This user has mostly submitted to the following subverses (showing top 5):
40 submissions to whatever
21 submissions to aww
7 submissions to 321
2 submissions to news
1 submissions to politics
This user has so far shared a total of 66 links, started a total of 10 discussions and submitted a total of 546 comments.
Submissions: This user has upvoted 205 and downvoted 19 submissions.
Comments: This user has upvoted 172 and downvoted 11 comments.
5 highest rated submissions:
anyone find it suspicious that the same week the dnc announced low fundraising and record debt snopes launched a crowdfunding campaign to stay open?, submitted: 7/25/2017 2:26:16 AM, 203 points (+204|-1)
Is Martian Magazine the new Redpanels?, submitted: 5/26/2017 4:04:34 PM, 166 points (+172|-6)
New MM - The future is whatever we make it, submitted: 11/3/2017 5:46:08 PM, 164 points (+164|-0)
Even fictional hillary btfo, submitted: 11/1/2017 8:49:20 PM, 137 points (+137|-0)
Familiar names pop up everywhere, submitted: 8/7/2018 9:44:08 PM, 132 points (+135|-3)
5 lowest rated submissions:
NSFW Bunnies, submitted: 2/12/2017 5:26:00 AM, -1 points (+3|-4)
New Brazilian Steakhouse, submitted: 5/28/2017 4:31:57 AM, -1 points (+1|-2)
I wasn't sure what to make of this, submitted: 1/2/2018 8:39:43 PM, 0 points (+4|-4)
I've never seen bbc set up a buzzfeed style quiz to promote a movie before, submitted: 2/18/2018 11:33:50 AM, 1 points (+1|-0)
End of an era now that the sarno extension is closed to the public. Is the compound the only place left to go?, submitted: 2/28/2018 8:41:38 PM, 1 points (+1|-0)
3 highest rated comments:
meowmix56 0 points 36 points 36 points (+36|-0) ago
Its easy to turn a blind eye until it happens to you.
meowmix56 0 points 29 points 29 points (+29|-0) ago
I don't think it is a matter of accuracy at all. There have been accurate memes before that have gone largely ignored. The reason they are quick to move against this meme is that it is dangerous to them. In a humorous and compelling way it draws attention to and negates the tactics of manipulation and emotional cues they used to herd people. Just as importantly it is accessible and funny to normal people, the ones who don't pay much attention to politics. I hope people make the most of these and share them while it lasts. They are great.
meowmix56 1 points 28 points 29 points (+29|-1) ago
Yes. They had been testing the system for a few people off and on for months beforehand. To my knowledge it was not well received. Rather than a normal rollout or waiting until it was ready they forced it through silently less than week after the negative schumer press. It seems very likely. I only watched the special after reading an article about the low rating, ostensibly blamed on alt-right trolls, and I had to struggle to make it through. Not only were the jokes derivative and unpleasant but the audience wasn't even laughing. The audience of people who paid money to watch amy schumer did not seem happy to be there.
I'd rather they made a deal to use imdb ratings or set up their own metacritic style ratings. I can only guess their reluctance is because they want an individuals rating to predict what else they would enjoy watching. However this can be accomplished nearly as easily behind the scenes with statistics on what they watch and for how long and comparing it to people with similar habits.
On the bright side the dave chappelle specials weren't bad.
3 lowest rated comments:
meowmix56 10 points -9 points 1 points (+1|-10) ago
But whites have no civilization. It was entirely culturally appropriated from asia and the middle east.
meowmix56 5 points -3 points 2 points (+2|-5) ago
Russia is too much of a scapegoat anyways. As long as they keep revealing important truths I don't really care about their agenda.
meowmix56 2 points -2 points 0 points (+0|-2) ago
Nobody mentioned the first amendment. Free speech does not end at the first amendment. As you correctly point out the first amendment limits the government from action restricting expression. However the concept of free speech goes beyond this as a fundamental social value. Yes a private entity has a right to fire their employees over statements, but they can and should be criticized for it. We can express our discontent, stop doing business with them, and try to persuade others to do the same. As recent events illustrate censorship is fully possible at the hands of private industry. I get the impression you do not agree with what you said and were merely throwing the left's words back in their face but I try to make this argument at every opportunity. Hopefully someone reads it and is influenced.
- Though I do not believe the right of an employer to fire employees at will stems from the first amendment