Nahvi @ Nahvi @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

191

Joined

2 yr. ago

Believe it or not it is possible to fully support a political ideal while still thinking corporations should stay out of politics.

For example, I think that cops taking money from people (Civil Asset Forfeiture) without charging them with a crime is amoral, unconstitutional (4th amendment), and un-American.

If, however, I saw a sign about it in my local McDonald's I would definitely be like WTF?!?

Political - adj - Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.

I don't know if you really don't know the difference between being black and supporting the BLM movement, but there is a definite difference. A good quick measure is would a politician hold an opinion on it? For a specific example do you think Tim Scott (one of the black Republican Presidential Candidates) would wear a BLM face mask?

I will assume that you are arguing and good faith and genuinely don't see the difference, so here are a few contrasting examples:

Wearing a hat that says Veteran is a statement of fact, like wearing a hat with your college's logo. It is not inherently political or supporting any particular political ideal.

Wearing a VFW hat on the other hand, would be political. The VFW seeks to educated and change the opinions of legislators regarding veterans.

If a black person was wearing a hat that said I am Black. That would be a statement of fact and not inherently political or supporting any particular political ideal.

Wearing a BLM hat on the other hand would be political. The BLM organization and supporters of the BLM ideals seek to educate and change the opinions of legislators and the public regarding black people.

Without typing out the same comparisons again, cancer awareness and most charities would fall under political ideals also. They almost always seek to influence government legislation or funding.

dress code is also completely made up bullshit that has no reason to exist in the modern world

This is a ridiculous notion.

There are plenty of people that would show up to work without bathing while wearing sweatpants and teddy bear slippers if they were allowed. Source: I worked in a low-end call center fresh out of school and a good quarter of the people actually did dress like this most days.

Without a dress code a business has no grounds to address the situation.

If I walked into a new grocery chain or restaurant and everyone was dressed in dirty house clothes the best reaction I would have is to ask someone if this was a joke day. The more likely reaction would be just turning around and walking out.

I don't object to them as an optional feature, but they are about as useful as optical drives to the typical user.

Personally, I would like to see miniaturization become the the trend again.

I haven't been interested in a new release since phablets became the standard. I don't need my phone to replace my PC. It just needs to be able to run a web-search in a pinch.

I was really hoping the Apple Watch was going to be the next leap forward, but they were very careful about making sure most people didn't replace their phones with them.

I am getting tired of being surprised that out of 77 comments not one mentions that the SCOTUS did NOT allow "Christian business owners to refuse same-sex couples." This was and is against the law. SCOTUS said they don't have to create pro-same-sex materials. It should be a straightforward and obvious conclusion that only went to SCOTUS because of the current anti-religious sentiment.

Would a liberal sign maker be required to create pro-life materials? Of course not. Should a conservative sign maker be required to make pro-choice materials? Of course not.

The law cannot force you to make materials or statements that you do not agree with.

That makes sense, but the 5th amendment doesn't mention conviction or acquittal.

Seems plain and clear that a retrial is being put in jeopardy a second time. Even my former justification of jury tampering doesn't seem to hold up to that measure.

A split decision sounds like a decision to me. The prosecutor failed to convince a jury of the defendant’s guilt. I wonder how many times someone can be tried as long as the prosecutor is able to seat at least one sympathetic juror.

I could understand retrying the case if it was found out one of the jury was on the take, but this sounds exactly like the kind of thing the 5th amendment is supposed to stop.

Oh, we didn’t pick a good enough jury to convict him this time. Let’s try again.

I always thought Masterson seemed like a creep, so I didn't pay much attention to this case when I heard about it.

Just read the article and another one it linked to regarding sentencing. It sounds like most of the jury voted for acquittal but it wasn't unanimous so the judge declared a mistrial and then retried him.

Anyone know how this isn't considered double-jeopardy? It sounds like the very definition of it to me. He was put on trial. The prosecutor was unable to secure a conviction, so the judge gave them another chance?

https://www.etonline.com/danny-masterson-sentenced-to-30-years-to-life-in-prison-in-los-angeles-rape-case-210861

But weeks after the trial finally started in late 2022, the judge declared a mistrial after the jury remained deadlocked. Jurors in last year's case had leaned in favor of acquittal on all three counts against him -- voting 10-2 on one count, 8-4 on another and 7-5 on the third, but were unable to reach a unanimous decision, leading to the mistrial.

US Fifth Amendment excerpt:

nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

You have a bigger problem with the slowly dying Microsoft pushing Bing on Windows than the market leading Alphabet pushing Google on Android?

Even if you want to look at browsers, the Chromebooks are even more integrated with Chrome than Edge on Windows.

They should be the same problem, but if one was worse based on the impact, then it should almost certainly be Google/Chrome.

More like Google had the better product a decade ago. It has pretty well been crap that was just being defaulted to for most of the last decade. Which is exactly why it is ripe for an antitrust claim.

Good to know. Might end up unchecking it myself in the not too distant future.

Would love to see your face when you consider the US military, which hasn't won a real war in nearly 80 years, trying to occupy an area 10 times the size of Afghanistan. Please just ignore the 100 million gun-toting good old boys in trucks. I am sure they have no idea what guerilla warfare is and won't protect their homes at all. Also, I'm sure none of that military will defect to protect their families.

Those 50 jets and 50 tanks will definitely end the conflict in the first hour.

Maybe this is a silly question but does unchecking the "show bot accounts" box in settings not work on them? I haven't gotten annoyed enough with them yet to uncheck the box to see if it works.

this place being crazy crazy overwhelmingly progressive (not shade) is going to push people away.

This is a serious concern. As a moderate, I usually get fed-up with how lop-sided it is here pretty quickly.

When I first joined Lemmy, I was optimistic that there would be a good exchange of ideas and open discussions from differing viewpoints. Unfortunately, that only lasted until I found the Agora. At which point I realized I had just joined Survivor Lemmy, and was always wondering which instance was going to get voted off the island this week. I pretty much dropped my sh.itjust.works account after that.

It is amazing how toxic the environment can be towards people with differing political views. I can't remember the last time I was here and didn't see someone calling conservatives fascists or saying they should die. Also, it is pretty rare day when I see someone use the word communist here instead of the pejorative "tankie". Definitely not the kind of environment to foster inclusion.

If there wasn't such an emphasis on civility, anti-racism, anti-bigotry, and non-toxicity here then I wouldn't expect anything and probably wouldn't even notice, but with that emphasis it seems to stand out even more.

As I understand it, seeing the same post multiple times when it is cross-posted is an app issue. The default desktop UI combines them all into one post with links near the top showing the other communities it was cross-posted to.

I never see the multiple post thing you are talking about.

Expanding the courts because we aren't happy with the current lineup would set an extremely dangerous precedent. Assuming that the Republicans in the Senate would let any of Biden's nominations through, what would stop the next Republican president from expanding SCOTUS again to make sure they are back in the majority?

Edit: Questions get question marks.

Probably, though the scene that came to mind for me was from the DS9 episode where Worf, Kor, and Dax find the sword of Kahless.

This is definitely the better solution. We don't need the court experiencing major political swings during nearly every presidency.

Edit: Also, the chief justice should either be chosen amongst themselves or be the longest serving member, not randomly chosen when that spot opens.

While I am thinking about it. if we really want to depoliticize the position, as much as possible, we should consider making them lifetime public citizens after they join the court. By public citizen, I mean they become wards of the nation and can no longer make or posses money or assets. They must divest all assets to family and will be provided food, lodging, and stipends for travel or leisure for the rest of their lives. After they retire they will become Justices Emeriti who should guest lecture at various law schools and may be called in to advise or assist the sitting court when particularly complex issues arise. Any money made by a Justice Emeritus should be funneled into the cost of providing for all the Justice Emeritus.

Like you guessed it is a cultural icon. The emperor that united their home world used it.

In Star Trek lore, the Klingon Kahless created the bat'leth around CE 625. According to Klingon mythology, he formed the blade by dropping a length of his hair into some lava from inside the Kri'stak Volcano, then cooling, shaping, and hardening it in the lake of Lursor.[5] He then united Qo'noS, the Klingon homeworld, by killing a tyrant named Molor with the weapon, which became known as the Sword of Kahless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat%27leth#Use_in_Star_Trek