460
all 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] EndOfLine@lemmy.world 114 points 2 months ago

Article on Scientific America's site

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

[-] sirico@feddit.uk 69 points 2 months ago

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

[-] Blackout@fedia.io 39 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] taladar@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago

Not necessarily. You could also be a virus.

[-] greenshirtdenimjeans@sh.itjust.works 33 points 2 months ago

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

[-] stringere@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 months ago

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

[-] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago

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. 🤡

[-] itsworkthatwedo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago
[-] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago

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

[-] trk@aussie.zone 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 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

[-] Eiri@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 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.

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago

Tea Party(2010s or so) is when they started going anti-science. They've always been pro Christian though, so it's a fuzzy line.

[-] hamid@vegantheoryclub.org 5 points 2 months ago

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

[-] nelly_man@lemmy.world 2 points 2 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.

[-] kofe@lemmy.world 1 points 2 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@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month 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

this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
460 points (100.0% liked)

People Twitter

5230 readers
480 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.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS