domain:inv.nadeko.net
In no way is an overstatement, although in many ways I agree. To take the obvious one, sexual freedoms have clearly increased, not entirely to society’s benefit.
Was it? Not all democrats, especially in Minnesota, are blue tribers(although that is changing). This could easily have been blue on red-tribe blue dog.
I have a different take- there are so many reasons not to be violent in modern society because modern society has set it up so that being violent tends to end up with you being less likely to get what you want over the long run.
It is not hard to imagine a society where the elites are more violent than the lower orders- there have been quite a lot of them throughout history. But we live in the reverse. It's fairly plausible to me that for the very bottom rungs of society- the homeless, male(adult women in these communities are much better off) residents of the worst black ghettos, etc- violence is net positive on an individual level. But for everyone else? Violence decreases as you rise on the social totem pole for a reason and that reason is that people towards the top are better at avoiding maladaptive behavior. In polite society, the top four-fifths or so, willingness to resort to private violence is strongly correlated with being towards the bottom, starting with literal dogs.
Another is that Washington’s state Senate is very close.
No, not particularly. You linked to Minnesota, but said Washington. WA Dems have 30/49 in the Senate.
Strongly disagree. Going that fast compared to traffic is way more dangerous than going normal speed (which is anywhere with 5mph of the speed limit in my experience).
The proximal cause of the 2020 riots was not a "deep, unresolved tension in the US over how law enforcement conducts itself".
The proximal cause of the 2020 riots was the widespread belief among Progressives that police kill large numbers of innocent Black men.
This belief was explicitly false, but became widespread among Progressives specifically because a large percentage of Journalists spent many years collaborating together to bias their reporting in a way calculated to create this impression, or in the parlance, "raise awareness". Widespread criticism of this practice was uniformly ignored.
And of course, the direct result of the riots was many thousands of additional Black people murdered by overwhelmingly Black criminals, as law enforcement broke down and the criminals ran rampant. This was the easily-predictable result of the riots, and it was in fact predicted in advance, by myself and many others. I observe that Blues, having been most vociferous in their support of the Black Lives Matter campaign when it was sparking riots based on a fictitious epidemic of Black murder, now studiously deploy the squid ink when the topic of the factual consequences of that campaign is raised. "Black Lives Matter" was a slogan to them, not anything resembling a principle.
calling immigrants "invaders"
The term seems appropriate.
and the DHS declaring intent to "liberate" LA from the socialists.
Despite what this poster and the average LA resident might think, Red Tribers are only de facto second-class citizens in Blue enclaves, not de jure. According to the actual laws in the actual law books, they are still entitled to the protections afforded by the law, and to having the laws enforced on those who break them.
The reason he's making a big deal of it is because he can't possibly hit the numbers we need. Best to seem to be effective if you can't actually accomplish everything you've promised.
Turning people away at the border might count as a deportataion in the stats, but it's not going to undo the 10 million illegals that Mayorkas let in.
Obama didn't do much for removing people in the interior of the country, and that's what I want to see. We're not going to get to the 50 million depirtataions we need, but I applaud the honest effort.
Yes. Some people believe the US is infinitely wealthy and we can afford to take in all of the downtrodden of the world fleeing poverty and oppression and the only reason you could be against this is because you're racist.
It does not compute that this could bankrupt the entitlements systems they are so fond of that are mostly paid out of high earner taxes. Or they believe money is magic and the classists are causing fake scarcity or whatever.
Yeah that last example is exactly what I meant. I dug up the law from where I grew up:
On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow moving vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in a line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turn-out exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. As used in this section a slow moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.
What I like about it is you have to pull over no matter what speed you were going if you get 5 cars following basically anywhere (I read the law as saying someone going 5 over on a road where everyone goes 10 over sti needs to pull over).
I appreciate that you brought receipts! It let me look at the area you’re talking about. It’s about 2x as dense as the areas I’m familiar with, meaning the rules obviously change. Looking at Parkdale, it’s clear that all the antique shops cluster at the end of Queen Street where there’s a big parking lot. I’ve never been there myself, but this doesn’t seem coincidental! The rest of the street appears dominated by entertainment, like restaurants.
you are aware it's this exact attitude that is causing the housing crisis right?
Wrong, actually. The housing crisis is a migration crisis: from old factory towns in middle America to the cities where prosperity seems to cluster. Why is that the case? Is that an inevitable property of reality, or is that the changing conditions of American markets driven by “knowledge economy” interests? There is an incredible amount of land in America. Why can’t people make a living in most of it any longer? This was not always the case, but it’s easier to talk about spoils in the few areas people have decided to fight over than the destitution of the rest.
Excellent news! I am not asking for every minute detail of a rubric. I understand that there is some subjectivity in modding.1 Instead, what I'm asking for is much more high level than that. Just an acknowledgment that "providing a canvas" (to use @quiet_NaN's terminology) for discussion on a 100% topic is a useful service, rather than having it be a warnable/banable offense. It's just a change in subjective mindset (and policy). It's a useful service to stand in for something like automated identification/posting of megathreads for 100% topics.
1 - I have made a distinct complaint when a mod action couldn't point to any actual problem whatsoever, but that's obviously also different.
We have more freedom than ever.
Like hell we are. We are constantly surveilled and the frontier has been filled for well over a century. Regulations of all kinds are only ever increasing, never decreasing. I can't think of any way in which we are more free than the modal man of 1875. More wealth and safety and security, sure. More freedom? I don't see it.
The polarization in actual multiparty systems is significantly less because there is no obvious ”the other side” when the constituent parties of the sides change depending on the question and which parties are in the government at the time.
So what's the deep, unresolved tension surrounding keeping noncitizens in the country?
Is there any reason other than "it helps us win elections?"
- And if you did hire high IQ high conscientiousness people to do the work,
That's the illegal immigrants. Given the same IQ and conscientiousness, they're far more likely to do low-paid farm work than american citizens for what should be obvious economic reasons. If we got rid of the illegal immigrants their likely replacements would be stupider and less conscientious.
Does Iran have the ability to destroy that command center? My understanding is that the whole point of building such things underground is to make them resistant to air attacks.
If they do, then the answer is yes. When you're fighting a shooting war then of course you have the right to attack all military targets. This is not a subject under serious dispute, except by a few frivolous activists who are just looking for excuses to criticize countries they already oppose. If Iran has the ability to destroy that base and they're at war then they have the right to destroy it, even if they have to kill one hundred skajillion innocent babies to do it.
Just like Israel has the right to bomb Gaza to ashes if that's what it takes to keep their citizens safe.
Glad we cleared that up.
Whether it was blue-on-blue remains to be seen, but blue-on-blue is much, much easier to deal with than red/blue.
The riots in 2020 were triggered by one guy dying under sketchy circumstances.
This seems like a spectacular failure to grasp the deep, unresolved tension in the US over how law enforcement conducts itself. There were anti-police protests in 2014 under Obama as well. You can't attribute these things to a single police murder.
then make a big deal about fulfilling that promise.
This is not making a big deal out of enforcement. It is ostentatious cruelty (one might even say the cruelty is the point :v).
You've also got things like ICE going after valid visa holders, calling immigrants "invaders", and the DHS declaring intent to "liberate" LA from the socialists.
If only there were other transportation methods that scaled better.
Indeed, there are not. If you think NJ traffic is bad, NJ Transit brings whole new levels of bad.
You should turn on your turn signal every time you switch lanes or otherwise would be expected to use it, even if nobody is around.
Yes. Trivial effort and keeps you in the habit.
Stop signs and red lights need to be fully stopped at, even if nobody is around and you know there isn't a red light camera.
This should be two different questions because red lights and stoplights are used in significantly different contexts. Red lights tend to be on busier intersections with faster traffic. If you want to go straight, you should always stop and stay stopped even if there is no other traffic around because the consequences of screwing up are very likely to be death. Though it you want to do a right turn (on a road where it's legal to do so) then it's acceptable to do a rolling stop instead of a full stop, due to that being intrinsically safer-- if traffic hits you, it's unlikely to be a head-on colission, and if they were coming from the opposite side (for example because of a left-turn signal) then an accident will happen in lower speeds.
Stop signs are used more in quieter areas with smaller speed limits. rolling stops are acceptable if no one is around.
Speed limits should be followed to the letter when possible.
No, because speed limits are deliberately set too low with the expectation that they will be moderately violated by even law-abiding citizens, so that cops have a pretext to stop people who are driving at the "optimal" speed for a given area but in an unsafe manner. As proof, in my state you don't even receive any penalties for going up to 5 over, so the speed limit is really "speed posted plus up to 5mph" which is much more reasonable. Going faster than that is also acceptable if done temporarily while passing-- reducing how much time you spend in a truck's blindspot is ultimately safer for everyone.
The left lane is for passing only
No for city roads. Yes for highways with some caveats-- if the road quality is much worse on the right side, or if you're going to an exit that's on the left side, or if no one is around anyway, it's okay to be in the left line.
if you are in that lane and not passing and someone cuts you off
Douchebaggy in proportion to the level of aggression and danger in the cutoff, but acceptable in many cases. Ideally they should have found a safer way to merge in but like... I get it.
or rides your bumper, that is fine.
No. Bumper riding is always unsafe and unnecessary. (And also, illegal-- I got written up for following less than two bumper lengths once. Lawyer got it dropped though, always plead to transfer to a nonmoving violation haha.) That's especially the case when it's at night and your headlights might be shining into their rearview, blinding them and preventing them from safely getting out of your way. People with either eventually figure out that they should move to the right, or alternatively if they're being assholes on purpose being an asshole back is just likely to cause an accident.
If someone does not make room for you and you need to come over (and properly signaled) you can cut them off guilt free.
Ideally, you should slow down instead and merge in behind them. But if that's not possible for whatever reason, and your merge won't require them to slam on the brakes, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. (You should probably still be a little guilty though.)
I can break some of these rules (or others) but other drivers should not.
Everyone should be expected to break these rules in a situation where that maximizes the overall safety of driving. And at the same time, everyone should be driving so as to minimize the need for others to break these rules, and not doing so forfeights the right to complain in inverse proportion to how safe other drivers are while violating these rules.
scissors statements
On quieter streets with good visibility, it's okay to U-turn like a motherfucker at any provocation.
Every driving test should include a LIVE segment on understanding and using hand signals. Aside from cyclists, I've seen cars use these when their turn lights are off.
Motorcyclists should be allowed to legally split lanes. (But if they die, they die.)
This was apparently blue-on-blue though. Can't avoid that by sorting, unless the sort becomes fractal.
Of course if you reduce life to its broadest and least specific terms, we all want Good Things and don't want Bad Things. The problem is that there's no such thing as prosperity, or health, or safety, or relative freedom, or an educated populace. These aren't objective measures, they're vibes and negotiations, and the negotiations have been breaking down for decades.
Is it healthy or unhealthy to support trans rights?
Is it safe or unsafe to tolerate drugged-out homeless on the streets and public transit?
Can our nation be prosperous without disarming its citizens? Can it be safe?
You can't balance civilization on platitudes.
It's worth noting that nobody believes this though- I think my hunting club could wipe the floor with the entirety of antifa in an afternoon in an actual take-the-gloves-off civil unrest scenario, and the median American probably agrees with me. And that's leaving aside that my hunting club is not the entirety of red assets in a serious civil unrest scenario.
The modal outcome of some blue tribe mass-unrest enabled auspicious incident is 'the national guard just kills them all because it doesn't actually want to take orders from blue state governments trying to run interference'. I think both blue and red Americans are aware of this.
More options
Context Copy link