades to fully develop. At the start of every episode, Rogers tied his sneakers and changed his sweater while children settled in. Those pauses were intentional, designed to help a child's nervous system shift into a calmer, more focused state.
What ended it had nothing to do with child development science. In 1984, Reagan's FCC chairman Mark Fowler abolished the advertising limits that had protected children's programming from commercial pressure. Toy companies moved within months. Between 1984 and 1985, cartoons tied to toy lines increased by 300%, from a handful of shows to more than 40 animated series. In almost every case, the toy was designed first. The cartoon was built to sell it.
Researchers later put numbers to what parents were already noticing. A 2011 study in Pediatrics from the University of Virginia tested 60 four-year-olds across three groups: one watching SpongeBob, which cuts scene every 11 seconds; one watching a slow PBS show, which cuts scene every 34 seconds; and one drawing. Nine minutes later, all three took tests on attention, impulse control, short-term memory, and problem-solving. The SpongeBob group scored significantly worse across every measure.
In the 1970s, children began watching television around age 4. Research from pediatrician Dimitri Christakis found that by 2009, the average age of first screen exposure had dropped to 4 months, as the content got faster and the audience got younger. Researchers separately found that each additional hour of daily screen time at ages 1 or 3 raised the risk of attention problems at age 7 by 9%.
@jsm42069@SozialeMW Man sollte doch meinen, daß gerade den Musk-Simps besser erinnerlich sein sollte, wann der »Based« African Autist jemandem einen »Gesichtsfick« empfohlen hat. ^^
(Zur Erinnerung: Zwischen den Jahren 2024 in der Debatte um die Visapolitik der angebl. »America-First«-Mannschaft.)