Aesthetics, plus the seductive appeal that pre-modern, pre-liberal-democratic societies (when the governments were authoritarian, the women were submissive, and the men “were men”) have for reactionaries, incels, and cryptofacists.

But as I noted above, the average UK citizen is not in favor of strict immigration controls (legal or otherwise) and certainly not supportive of the recent riots.

Of those who are, the majority comes from lower-income areas that suffered the most under years of Tory austerity, which is understandable. But even then it’s really a case of the socioeconomic elites pointing the finger at immigrants rather than themselves.

As for the Muslim community, again there is good evidence to suggest that a lot of the fears you mentioned are unfounded. Surveys have shown that most feel that they belong in Britain and have no objections to integrating with the culture.

Again, the problem you tend to find is that extremists like Anjem Choudary are amplified by the press, giving the impressions that the Muslim community is incompatible with British values, when in fact the vast majority disagree with that statement.

It’s ironic you mention ‘reality’, since the hysteria surround immigration is largely based on misinformation and xenophobic propaganda being spouted by right-wing politicians and media for well over a decade. This has led to a highly distorted view of the scale and severity of the issue.

First off, the mass migration of peoples seeking refuge from war and other geopolitical disasters is a global issue rather than something that is unique to the UK, but even then the UK has taken in far fewer asylum seekers relative to other EU countries.

For instance:

• When measuring the number of asylum applications per 10,000 citizens, the UK only ranks 20th when compared to other EU countries.
• In terms of migrants arriving by boat, the UK is well behind other EU countries like Italy, Greece, and Spain.
• Despite the obsession with small boat crossings, they represent only a tiny fraction of overall arrivals. The vast majority of immigrants still come through official channels for work, study, etc.

Also, the UK population is actually pretty positive when it comes to immigration:

• In a global survey, 55% of UK citizens said immigration was a net positive, and only 30% were in favor of strict limits.

The paranoia about immigrants causing higher crime rates is also based on a myth:

• The overall rates of violent crime has been steadily falling for decades despite a steady rise in the number of foreign-born citizens.
• There is no evidence that an increase in the rate of foreign-born citizens even correlates with a rise in burglaries, thefts, and other property crimes.

All this is to say that a lot of the anger inflaming these racists riots come from a combination of political and media misinformation and many people’s innate prejudice towards non-Europeans.

30 is way too many. Ideally, you want about 4-5 parties in order to maintain a healthy democracy without getting bogged down.

Either way, the two party corporate duopoly of the US ain’t it.

Yup, sorry you’re right - it was World News, not News.

I’m not necessarily fully agreeing with OP’s thesis that MBFC is a pro-Zionist project, but something is very much amiss if UNWatch is considered to be a “highly credible” source.

I myself debunked a highly flawed and biased article from UNWatch that was posted to News@Lemmy.world* last month. The post was removed by the moderator (@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world) after being determined as disinformation. (I can’t link to it, since it has been removed, but if you want to see the details of my critique, check out this screenshot of my comment)

Having seen that first hand, I would absolutely say that MBFC’s credibility rating system is, at the very least, questionable.

• edit: World News

Like it or not, Twitter is still the de-facto place for breaking news stories. You just have to sift through the dross.

As much as Mastodon is a far nicer and healthier social platform, it has a long way to go before it gets anywhere close in this particular regard.

General is for work visas, whereas Academic is for applying to university courses. Generally speaking.

You should always double check with the institution/company you’re applying to, though.

I’m a fan of atmospheric horror too, so I’ll give Longlegs a watch.

Recently, I’ve also seen:

• Late Night With the Devil - really good retro horror flick. They got the feel of the late 70s just right, and i enjoyed the way the tension gradually builds to a crescendo.

• A Quiet Place: Day One - was a big fan of the first movie, but the sequels have been increasingly disappointing. This one was definitely the weakest, IMO, but still somewhat enjoyable if you still feel like seeing a little more of the same.

• Furiosa - it was never going to be quite as good as Fury Road, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. It leant a little too much towards the grotesque at times, but the central performances and the world building were still good.

• Immaculate - Sweeney is pretty good and it has some atmosphere but by the end it got a little too silly for me. A fairly passable religious genre horror, all round.

• Dune: Part Two - as a big fan of the books, I have to say it was a little disappointing. Villeneuve nailed the look and feel of Arrakis no doubt, but this part felt rushed and unsatisfying - It really needed another 30 or 40 minutes to allow some of the central plot points to land and to give the characters more room to develop. I enjoyed it, but it’s not the masterpiece it could have been.

There is no rule that says the universe must make sense to human beings. In fact the more we learn about it - subatomic particles, quantum mechanics, the multiverse, etc. the stranger it becomes and the less it appears to operate in ways that are intuitive to our primitive primate brains.

Hell, even space and time might not be fundamental properties, and could themselves be abstractions which emerge from an even deeper underlying reality…

All of which is to say your list should have an extra option:

D. Who The Fuck Knows?

As someone married to a JW and who is friends with several others, I will say this: like any group of people, they can be a mixed bag. Some are more closeted and “in the truth” whereas others are more outgoing and “worldly”.

One the things that I actually admire about them (the individuals, mind you, not the Watchtower organization) is that they really seem to try and live by the teachings of the Bible and study it frequently. Much more so than, say, your average evangelical Protestant.

As someone who is mostly agnostic, those who belive that absence of evidence equals evidence of absence belong in psychotherapy.

This position is a straw man. Atheists generally do not argue that God categorically does not exist. Instead, we usually say that we don’t believe in God because there is insufficient evidence. Much like the proverbial invisible unicorn in your backyard - since there is no evidence that it exists, there is no reason for it to affect how we go about our daily lives.

When it comes to whether you’re agnostic or atheist, I think it helps to answer the following question on a scale of 0 - 10: How confident are you that God exists? If you say around 5, then you’re agnostic. If you say around 1 or 2, then you’re an atheist.

I’d say a good-sized part of it is simply the American preference for watching beautiful, weathly people doing beautiful, wealthy people things. Hollywood rom-coms and US TV shows in general clearly skew towards upper middle class settings when compared to the equivalents from, say, the UK.

In other words, I reckon US media prefer their fictional characters to be aspirational whereas other cultures prefer theirs to be relatable.

More frequent kernel updates.

• requires a fair bit of post-installation configuration (suboptimal OOTB experience for newbies)
• Uses btrfs by default but comes with no snapshots or GUI manager pre-configured for system restore
• Less software availability compared to Ubuntu or Mint
• More likely to break than Ubuntu or Mint

The Death of Stalin is great.

But isn’t this something you can tweak within your DE configuration? I’m on Gnome and don’t have this issue.

This sounds like a DE thing than a Wayland/X thing.

It’s not so much saying that someone’s religious beliefs are logically impossible, more highly unlikely. When I typically see this rhetoric, it’s generally along the lines of “how on Earth did you weigh up all the evidence (or lack thereof) and come to the conclusion that God exists?”, or more impolite words to that effect.

I personally don’t browbeat the religious, so I’m not condoning it, but that’s why this line of argument generally isn’t gnostic atheism.

If, on the other hand, someone is actually saying that the existence of God is logically impossible, a priori, then that would be gnostic atheism. But, like I said before, that generally isn’t what most atheists believe or argue for.

Gnostic atheists are only a thing on paper; I’ve never met or heard of another atheist who ascribes to this view. As the link you provided states, this academic definition of atheism is not one ascribed to by the vast majority of self-described atheists.

Or, to quote the American Atheists organization:

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Source

On this basis, any invisible unicorn/intergalactic teapot/flying spaghetti monster argument that invokes “burden of proof” is not an gnostic atheist position. The argument is based on the idea that until evidence for an invisible unicorn exists, there is no reason for it to have any bearing on our behavior.

This is different from saying that because no evidence of an invisible unicorn exists, that we must conclude that it categorically does not exist. You cannot logically prove the non-existence of a non-existent entity.