Schadrach

The bill got pulled. And even if it didn't it's such a blatant and egregious violation of 1A that even Trump's pet judges would have to shoot it down out of fear of the precedent it would set and what would happen if ever they lose power for any length of time.

That's the conversation I've been having with some people cheering on Trump's immigration moves. I've pointed out the machine the individual bricks seems to be building, and when they support that too because Trump will only use it on the "right sort of people" I point out that Trump won't be in power forever, and ask him what he'd think if someone like Harris or AOC had that same power. That's when they suddenly get it, because the idea that the same machinery could be brought against them is not something they consider.

The first question you should ask when considering "Should the government have this power?" is "If the people I oppose the very most had this power, what would they do with it?" If you're not OK with the answer to that, then the government shouldn't have that power.

Only thing I don't really like about it is the drafting mechanic. I hit a lot of "ooh! I think I know how to solve that puzzle!" or "Ooh, I think I vaguely remember something in that one room that I didn't screenshot at the time but I'm pretty sure was a clue for the puzzle I just discovered!" only to never see the relevant room(s) in a bunch of runs. Hell, I'm pretty sure based on a clue that there's some kind of clock room (if it's just the den, I have no idea how to figure it out so I'm assuming there's another clock room) I haven't seen yet at all dozens of days in, another related puzzle that requires I draft a whole bunch of related rooms that I never get enough of (unless I'm on a wrong line of thought about that) and a third related to the other two where AFAIK I'm waiting on a random item drop and the room to use it in to appear in the same run.

Even something like being able to curate the deck more than the conservatory allows would be tremendous.

If a theory and every attempt at real world application of a theory yield wildly different results, shouldn't that suggest something in the theory is deeply flawed?

Really it’s actually capitalism that supposes people are too dumb to make their own choices or know how a business is run, and thus shouldn’t have say over company choices.

Really it's actually that businesses with that structure tend to perform better in a market economy, because no one forces businesses to be started as "dictatorships run by bosses that effectively have unilateral control over all choices of the company" other than the people starting that business themselves. You can literally start a business organized as a co-op (which by your definitions is fundamentally a socialist or communist entity) - there's nothing preventing that from being the organizing structure. The complaint instead tends to be that no one is forcing existing successful businesses to change their structure and that a new co-op has to compete in a market where non-co-op businesses also operate.

If co-ops were a generally more effective model, you'd expect them to be more numerous and more influential. And they do alright for themselves in some spaces. For example in the US many of the biggest co-ops are agricultural.

Yeah, wasn't trolling. They literally start a court case against the property to determine if that property was used in or purchased through the proceeds of a crime, and the standard is a preponderance of the evidence. Hiring a lawyer to defend your property against the allegation it was bought with drug money or w/e often costs more than replacing it would. Which is the point.

The term used for it in law enforcement is "civil asset forfeiture". For her to get it back, her property is going to have to get a lawyer to defend that it is probably not used in a crime or purchased with funds obtained through criminal activity. Doing that is not cheap.

I understand at a nuanced and historically informed level what’s happening at a political and geopolitical level here, and all of my bleakest predictions keep coming true

Let's test this: Make some specific predictions for various points over, say, the next 5 years (start near future and work your way out). Put them somewhere where they can remain generally fixed but available (say on a pastebin or lemmy post or something). Then come back to look at them after those times have past and see how accurate you are. This would let you see your actual rate of accuracy as opposed to just the ones that stand out because they ended up true), which would ideally lessen your panic or alternatively if you really are getting it right in a consistent fashion we can start calling you gravitas_deficiency the Bleak Prognosticator.

For example just glancing at your profile one you seem to be doubling down on a lot recently is that there will be either no US presidential election in 2028 or no peaceful transfer of power in January 2029. That is easily verifiable in four years time. How do you imagine this will happen? Is it enough to satisfy this if the election happens and the GOP wins with a non-Trump candidate? Do you think opposition to the GOP will simply be made illegal? Do you think they will push an amendment to let Trump run again? Do you think Trump will just run again regardless and argue that the Constitution doesn't apply to him because seemingly no other law does?

There's a certain irony that there are a couple of cases of "my local pub is older than your entire country" in the country in question. For example the White Horse Tavern in Newport, RI.

Compared to the US, they don't. 1A protections are extremely broad, to be outside protected speech it practically has to be either CSAM or inciting immediate lawless action.

As in "SLUR should be hanged from trees" is protected under 1A, "Guys, grab that SLUR over there and string him up" is not. CSAM is primarily illegal because production, distribution and even possession further harms the victim of the CSA performed to create it.

They got a majority of votes. Unless you live in a deep blue area it's likely to get you more customers than it costs, at least for now. Most customers won't care either way, they're at your business to buy your goods/services, not as a political statement.

Those signs will go down fast except for the very political and deep red areas once we're in a post-Trump world.

Honestly, we need to reform our economic system and not continually rely on fertility to solve all of our problems.

Fertility and demographic collapse aren't about supporting an economic system. Even if we were a post-scarcity communist utopia women would need to average 2.1 children/woman to maintain the existing population (2.1 isn't growth, it's maintenance - if you wonder why it's slightly higher than the number of people involved with making new people it's because you also have to cover for infertility and mortality among those children) or the same population-level result would occur. The nasty thing about demographic collapse is that it's subtle until it isn't and by that point it's really hard to fix. There is no economic system where people don't need to make more people to have a stable population, at least not unless/until we achieve some kind of immortality.

Ultimately you have three options when it comes to the topic, and they all have downsides:

1. Get your people to make more people. Downsides: Those new people aren't really contributing to society for a couple of decades, which means it's a long term fix for a problem that might be a big problem in a shorter term than that depending on where we're talking about. Also, there aren't a lot of ethical ways to do this, and the ones that are ethical aren't extremely effective.

2. Import people from elsewhere. Downside: If you do this too quickly and/or without pushing for assimilation you will irrevocably change if not destroy your culture. This is why places like Japan and South Korea aren't allowing unlimited mass immigration from anywhere people are willing to come from despite being on the cusp of the "until it isn't" part of "subtle until it isn't."

3. Do nothing, and hope it just fixes itself. Downside: This is essentially a death spiral for your people.

I think white does most of the heavy lifting there, at least in western democracies (for example being white is not a benefit in say Japan). Straight carries a bunch of the rest (and would carry more, but you can't tell someone's sexuality just by looking at them), and then you get down to men.

To put it another way: If I asked to to provide statistical evidence that the criminal justice system is biased against black people, you could name off a bunch of stats that you would argue present compelling evidence. If I took the same data from the same sources and broke it down by sex instead of race, it would present a similar picture of men and you'd argue that same data is suddenly meaningless because it disagrees with your model. I'd argue that the idea that society has a sex hierarchy as such is the wrong model to use entirely.

Instead, when it comes to sex it's all about perceived agency - men are perceived to have more agency than they do and women are perceived to have less. Essentially men are seen as more "responsible" for what happens to them/what they do and women are seen as less "responsible" for what happens to them/what they do. And this cuts both ways. If a man hits a woman, even in self defense it's his "fault" and she's just a victim. If a woman hits a man, even in an unprovoked attack people will start by asking what he did to deserve it. Men get worse bail, higher chance of conviction, loner sentences, etc in criminal justice because they are more "responsible" for their wrongdoing than women. At the other end, men are also treated as more "responsible" for their accomplishments, in general. Which helps men reach the very top positions at a higher rate than women. If a male teacher commits statutory rape of a female student, she's definitely a victim and it won't be called anything but rape but if a female teacher commits statutory rape of a male student the media will often describe it as an "affair" or "romp" or similar and focus on how complicit he was with the activity. Etc, etc.