this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
466 points (96.8% liked)

People Twitter

5373 readers
1671 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] EndOfLine 120 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Article on Scientific America's site

For the curious the other endorsement they made was for Joe Biden in 2020.

[–] ThePantser 152 points 3 months ago (1 children)

179 years and the only time they endorsed was against Trump. Almost like he's a piece of shit or something.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It’s Scientific American, not Complete Bullshit American.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

To be fair, Americans had no idea just how many of us were anti-science/ pro-bullshit until nearly the end of 2016.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The sad thing is that the rest of the world knew.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Why didn't you tell us?!

[–] [email protected] 74 points 3 months ago

Trump firing all those"experts" during his first term really worked out well.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It's gotta be a low bar. Just don't believe in 19th century health conspiracies. You had to have been dropped constantly as a baby to believe vaccines are dangerous.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Vaccines are important but a primary reason I'm voting for Harris is because if she doesn't win, this could be the last election. There are morons voting for Trump just because they think they're getting "revenge" for the existence of trans people by voting red. Both sides have wildly different priorities.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago

Not necessarily. You could also be a virus.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Only the 2nd time is surprising considering the right doesn’t believe in science

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They used to just look sideways at it instead of straight up denial.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It's a wonder each of them was the respectively "fittest" sperm. I mean, fuck. I'm curious if even Darwin understood how much raw chance was involved in this "evolution" he imagined. 🤡

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

That's the problem, yes. Wrap that thing, FFS.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It's not the first sperm that fertilises an egg... The first who make it put in all the effort breaching the wall and dying of exhaustion before some lazy piece of shit sperm towards the end just waltzes through the hole and does the needful.

Explains a lot tbh

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Is that a relatively recent phenomenon or has it been that way for decades?

If it's the former, it might explain why they didn't need to before.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I don't understand what endorsements mean in the US for their elections, nothing right?

[–] nelly_man 2 points 3 months ago

At the national level, that's true. The candidates are usually quite distinct and very well known, so holding a particular endorsement is unlikely to change anything.

However, I do find them useful in local elections. In those, the candidates are usually (but not always) pretty closely aligned, so it's hard to make a decision based off of what their campaign is promising. They also frequently involve candidates that are fairly new to politics, so it can be difficult to learn more about their past outside of what their campaign puts forth. So I'll usually learn something worthwhile from an endorsement that can help me make a decision. I also have a good opinion of some of the local magazines that make me more willing to trust their recommendations.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Correct.

It means that the population of this country relies heavily on the opinions of heads of publications, heads of corporations and focus group tested celebrity tweets to make decisions on who they should vote for to run their lives.

This, in turn, means that our elections are completely meaningless. The win goes to the richest candidate.

[–] Revonult 2 points 3 months ago

I think it could matter in some cases. Like if there was a local election and I didn't know the candidates very well but one was endorsed by the NAACP, I would be much more likely to vote for them.

I agree however, that for such large elections where everything is very publicized already, these endorsements don't do much. However, if it gets one person to vote that's positive.

[–] kofe 1 points 3 months ago

We're the most social creatures on the planet. It may not sway anyone, but it could help keep moral up for those of us more at risk for skipping from sheer depression or apathy.

[–] BussyCat 4 points 3 months ago

Second time in 179 years sounds a lot more impressive than they endorsed the same party they did during the last election. They broke the seal in 2020 and will probably endorse someone again in 2028