When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
remember the time the WH used that computer twice, but only people questioned the first, so they fired it back up and whipped up a second shitty video to prove the first?
Wolves hold a special place in the human imagination that dates into prehistory, and has surfaced countless times in folklore and culture. Now, scientists have presented a modern iteration of this ancient obsession in a new study that links the reemergence of wolves into Germany with a rise in electoral support for far-right politicians.
Wolves once occupied an enormous range across much of North America and Eurasia, but human activities such as over-hunting and habitat destruction caused their numbers to crash in recent centuries. Numerous nations, including the United States and Germany, have spent years helping wolves rebound in regions where they previously were exterminated, which has positive ripple effects on ecosystems but has also resulted in wolves preying on livestock.
Now, research led by Bernhard Clemm von Hohenberg, a computational social scientist at the University of Amsterdam, combines a range of different data about public opinion on wolves that includes fine-grained spatial maps of wolf attacks in German municipalities, local surveys, Twitter posts, election manifestos, and Facebook ads.
Together, the results provide “evidence that the reemergence of the wolf has been accompanied by electoral gains for far-right parties” and show that “far-right politicians frame the wolf as a threat to economic livelihoods,” according to a study published on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that focused, in particular, on the German far-right party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).
“To fight global warming and biodiversity loss, governments around the globe are implementing far-reaching conservation programs including the restoration of habitats and large-scale reforestation,” said von Hohenberg and co-author Anselm Hager, an assistant professor of international politics at Humboldt University of Berlin, in the study, adding that the effects of these actions can “generate political backlash.”
“Although the complexities of human–wildlife conflicts are increasingly recognized, evidence on the political repercussions is still scarce,” the pair continued. “The growing success of radical far-right parties across Europe, which have an ambivalent or outright negative stance toward conservation, makes this a particularly pressing issue.”
To tease out the potential connection between wolves and far-right electoral fortunes, von Hohenberg and Hager analyzed voting behavior in communities with and without wolf attacks across time. The researchers introduced controls for “a host of variables that may confound the relationship between wolf attacks,” including attitudes toward immigration and employment, but they still cautioned against “interpreting the findings in a causal manner,” according to the study. Social scientists, political scientists, social media companies, academics, and Twitter knowers have all tried to come up with explanations for a terrifyingly resurgent far right; “wolves” are surely not to blame for what is ultimately a highly complex failing of modern society. The correlation, however, is notable and interesting considering the controls implemented by Hochenberg and Hager.
The results revealed that the AfD gained between 1 and 2 percentage points in federal elections, and as much as 5 percentage points in state elections, after a wolf attack in a given municipality. These point fluctuations correspond to absolute vote shares of 9.2 percent on average federally and 11.6 percent on average on the state level since 2013.
In addition, the team pulled data from more than 3.5 million tweets made by German members of parliaments since 2008 and what they call “the entire universe” of AfD Facebook ads posted over the past four years, totalling 10,475 unique ads. The ads corroborated links between antiwolf sentiment and far right politics; one message read, “The wolf is a predator, which leads to livestock loss among farmers,” according to the team’s translation.
Big news about your network’s new guy. I bet he’ll attract hundreds of new eyeballs….
Heh.
Yeah, it's been in super-secret-hush mode for a while.
I'm torn by this. I mean, our folks are figuring out that merely centrist news reporting doesn't generate much excitement, and that having politically-biased anchors is good for ratings (and Tweets, and whatnot.)
On the other hand, it means that we're wavering slightly from the network's original charter, which was to not do that.
Ah, well. They keep spending money, and I keep building cool **** for them. We've got the architects looking at how to rebuild the second-to-last existing, original late-50s part of the building to make way for a thing I can't talk about. Which will be a fun project, assuming I manage to finish off the couple we've got going on right now.
And despite all of this spending, they're actually making money. Not a huge amount, but they're not operating at a loss. So that's nice, too.
Wanna know what's funny? That picture you posted is literally the first time I've seen Dan's new set with Dan on it. This is how little attention I pay to the actual programming.
Not gonna lie, though. It does make me proud to see this sort of acknowledgement from the mainstream self-appointed fact-checkers:
Heh.
I'm torn by this. I mean, our folks are figuring out that merely centrist news reporting doesn't generate much excitement, and that having politically-biased anchors is good for ratings (and Tweets, and whatnot.)
On the other hand, it means that we're wavering slightly from the network's original charter, which was to not do that.
…..they're actually making money. Not a huge amount, but they're not operating at a loss. So that's nice, too.
For better or worse, it’s ultimately a business that needs ratings to generate ad revenue. Controversial partisan mouth-breathers like Cuomo do create buzz, ergo ratings, even if for unsavory reasons. Not operating at a loss isn’t a given.
Sorry, I missed this one earlier, and did not mean to ignore you. I will show you the respect of giving direct answers to each point.
Originally Posted by hector
That is an interesting opinion by you, that is of course, if you're not trolling. Solely because you have pointed out many times that the blue-pilled will vote Dem no matter what.
Not trolling at all. As a broad generalization, I tend not to troll in the politics thread. Not saying I've never swung in that direction, but I try to be mindful not to do so. Or, if I am, to make it plainly obvious.
Originally Posted by hector
Do you think that the incumbent Dems will get beaten by other "fresher" Dems or by another party.
Honestly, I have no idea. I have given up trying to predict the whims of the people.
Originally Posted by hector
If by another party, and of course I mean by a Republican, will they cry voter fraud?
I think they're smart enough to know how that would sound.
If I had to guess, I'd say that they'd focus on how this is evidence that the US is still fundamentally racist / sexist / etc., and how we still have so far to go to change this, which is why it's more important than ever to get out there and vote blue. And, in the mean time, focus on more impeachments / character-assassinations / fabricated crises.
Originally Posted by hector
If replaced by someone else in their party or by a Republican or even by some other party, do you think anything will change in the House of Representin'?
So long as Democrats and Republicans continue to maintain control of the Congress and the Executive branch, nothing of substance will change.
The only thing that's ever different is which portion of the US population is being infringed upon more, and whose friends are getting rich in the process.
Originally Posted by hector
If it does change, will it be better or worse?
"Better" and "worse," in this context, are entirely subjective depending upon who you are. No matter what the outcome, some people will perceive life be better, and others will perceive it to be worse.
Originally Posted by hector
Why does the electricity not fall out of the outlet when nothing is plugged into it?
Controversial partisan mouth-breathers like Cuomo do create buzz, ergo ratings, even if for unsavory reasons.
I genuinely wish I could say more about this, and also that I could avoid sounding like a bullshit artist who is trying to sound important by saying "I wish I could say more about this."
There is a strategy, and in the short term at least, I think it's a good one. There's going to be another announcement soon.
Mom sues LAUSD after she says son was vaccinated without her consent, suffered side effects
"He's lacking of breath, doesn't sleep well, he doesn't do exercise the way he did. He is not normal to me," said the boy's mom.
She claims her son was offered a piece of pizza in exchange for a COVID shot and then allegedly coerced into forging his mom's signature.
Immediately after getting the vaccine, Duarte said he started experiencing Symptoms.
The family's attorney says they are filing a lawsuit after a damage claim was ignored by both the school and the district.
LAUSD released the following statement in response, "Los Angeles Unified does not typically comment on threatened, pending or ongoing litigation matters."
07-27-2022, 01:52 PM
0
