lollol
1d ago
In 1969, Dennis was de facto overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Took 18 years, but that's a short time compared to the long history of a country.
I suspect that speech hasn't been prosecuted more in the US because children are taught this first, then exceptions later, so they're generally biased against exceptions.
Yes, makes sense, the freedom is broad, so the exceptions are "the exceptions that prove the rule".
I listened to the recent Odd Lots episode with Gina Raimondo (Biden's Secretary of Commerce) and I would echo the sentiment here:
Most Americans when they hear AI, they get afraid, right? The vast, vast majority of Americans, "AI = anxiety", "I am going to lose my job". I get that, you know, people are scared. I think it would be a huge mistake to like retard our AI progress with overregulation. [We] just talked about China. I want to win the AI race, I want America to lead the AI world. And I think when we get to the fifth or sixth inning of this AI revolution, whatever you want to call it, I firmly believe there will be more jobs. I do. I think that there will be new industries, new companies, new products and services. I'm an optimist. [That being said,] I am pretty worried about getting from the first inning to that inning.
I am not dismissive of AI because it made me more productive but I also believe that software engineers will be around.
- As pointed out by @ChickenOverlord, Americans and their speech is so so so much free-er than other countries that sometimes I feel Americans don't get congratulated enough for it
- Yes, that's right, the question was about government overreach. Being able to does not mean it has to be easy. And yeah, the difficulty with getting your ideas and thoughts across to others is part of the friction of communication. I'm not sure what is being asked here, are you asking that political belief is to be a protected class and private companies should not use that as an excuse to offer/not-offer products and services? Either way, if people want their speech heard, nothing prevents them from taking over or recreate what they need.
- What Americans believe matters a whole lot. Trump's 2.0 victory is complete vindication of how what the median American thinks matters and led the country to what they want. Feels like every other presidency can be easily characterized as "newcomer with grassroots momentum that trounced the elite favorite".
- So the freedom of the people worked. An American, with the means and opportunities to make a change, made a change! He certainly didn't stay in South Africa to do that. He did what he did with Twitter because he had ideological and philosophical values, very American ones if I might add, that drove his actions.
The US? say what you will about America, the first amendment is amazing. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "the ruling party".
Edit1: There has been certain attempts, like the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, but overall the first amendment has been a strong stalwart against government overreach.
lollol
1d ago
The four ideas are not mutually exclusive, in theory, the EU can do all 4. In fact, there is an existing successful example of doing all these ideas: China. It is in the greater interest of both America AND EU, geopolitically at least, to not get to that point, because individually they won't be able to compete with China if they also have to spare energy to compete with each other.
lollol
2d ago
It's an American company with American founder, American customers, and American employees being paid in American dollars. The principle is to live in the greatest comfort and not be bothered by others.
lollol
4d ago
"chew through leadership until you hit the secret sauce right man for the job" is a fairly common pattern in winning modern wars. That the guys in the history books were often talented second or third rank officers who got promoted after fuckups from the peacetime generals.
well it's war right? isn't that just "survival of the fittest"? That's all wars, all processes, evolution, etc. throughout history.
lollol
4d ago
who isn't getting the job done.
What job though? like @FiveHourMarathon says, is implementing anti-DEI measure the off-season job or playoff game job? There are many things to consider here.
- is implementing anti-DEI a good and strong signal of how competent someone is at waging a war in the Middle East? (how much does the off season stuff matters for the playoffs?)
- does waging a war in the Middle East depends on the completion of implementing anti-DEI measures? (are we able to separate the things in the off season that does or does not matter in the playoffs?)
- on the axes of "urgency" and "important", how does the two land? (must the changes for the off season be done now before the playoffs?)
- Is Hegseth competent at managing and assessing these questions? (is the general manager good at assessing the quality of the coach? quality of the offseason management? quality of the playoffs management?)
- Is Hegseth setting manageable expectations? (is the GM asking the coach for the impossible?)
and so on, and so on.
I suppose the conclusion of this war (which hopefully will be soon or within Trump 2.0 term) will setup my biases on these questions for the rest of my life.
Edit 1: this is of course dependent on that the general was let go because of not good at implementing anti-DEI measures. I'm sure it's actually a host of reasons.
lollol
4d ago
I have never watched Mad Men, but there is this meme where two men are in an elevator. The first says, "I feel bad for you." The second says, "I don't think about you at all."
As an aside, another case where the meme carries different meaning without context.
https://old.reddit.com/r/madmen/comments/1joptde/everybody_understands_that_dons_bullshitting_here/
lollol
5d ago
I'm not really sure why the need for outrage or correction on anything here. Yeah personal lesson for the woman in the story, warning story for those that listen. We can find plenty of stories in reverse where men marry women they shouldn't (for varied and numerous different reasons). Again, personal lesson for the man in the story, warning story for those that listen.
Both are to blame on some levels, whether that's personal responsibility to not be a shit person, or personal responsibility to stay away from shit people.
Maybe the meta question is: why are you, specifically, elevated by this story that you feel there is a need for some kind of discussion and solution?
lollol
5d ago
just because she left the man does not signal that her IQ is average. maybe she's 85 IQ.
lollol
5d ago
They elected a man who said “no new wars,” yes. But they also elected a man with an obvious trail and history of lies that is much greater (relatively) than the normal politician. So Trump's election is not evidence that the public wanted war. It is evidence that a large part of the public was willing to trust, excuse, or ignore dishonesty when it came packaged with promises they liked. So my quibble is with what the American people cared about. They cared about the lies, they didn't care about the credibility of the liar.
PS: Liars with good credibility are what we call innovators and pioneers.
lollol
7d ago
So. Why can't the US just get bored of blowing stuff up, declare mission accomplished and then leave without resolving the SOH?
Cause oil prices are and would remain high and the political consequences are severe.
Is Iran going to impose a permanent toll on the SOH anyway?
From what I understand, that's what they are trying to do, they are trying to get "US recognition" that the SOH is theirs to control. Once there is US recognition, that's pretty much it. Though that would certainly piss off a bunch of countries.
Why didn't they figure this out until this month? Presumably they should have done this all along?
Iranians didn't want to fight. Now that it's existential for them, they're pulling out the cards of trying to control the strait de facto. Maybe some of them are also surprised at how effective it is and wonder maybe they should have done it earlier. But there is a difference I think being "the one that started it". For what its worth, I think a strong and persuasive narrative from the Iranian regime is that "yes things were tense, but we were at the negotiating table when the other side started blasting so we had no choice".
Are they actually able to do this long term?
Well, unlike Panama, they don't control both sides of this narrow passage. And I suppose that's the point of the thousands of American boots on the ground that is gearing up into the region.
lollol
7d ago
I actually thought a little deeper about my "weaksauce cowardliness" verbiage and I feel maybe my anger is unjustified. Honestly, this is what the American people want. Americans like it that the executive can make unilateral military action. If the American people cared, they would have elected people that cares. At this point the power to "declare war" is just writing on a piece of document. In China, they say "Rules are dead, people are alive", maybe what we need is just an update of the rules instead of this charade of calling it "military operation" instead of a "war".
With regards to Dem's behaviors as you described, I suppose that can be considered good politiks or as you say "stupider and more evil". I don't believe "democrats all want war", I think they both don't want war and know how good it is that the Republicans are pushing on anyway. Even now, I'm not sure what to expect from the Democrats to do, it's not like they can shut down the government even harder. Then again, I'm not a legislative aide or some kind of Washington insider who knows the levers of power.
Anyway, this is what American people voted for, isn't this the best way for a people to learn?
lollol
7d ago
Aren't futures made exactly for this purpose? Don't companies buy futures so they can price the tickets and not be bankrupt by the price of oil?
Things will still be shaking out but this is a black swan event (or at least an event few if any prepared for). A quick chat with gemini says:
However, many U.S. airlines—most notably American, Delta, and United—largely stopped hedging years ago for several reasons:
- The "Loser" Risk: If an airline locks in fuel at $100/barrel and the market price drops to $70, they are stuck paying the higher price while their competitors enjoy cheaper fuel and can lower ticket prices.
- High Costs: Hedging isn't free. It requires paying premiums (like insurance) or tying up massive amounts of cash.
- The "Natural Hedge": Most major carriers now believe that when fuel prices go up, they can simply raise ticket prices because the entire industry is facing the same cost increase.
The Exception: Southwest Airlines is famous for continuing a robust hedging program. While others are reeling from the current price spike caused by the conflict in the Middle East, Southwest often has a significant portion of its fuel locked in at much lower, pre-war prices, giving them a massive competitive advantage right now.
I asked for sources and the best one is "U.S. Airline Fuel Hedging: The End of an Era" which actually pointed out Southwest has abandoned the program in 2024, but their positions will mature until 2027.
Was it? It was very risky, as proved by the Iran op. Even in a game with a negative expectation, you can sometimes win once or twice. It does not mean it was a good idea in the first place.
I think the Venezuela op is clearly different from the Iranian op and is not different rolls of the same game. One is a surgical kidnapping, one has just been continual bombing. I think there is something to be said how Israel is on the side edging America on, and very willing to dish some on their own. Imagine if the Ayatollah was kidnapped instead of being made a martyr.
Yes, at some level, everything is the same game. But macro/micro for me is a range. And at some point in that range, Iran and Venezuela are two different games. Venezuela was a great idea, executed excellently, and I do think it will pay long term benefits to US if handled well (Teddy Roosevelt would be proud). Iran is a different game, it was not a good idea, it wasn't executed well, and it's still being played so it's hard to know what the long term results are (as a casual observer though, I believe it's getting worse by the day. But then again, one ethics class in college is the extent of my social studies in this direction).
lollol
8d ago
Maybe it's for a worthy cause, but then we're just negotiating on the price.
Pretty much. I've always been very convinced by number 5 in this NPR article on "Six Policies Economists Love (And Politicians Hate)"
Five: Tax carbon emissions. Yes, that means higher gasoline prices. It's a kind of consumption tax, and can be structured to make sure it doesn't disproportionately harm lower-income Americans. More, it's taxing something that's bad, which gives people an incentive to stop polluting.
lollol
8d ago
The US waiver, active for one month, will let countries buy up Russian oil which, under current sanctions, has been floating at sea, unable to be sold. ... Bessent has insisted that Russia will only see a limited financial boost from the sale of the oil, while the move addressed the "instability posed by the terrorist Iranian regime".
However, Benjamin Hilgenstock, head of macroeconomic research and strategy at the Kyiv School of Economics, argued the move was "a serious bailout" for Putin's regime.
He estimated monthly Russian oil exports could be boosted by around $10bn (£7.5bn), with half of this being paid in tax straight into the government's coffers.
source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2871wyz9ko
just oil.
lollol
8d ago
Some various thoughts about the whole thing with Iran. My apologies if much of this was already discussed before by others in previous Culture War threads.
- If this goes on longer, the environment lobby should be really happy. There should be quite a significant drop in fossil fuel use globally. Definitely better than the effort that goes into doing Earth Day. Reminds me of Genghis Khan and being the "greenest invader" in history.
- Many have already pointed out that the biggest beneficiary of the war so far is Russia where both oil prices are seeing higher prices AND that their sanctions are dropped. At first glance, this should be bad news for Ukraine.
- Iranian oil also got its sanctions lifted. This reminds me of how in a different war, the US government was fighting producers of products that US citizens enjoy. I am of the opinion this is another tally on the board for why the war preparation was incompetent.
- Talking about this being a war, it's actually a military operation. Not only does it reminds you of another military operation, this story once again underline the absolute weaksauce cowardliness of the US legislative branch in allowing this to happen. But maybe this is exactly what the American people want. Elections will certainly be spicy this midterm year.
- Will the American people forget about Epstein?
- Aside from the various prices of things going up, we must be reminded that this year the US (and its neighbors actually) is hosting the World Cup! How will this World Cup be remembered? Fans should have already gotten flight tickets, but would flight operators cancel flights due to raising fuel costs? Game tickets are expensive as heck, a trip to America is expensive as heck, now everything will be even more expensive as heck as well!
- Five weeks ago, a ground war with Iran is unthinkable by the American people. Since then, that opinion has clearly changed. Is this what Chomsky calls "Manufactured Consent"? I've never read the book, and being from a communist country, my consent wasn't really needed either so I am unfamiliar with the process of it all.
- I think America will try to take one or a few islands.
- The Venezuela op was a masterclass. What conditions would allow Trump to declare victory? Would a victory Trump can declare be a good thing for America long term?
lollol
1mo ago
It's famous that Americans say they want 2.7 kids, but only have 1.6 kids. So there is clearly a disconnect between stated desire vs reality across many populations at the moment.
lollol
2mo ago
By allowing illegal immigrants to work, to run business/employ others, and to vote in local and state elections all "legally", they have rendered their illegal population "legible" in a way that the day-workers standing outside a Home Depot in New Mexico are not
"Legible" stood out to me, is this a "Seeing Like a State" analysis? I am currently reading it and it's fresh on my mind. The relevant passage is here for other mottizens:
“The discriminating interventions that a legible society makes possible can, of course, be deadly as well. A sobering instance is wordlessly recalled by a map produced by the City Office of Statistics of Amsterdam, then under Nazi occupation, in May 1941 (figure 13). Along with lists of residents, the map was the synoptic representation that guided the rounding up of the city’s Jewish population, sixty-five thousand of whom were eventually deported.
The map is titled “The Distribution of Jews in the Municipality.” Each dot represents ten Jews, a scheme that makes the heavily Jewish districts readily apparent. The map was compiled from information obtained not only through the order for people of Jewish extraction to register themselves but also through the population registry (“exceptionally comprehensive in the Netherlands”) and the business registry. If one reflects briefly on the kind of detailed information on names, addresses, and ethnic backgrounds (determined perhaps by names in the population registry or by declaration) and the cartographic exactitude required to produce this statistical representation, the contribution of legibility to state capacity is evident. “The Nazi authorities of course, supplied the murderous purpose behind the exercise, but the legibility provided by the Dutch authorities supplied the means to its efficient implementation. That legibility, I should emphasize, merely amplifies the capacity of the state for discriminating interventions—a capacity that in principle could as easily have been deployed to feed the Jews as to deport them.”
lollol
2mo ago
CPC kremlinology
I prefer Pekingology myself. Quite a great name and a great podcast. I am certainly waiting for the analysis coming out of these guys and also from the Hoover Institution.
lollol
2mo ago
Maybe not in those exact words but does Ruben Gallego senator from Arizona count? Here is his plan
https://www.gallego.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/immigration-plan.pdf
Especially since the people now claiming "Oh, go after the cans of tuna" favor providing free tuna by the palletload.
I'm going to call out on this as strawman-ing. Hypocrisy is so delightful to call out but it's also very cynical and essentially provoke the other side to dig in and become defensive.
sudden received indisputable wisdom that going after the employers is the best and only reasonable way to do anything about illegal immigration
As for this, I personally think that Americans want enforcement of both, preferably kindly but firm. If your complaints is that undocumented illegal immigration is treated with kids gloves then the way employers are treated is a parent yelling from the living room "remember to eat your vegetables!" while the kid is in the kitchen sticking his hand in the cookie jar for seconds and thirds. Calls for harder enforcement of the existing laws on employers or updates to the incentives of employers with regards to the illegal immigration debate are plenty based on this brief search I have:
- 2025 - Video: "ICE Raids Are Only Half The Story" - Sarah Taber, Farm to Taber (I actually already knew this one, great video from a liberal farmer)
- 2022 - Supply and Demand in the Illegal Employment of Undocumented Workers - Brian Owsley, Catholic University Law Review
- 2019 Jun 08 - Employers must be prosecuted to end the flow of illegal immigrants - Jonathan Turley, The Hill
- 2016 Nov 30 - Forget the Wall. If You Want Less Illegal Immigration, Go After Employers. - Kevin Drum, MotherJones
- 2013 May 9 - It Takes Two: Immigration and the Rule of Law - Peter Skerry, Brookings Institute
- 2008 - Is the IRS the Solution to Illegal Immigration? - Katherine D. Black, Stephen T. Black, Ryan H. Pace, William Mitchell Law Review
I'm going to go back even further, let's go to the 1997 final report by the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (Jordan Commission) under President Clinton where there is a section on "Immigration-Related Employment Standards (DOL)" and I'll quote it here and bolding some parts:
The Commission believes all worksite investigations to ascertain employers’ compliance with employment eligibility verification requirements should be conducted by the Department of Labor. Although DOL already conducts many of these investigations, under this recommendation, DOL also would assess penalties if employers fail to verify the employment eligibility of persons being hired. DOL would not be required to prove that an employer knowingly hired an illegal worker, just that the employer hired a worker without verification of his or her authorization to work. With implementation of the Commission’s proposal for a more effective verification process, this function will be critical to deterring the employment of unauthorized workers.
I would recommend reading the full report, there would be plenty of proposals in there that I think you like.
Illegal immigration sucks but if we are going to get anywhere, let's not just selectively pick the parts that makes you feel good but actually carry out a comprehensive strategy that would fix the problem.
edit1: Let me update my analogy, the state of immigration in the US so far up until Trump 2 is the employer being the bio kid going in for seconds and thirds with the cookie jar in the kitchen while the parent is yelling "eat your vegetables" in the living room, while the immigrant is the unwanted foster kid supposedly grounded but is climbing out of the window to get some cookies for the bio kids in exchange for favors.
I came from a country where people are afraid of writing too much in private chat and would rather call you up to talk. The plurality of opinions here in America is frikin amazing in comparison. People can go to whatever public square they like here. Twitter, bluesky, mastodon, reddit, random forums, random forums that had to migrate and move to their own sites. Good luck making another social media site in my country without getting a visit from the police. We obviously have very different viewpoints on this. "I didn't see the light until I was already a man". You are very vigilant of any erosion of rights, or maybe disappointed at the gap between theory and reality. Just because the American people (the elites or the masses) fail to live up to American values does not twist American values nor detract from the striving to have and keep those values. What I see is that an American can go into the streets holding a sign, or tweet it out, or make a website, or rambling posts on Facebook, on most things and won't get beaten or put away in unmarked vans, and that is the kind of freedoms I would congratulate America for.
More options
Context Copy link