|
Bel Shazar posted:With respect, that post seems to be highly relevant context to current events. At least I found it to be and appreciated the detail. It does seem useful to help make sense of a situation in which Biden is out there saying "a recession isn't inevitable" while the Republican Fed chair he could have replaced eyes the big red Volcker Shock button
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Yinlock posted:Not enough to stop being good friends with the people leading the court in that direction, of course. The "he says what I want to say!" aspect of trump was truly an under appreciated aspect of his appeal. It's a pretty bipartisan sentiment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 18:47
|
|
|
Ron Johnson staffer trying to get a Pence staffer to help his boss commit treason or sedition or whatever the hell the legal name is. https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1539309011228446722?s=20&t=MnsuWmFki6D3n7eAG5Nq1Q
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 19:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The FDA is also extending the comment period for its proposed rule that will render flavored cigars and all menthol-flavored cigarettes illegal. I popped into a convenience store today and there were ads with QR codes directing people to complain about the menthol bans right at the counter. I can't recall the last time I saw something like that quite so open.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 19:44
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:This is an outdated view of addiction, one that isn’t currently held by any major addiction medicine organization. Please educate yourself further before speaking out on topics of which you are ignorant. Willfully spreading this disinformation is harmful. If addiction is a disease, and a disease is harmful, I fail to see how addiction is not also a health harm contrary to what you're saying. Also, this is D&D. Bring your own sources instead of demanding other people go educate themselves. If you have data to utilize backing up what you're saying (and what are you even saying? You forgot to include a point in your post scolding), then post it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:This is an outdated view of addiction, one that isn’t currently held by any major addiction medicine organization. Please educate yourself further before speaking out on topics of which you are ignorant. Willfully spreading this disinformation is harmful. You should take a moment to tell us how that's wrong and what the actual view is, because my understanding as a biologist-but-not-physician is that saying substance addiction (compulsive use despite physical, psychological, or social consequences) is a "social harm" is... self-evident? [ed: took too long, beaten]
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 19:56
|
|
|
The mere fact of being dependent on a substance is neither good nor bad, inherently. Many people are dependent on various sorts of medications to keep them alive or functional, and even if you want to take the example of an addiction which does have mild negative health effects and is completely unnecessary, I'd point you in the direction of caffeine. If you are going to draw the line between addiction and dependence on the basis of negative consequences, then I'd argue that transition to tobacco-free nicotine delivery is allowing people to maintain physical dependence on nicotine while stopping the addiction, because the consequences of nicotine in and of itself are quite minor, even if it does cause physical dependence. The real issue is that the most effective and prevalent form of nicotine -- cigarette smoking, or tobacco use in general -- is incredibly bad for your health. And, arguably, the fact that the most popular alternative also involves inhaling a foreign substance other than tobacco smoke... probably isn't great either. That being said, there are tobacco-free alternatives that don't involve inhalation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Truly this is the greatest crime of the supreme court. I mean yes, who cares, but it does make her dissent ring hollow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 20:15
|
|
|
Meatball posted:This will be the fugitive slave act 2.0: this time, the Supreme court will be fine with it.  Supreme Court were actually huge boosters of fugitive slave act 1.0 as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 20:21
|
|
|
The view of SCOTUS of the time was, essentially, “if we can just get everyone to agree that slaves are not people everything will work itself out”
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
Taney was doing what he thought would save the union- he thought if he made the fugitive slave law a matter of settled law, it would simmer down tensions. Unfortunately, the court decision very much said that it was illegal to make slavery illegal in any state- at least, that was the implication. There was another case coming that would have really put the decision much more clearly. Taney thought that it would be difficult to have slaves in a state where it was opposed anyway, in a de facto way, thusly the compromise state could to some extent be maintained, but now the people would stop arguing about it. In fact it ended up inflaming northern opinion considerably, adding to the messaging about "Slave Power" and such, which was a sort of melding of nativist paranoia and abolitionism, turning more know-nothings into Republicans and solidifying the country's divides further.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 20:44
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:It does seem useful to help make sense of a situation in which Biden is out there saying "a recession isn't inevitable" while the Republican Fed chair he could have replaced eyes the big red Volcker Shock button What's not useful (or accurate) is this narrative and repeated idea that all of our problems are being caused by poor people earning too much money and I'm loving tired of hearing that god damned poo poo and feeling like I have to vote for someone that believes it just because the other side are literal fascists. Get us back to the 90% upper tax bracket and let's just see how things might shake out, you loving pundits and experts. We've been cutting taxes, bailing out and subsidizing the wealthy for so long in this country, we've forgotten how prosperous we were when we did the exact opposite of that. It's really tiring. Sure, Joe. Sure The Fed. Ok, Joe Cramer. Right. The POOR people took all the loving money. The gently caress out of here with this poo poo when all of us our being bled out for basic needs like food, transportation and energy - never even mind education or health care costs. Give more money to cops and the MIC but blame the weak and powerless for the state of things. Good job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 20:57
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:As expected, SCOTUS takes another hammer blow at the Establishment Clause Tweet is misleading about the decision, which really annoys me because scotusblog is good. It does cite Espinoza which is more sweeping and more like what the tweet says. The actual decision is regarding Maine's rule where "non sectarian" religious private schools can receive tuition assistance, but sectarian ones cannot. The Roberts decision is that they can't do that, they need to either prohibit religious schools from receiving the money (whereupon Espinoza precedent comes up again but it's not clear what the court would rule) or allow sectarian ones to receive it as well. The liberal dissent is along the lines of "yeah Espinoza isn't completely pants on head insane but you're applying it wrong and Maine's legislative discretion is clearly enough to let them do this", which is probably more correct than Roberts' take.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 22:05
|
|
|
I guess if you have "religious instruction" carry a whole lot of weight the tweet might be technically accurate
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Truly this is the greatest crime of the supreme court. This type of non sequitur / straw man does little other than try to stifle discussion. No one said it's the greatest crime. You're not engaging with the actual point that's being made, which is that it's pretty self defeating to talk about how the Court is dismantling basic civil rights but also that the people directly and fully responsible for this are good people that she respects. People that dismantle civil rights for others are not good people. They deserve severe punishment, not praise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 22:16
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:This type of non sequitur / straw man does little other than try to stifle discussion. No one said it's the greatest crime. You're not engaging with the actual point that's being made, which is that it's pretty self defeating to talk about how the Court is dismantling basic civil rights but also that the people directly and fully responsible for this are good people that she respects. Yes she has to smile and pretend to like the people taking away rights so they don't take away rights harder. This is a common experience for a woman of color. Are you saying you don't understand what she's doing or that you're just frustrated by it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 22:23
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Yes she has to smile and pretend to like the people taking away rights so they don't take away rights harder. Truly, Supreme Court Justices are the oppressed class.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 22:31
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Yes she has to smile and pretend to like the people taking away rights so they don't take away rights harder. Hold on, "so they don't take away rights harder" implies that being extra nice to Clarence Thomas has slowed down the rate at which rights are being taken away, and I think you're going to have to show your work on that one. e: I'm pretty sure there's no actual benefit to the claim of friendship and respect with her supposed ideological enemy and she was just being truthful. Yinlock fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Jun 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 22:42
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Yes she has to smile and pretend to like the people taking away rights so they don't take away rights harder. The burden of proof is now 100% on you to show that the case decisions of Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, etc. are more progressive because Sotomayor praises them publicly. I honestly can't wait for this data set.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:If addiction is a disease, and a disease is harmful, I fail to see how addiction is not also a health harm contrary to what you're saying. Also, this is D&D. Bring your own sources instead of demanding other people go educate themselves. If you have data to utilize backing up what you're saying (and what are you even saying? You forgot to include a point in your post scolding), then post it. Yeah but DV also calls it a civil harm and says and end goal should be ending any nicotine addiction and that's pretty disconnected from the modern view of addiction. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugs-brains-behavior-science-addiction/treatment-recovery Addiction isn't something we can cure but we can manage it. There will never be an end to consuming substances as humans and we will always seek them out. Also I'll be honest I don't totally understand what DV means by civil harm in this case. I don't think nicotine addicts are really causing a lot of societal damage here and people are going to be jumpy about that sort of language because it sounds like a tough on crime soundbite, that addiction has civil harm. I don't think that's what DV means but I also don't understand what they did mean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 22:56
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Yes she has to smile and pretend to like the people taking away rights so they don't take away rights harder. It's honestly just insanely racist to assume you know someone's true intentions and that they're lying based on the color of their skin. It's not better because you're assuming good things
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 22:59
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:Hold on, "so they don't take away rights harder" implies that being extra nice to Clarence Thomas has slowed down the rate at which rights are being taken away, and I think you're going to have to show your work on that one. She might be truthful. She might be attempting to work the justices with internal politics so she can get votes on poo poo they were borderline on, as she has very little *relative* power, being in a 6-3 minority. Being nice to people who are hurting you because you need to get things from them is not an unusual position for a lot of people to find themselves in. FLIPADELPHIA posted:The burden of proof is now 100% on you to show that the case decisions of Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, etc. are more progressive because Sotomayor praises them publicly. I honestly can't wait for this data set. No way of knowing that, the court is famously quiet about internal conversations prior to the abortion leak. This is speculation on my part that you simply don't like. Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Jun 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 23:02
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:It's honestly just insanely racist to assume you know someone's true intentions and that they're lying based on the color of their skin. It's not better because you're assuming good things I could be wrong, I probably overstated how certain I am that this is going on. Are you not familiar with people having to do what I described?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I could be wrong, I probably overstated how certain I am that this is going on. I have but the color of their skin has never actually been a good short hand for it. You can come up with a good argument for why she might be doing that in a way that isn't race reductionist. A Supreme Court Justice isn't going to make those calculations the same way someone talking to their boss or a police officer will be on account of being a Supreme Court Justice. Her life isn't the life of your average person of color so using that as a shorthand for her is lazy at best.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 23:15
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I have but the color of their skin has never actually been a good short hand for it. You can come up with a good argument for why she might be doing that in a way that isn't race reductionist. I think it's a combination of race and gender that makes it likely she's had to do this type of thing before and it's something I recognize from women of color literally pointing out, to me, themselves, when they're doing it. I agree that I too strongly said I know for sure what she's doing but I do believe there's a good chance that's what's going on. I think it's more likely than her just pretending to care about rights at all, or Thomas just so dang charming. quote:A Supreme Court Justice isn't going to make those calculations the same way someone talking to their boss or a police officer will be on account of being a Supreme Court Justice. Her life isn't the life of your average person of color so using that as a shorthand for her is lazy at best. Her life isn't, but she's also not completely free from having to navigate workplace politics, and you can't simply remove race and gender when someone is really powerful. People constantly sound like they're expecting her to go off on a coworker to the media when she's the member of a tiny group of powerful people that are basically decorum elementals, as someone else put it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 23:22
|
|
|
More than two years after South Dakota AG Jason Ravnsborg killed a man with his car on the highway and fled the scene, he was finally removed from office during his impeachment trial. He had been refusing to resign and forced the supermajority GOP state legislature to impeach and remove him. https://twitter.com/TomKludt/status/1539373079733862400?s=20&t=PcZ7HmPvxfzded_YixvGQQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 23:39
|
|
|
This will also cause a major run on gas as people stockup. My NV200s are like $90 to fill up each and I require we carry 1-2 gas cans in each vehicle so I'd fill every single can we have and not use them until we are through the "holiday". People of less IQ use things like plastic bags to get more gas and stock it so that's terrifying And this post isn't to say this is a bad thing it's just a statement on what you all know will happen. Biden will have to get this through Congress in the senate, however in doing so he may have a bunch of Republicans voting no on tax-free gas which will isolate their constituents. I mean do you ever hear Republicans advocating for taxing gas? They always love the opposite. They want gas to be taxless they want bounce budget all that good American horse poo poo they always spout. So in that biden's administration may come off differently to people. I mean under the Biden administration religious schools are now public schools abortion will probably be banned and gas is tax free. He's the best Republican the democrats have ever produced. WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Jun 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 23:41
|
|
|
Ratmtattat posted:Explicitly religious, but only for Christianity. I don't foresee this group granting the same kinds of bonus rights to other religions. Looking forward to the lawsuit by the Church of Satan or whoever it is demanding equal access.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 23:44
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:More than two years after South Dakota AG Jason Ravnsborg killed a man with his car on the highway and fled the scene, he was finally removed from office during his impeachment trial. He had been refusing to resign and forced the supermajority GOP state legislature to impeach and remove him. Don’t forget he was probably drunk, claimed he didn’t slow down because he thought he hit a deer, then returned the next morning to….make sure the deer wasn’t still suffering?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 23:45
|
|
|
also the deer was wearing glasses that ended up on his passenger seat
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 23:49
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Don’t forget he was probably drunk, claimed he didn’t slow down because he thought he hit a deer, then returned the next morning to….make sure the deer wasn’t still suffering? Oh he's a psycho dude. Like a full on psycho. These people will let a literal murderer almost slip through the noose. That's where we are. They know once they completely capitalize education they will be able to reeducate the next few generations into believing the rich and government officials can do whatever they want up to and including rape molestation and murder. They will have no checks on capitalism. WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Jun 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 23:49
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:
I particularly love the implication that the speculation you're offering, which is admittedly based on absolutely nothing, is something others should "like" by default. You made a claim, can't back it up at all, and are now acting as if it's a failure on others' part. We have hundreds of years of Supreme Court history to draw on. If you can't find a single example in centuries of history to support your opinion, it's most likely horseshit. Jaxyon posted:
No, they are not sounding like this. People are criticizing her for going out of her way to praise Thomas. She could just remain silent or duck the question in any number of ways. No one's demanding she come out and declare him a fascist and the Court an illegitimate institution (though she would be correct if she did). We get that she has to play the game somewhat. She's not just doing that though- it very much seems like she means it, and that is a moral failure on her part if so. FLIPADELPHIA fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 00:10
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Also I'll be honest I don't totally understand what DV means by civil harm in this case. I don't think nicotine addicts are really causing a lot of societal damage here and people are going to be jumpy about that sort of language because it sounds like a tough on crime soundbite, that addiction has civil harm. I don't think that's what DV means but I also don't understand what they did mean. Not answering for DV, but I have my own thoughts on it. Coupled with the magic of capitalism, we have corporations whose central goal is to keep you entirely captive to using their product regardless of cost, and a product which creates a legion of deeply loyal users who will fight to be able to continue using the product, which can then be politically manipulated in innumerable ways. It's considerably worse when the product also kills you, but even a truly pure nicotine delivery device is not ideal. In other words, the social harm from Hypothetical Ideal Vape Device is lower than cigarettes, alcohol, opiates (health consequences lower) and lower even than something like a gambling addiction (financial consequences lower), but not harmless because of how particularly addicting nicotine is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 00:17
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Don’t forget he was probably drunk, claimed he didn’t slow down because he thought he hit a deer, then returned the next morning to….make sure the deer wasn’t still suffering? Wasnt he also posting on like 4chan or something too while driving
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
he was reading an article on some far right news site for apparently a couple minutes before and after hitting the guy, iirc
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:I particularly love the implication that the speculation you're offering, which is admittedly based on absolutely nothing, is something others should "like" by default. You made a claim, can't back it up at all, and are now acting as if it's a failure on others' part. Everything she says is going to be picked apart. She likely is playing the game, but not the way you want her to play it. I feel like people want her to be shadey, passive aggressive, our outright hostile, because that's what they think they would do in her position. I don't think most SCOTUS justices would
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 00:59
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I think it's a combination of race and gender that makes it likely she's had to do this type of thing before and it's something I recognize from women of color literally pointing out, to me, themselves, when they're doing it. I mean, I don't expect her to go off. I just also don't expect her to call Thomas a friend. The whole problem is that they're co-workers. RBG was famously friends with Scalia because he didn't steal her rights, he just went to the opera and bought funny souvenir's on vacation. There are no calculations on gender and race, she's just friends with her coworker on the council who decides what rights you have. I think if you want to make the argument that she is modifying her public behavior because of what lenses she thinks it will be viewed in you would have an argument. But I don't think one of the Supreme Court Justices is heavily motivated by workplace politics. Lifetime appointments really shake that up along with everything else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 01:13
|
|
|
She could simply not go out of her way to praise once of the worst pieces of poo poo currently alive
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 01:15
|
|
|
The problem with your interpretation is that her chosen tactic absolutely legitimizes Thomas's inexcusable personal and legal choices. But what seems preposterous on its face is that her praise of this irredeemable person somehow results in judicial outcomes that are more progressive and less straight up evil. I "want" her to play the game that does the least harm. She isn't doing that. Until you can show that her defending Thomas as basically a good person with different opinions results in Thomas changing his decisions to be less oppressive, less cruel, and less evil, you're just defending a status quo where fascists are being held up as legitimate arbiters of justice. They aren't, and they never will be. She can say whatever she wants. She's on the Court for life. She's one of the most powerful / influential people on Earth. And she's using that power to praise someone who is one of the most evil people in the country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I think it's a combination of race and gender that makes it likely she's had to do this type of thing before and it's something I recognize from women of color literally pointing out, to me, themselves, when they're doing it. The fundamental flaw I'm seeing in this argument is that the supreme court decisions that she is trying to influence don't have a material effect on her conditions in the same way that a woman has to smile and pretend that her boss is funny to make sure she doesn't get fired. Sotomayor has no boss, can not be removed from her office short of 66 senators who think she should be impeached, in short she's been removed from nearly every societal condition that would reduce her agency in deciding how to speak publicly about her peers. I think it's far more likely that she sincerely believes what she is saying about Clarence Thomas than that she is making some calculated marginal decision to influence her peers, especially one that is as dedicated to reasoning backwards from a preferred decision as Clarence Thomas is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 01:19
|
|