Gloomy

joined 2 years ago
[–] Gloomy@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'd say yes. So far there is just the Gracias case that they have openly ignored the supreme Court.

Courts have stoppednabd reversed firings, for example. DODGE is loosing court cases left and right.

So far they are fighting the cases in court by appeals.

Take a look at the volume of lawsuits so far.

https://apnews.com/projects/trump-executive-order-lawsuit-tracker/

[–] Gloomy@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Meanwhile, on the other side of the spectrum:

[–] Gloomy@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

Second this, one can't just say something like this and not give a source.

[–] Gloomy@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 year ago

There is no concept of hell in the old testament. That's something the new Testament added on.

[–] Gloomy@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 year ago

I got you bro.

NSFW, in case that wasn't obvious.

[–] Gloomy@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (20 children)

You... You think a battery is a magic physics defying substance?

I mean, I don't see capitalism beeing a way to solve the climate crisis and do belive that degrowth is going to happen (by design or desaster), but the success of renewable energy is very much a capitalism success story.

[–] Gloomy@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

That video shows like 70 % to 80 % of the people beeing white. How is are you calling this fake news and then post a link that literally proves the point of the article??

[–] Gloomy@discuss.tchncs.de 23 points 2 years ago (4 children)

but considering how many people get a large soda in the morning and sip on it all day,

I am European and this sentence broke something in my soul.

[–] Gloomy@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 years ago

What is this, lost earth?

[–] Gloomy@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Reading random studies

I searched for related studies and found this one relevant. That is not random.

you find on news sites

It's from a scientific journal tough, not a new site?

that are outside your area of expertise

While true, this is not a study about biology or medicine. It's not hard to understand for lay people.

an easy way to be led to believe something based only on parts of the truth.

That's why you read more then one study. You know, like I specifically called out that this one links to a lot of related work?

In this case, as in many, we have to rein in our judgments for what the study indicates

It indicates that republicans are more likley to belive fake news.

Just because it says it found A doesn't mean B is true.

Yes, but nobody did that here? I'm confused what you are getting at.

[–] Gloomy@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)

It doesn't answer your question completely, but apparently conservatives are more likley to belive fake news.

Here is a quote from a study with a lot of links to related works.

In particular, Grinberg, Joseph, Friedland, Swire-Thompson, and Lazer [[42], p. 374] found that “individuals most likely to engage with fake news sources were conservative leaning.” Indeed, political bias can be a more important predictor of fake news believability than conspiracy mentality [43] despite conspirational predispositions playing a key role in motivated reasoning [44]. Perhaps because of this, an important body of research has examined whether conservatism influences fake news believability [45,46]. Tellingly, Robertson, Mourão, and Thorson [47] found that in the US liberal news consumers were more aware and amenable to fact-checking sites, whereas conservatives saw them as less positive as well as less useful to them, which might be why conservative SM users are more likely to confuse bots with humans, while liberal SM users tend to confuse humans with bots [48]. In particular, those who may arguably belong to the loud, populist and extremist minority wherein “1% of individuals accounted for 80% of fake news source exposures, and 0.1% accounted for nearly 80% of fake news sources shared” ([42], p. 374).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378720622001537#bib0045

view more: next ›