Sad version of this in the US post-election world. It's like we can't recognize the opportunity for change when it's right in front of us.

"We love environmentalism and hate big pharma"

"Here's a rock-solid environmentalist who wants to take on the corporations adding nasty stuff to our food and tricking you about pharma safety"

"NOOO! he's crazy"

"We want healthy soils and agriculture"

"Well, how about this fellow who lives offgrid and grows his own food, helped by the foremost proponent of regenerative agriculture? This way of farming rebuilds soils and ecosystems"

NOO! they're linked to the bad man, so they must be bad

(I'm not holding my breath on major systemic change, but it's still cool to see some genuinely good ideas being put out there)

nostr:note1a94ymp4rdhm9rjw7gx6payqjamtfmj7rpztlfmakwq84szmeh0vs62pw40

It's an electrolyte supplement. Comes in raw (unflavored) and a bunch of flavors (with stevia added). You can make your own pretty easily, and the crucial one seems to be sodium since it helps the body hold onto the others.

You've used the correlation of years in school with wealth and then assumed a whole lot of things about character. Unfortunately it's pretty common to pick the facts and statistics to support bigotry.

I'm seeing so much of that right now among people who assume that their years of schooling and their media choices make them "educated."

If there's one single thing that lost Kamala this election, I believe it's this arrogance. Both because of the condescension it breeds but also because it precludes genuine curiosity and learning about the issues that matter to voters.

People are FLIPPING OUT

"Historians won't be allowed under Trump."

They're going to ban masks. Wear your mask in protest"

"We're all going to be sent to internment camps"

And my personal favorite: "He's going to turn the free press into government propaganda" (ummm...)

People often conflate schooling with education

I know a lot of folks with a ton of schooling. Very few of them are well educated and even fewer are capable of critical thinking.

And I you! Love your posts. Plus you once quoted Ivan Illich 🤩

Such great insights but then that bit about health care being a human right. Aside from the implication that health care labor should be "free," the whole thing is built on a terrible model for medicine which incentivizes the use of interventions at the expense of actual health.

But otherwise this is a nice surprise.

It's amazing to watch so many on the left not recognize how dysfunctional and elitist the Dem party has become. Good for Bernie.

what are just facts?

wow - really?! The condescension is dripping off the screen

Many of us aren't particularly hopeful about Trump; we're just relieved that it's not Harris.

idk

I think we can change the incentives without going after them. I mean - it would be great to get justice, obviously! but the danger is getting stuck in a cycle of revenge and retribution. Better to just build new systems.

I sometimes wonder if that was the moment that he decided to spend the rest of his life trying to fuck us over

The thing I found so revealing about this was that the Dems could have said "look how much Trump spent! that's what started the latest inflationary cycle!" but then they would have had to admit that spending causes inflation.

trying not to get my hopes up.... but oh!!!! this is SO exciting!!!

Yum!!

GM, Odell!

Very grateful to have had your voice in my ear during this election cycle 🙏

Yes, I understand. And what you're saying really sucks for Ross.

It's like if you're on trial for shoplifting and feel that you didn't get a fair trial so you appeal it, and the DA says no - and by the way we also think this person broke into someone's home. They never actually arrest you for the break-in but you get 5 years for shoplifting because the judge is influenced by the break-in accusations (that you never get to counter in court).

A court can't determine that he did it without a trial. They can argue that they think he did it when they turn down his appeal - but they can't find him guilty without a trial.

Using evidence of one crime - that has not gone to trial - to contribute to the sentencing of another is awful.

So you're saying that a judge took into account some evidence that had nothing to do with the case in which he was convicted? That really sucks and sounds immoral if not illegal.

Trials are not always fair and of course innocent people are sometimes found guilty - but at least they offer the opportunity to weigh the evidence, with the defense given the chance to address it.

🤞