PrinceWith999Enemies @ PrinceWith999Enemies @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

606

Joined

2 yr. ago

All that would mean is that there is a current disagreement. The assault weapons ban was constitutional. California’s regulations on firearms is constitutional. Those are all court rulings with a lot more gravitas than a NM TRO.

There is no right via the second amendment for the unregulated possession or carry of firearms, just like there is no right in the first amendment to unlimited free speech. Those are interpretations that are entirely grounded in an optimistic layperson’s interpretation of what a multi century old complex body of laws actually should mean, rather than the actual legal interpretations.

The government tightly regulates speech. It’s allowed to, over-generous interpretations of the First be damned. It is the same thing with firearms.

It’s culture war bullshit that will go back and forth for another century if we last that long. The pendulum is currently in a pro-gun direction. At some point it will swing back and we will have a federal ban on weapons and mag caps again.

The problem of course is the American gun fetish, not the guns themselves. As long as people culturally fetishize guns as symbols of freedom and masculinity, we’re going to have this. It’s got an intersection with Southern and African American honor culture that escalated violence, and an increasing intersection with right wing domestic terrorism, which in turn informs mass shootings. But it’s easier to do an ineffective gun ban than address that.

I remember when the hole in the ozone was something we were all worried about. I remember the news segments and the magazine covers and the protests.

I don’t remember the massive coordinated media campaigns running into the tens of billions of dollars. I don’t remember an entire political party simultaneously saying there’s no ozone hole and that the ozone hole is actually good for us. I don’t remember rednecks standing in rows on Texas highways shooting AquaNet into the air to own the libs.

We used to be able to do it. Nixon founded the EPA. There was a general consensus that had a role in reducing pollution and disease. The republicans fought against establishing social security, saying that old people should support themselves and anything else would turn the US literally communist.

We’ve lost even that much.

Literally constitutional. States can set the laws and regulations around firearms, as established by supreme court precedent.

A lot of American communists supported Stalin. They refused to believe that the anti-Stalin news was anything but American propaganda. When Khrushchev exposed Stalin for what he did in an attempt to try rebuilding the country, many were disillusioned to the point that they left communism. Some remained pro-Soviet but rejected Stalin, some remained communist but rejected the USSR as state capitalism, and some remained pro-Stalin. I’m just pointing that out to make sure that we all remember that people can be all over the place and still justify their positions to themselves.

To me, supporting Putin because he opposes NATO is like supporting Donald Trump because he opposes Biden. There are some accelerationists who literally do that. I personally think it is idiotic, and anyone who does so is a fascist and not a communist. Putin’s homophobia, xenophobia, right wing religious fascism, and misogyny should be more than enough to dissuade any person with a conscience from supporting him. Honestly, I really think it does. I believe that the majority of the “tankies” supporting Putin are right wing accounts sockpuppeting as leftists. No one who supports LGBT rights could support Putin. I think the tankies are the same type of crowd that populated the_donald - people cosplaying a political position until it becomes internalized.

There is an absolutely massive literature in American and Western communism. Most of it predates Putin - at least, predates Putin bring anything other than a mafioso with a superpower to fund his personal wealth. You can read all about the soul searching about actually existing communism vs ideological communism and the moral dilemma that resulted.

But insofar as it’s about opposition to American imperialism or accelerationism, I think that the Trump years should have shown that to be tragically misguided. Putin’s opposition to NATO isn’t helping anyone in the West except for people like Trump and LePen. It’s not like supporting Ho Chi Minh or Mao, and it’s certainly not like supporting Allende, Castro, or Che. It’s like supporting Hitler on the basis of Hitler being anti-British.

I am also Gen X, and the fact that I remember Sgt Slaughter and the Iron Sheik doesn’t make them historically relevant. My point is that none of them are. John Glenn. JFK. Barack Obama. Donald Fucking Trump. Maggie Thatcher. Muhammad Ali. Mike Tyson. Michael Jordan. Madonna. Bowie. Elton. Michael Jackson.

Those are the kinds of people who are historical figures. Hulk Hogan will be forgotten. He’s nowhere in the league of those kinds of people. He’s at best a D-list celebrity whose next headline will probably be his obit, after which no one other than fans of the 1980s wwf will remember him, and there’s going to be fewer of them every year.

one of the most famous personas in all of modern media history

You might need to expand your horizons. On the historical scale he ranks just above Dog the Bounty Hunter and below Tiger King.

With the red splotch on the rug, this looks like a crime scene photo.

Or he’s getting a job with Newsmax or something similar.

I’ve seen people making this argument online many times.

“Republicans are actively shielding Trump and interfering with investigations. This could be considered a legally defined conspiracy.”

“Half the country are republicans. Are you saying that half the country are criminals?”

It’s conflating an obvious commonality among participants, and the fact that politicians and party leaders are overwhelmingly participating, with the average voter.

It’s performative opposition. No one really thinks there’s some kind of actually intellectually coherent views regarding incandescent bulbs, fuel efficiency, or solar power. It’s a conditioned reaction at this point. Sure, the oil lobby will oppose it, but it’s not like Big Bulb is trying to get rid of smart bulbs.

They’ve been conditioned to respond to the talking point of “the government is trying to tel you what to do” to such an extent that Biden could win the next election if he announced a government initiative to stop people from chaining themselves to rocks and jumping into the nearest lake.

Most of the people I know who are looking to move back to the Bay Area or Portland/Seattle are doing to because of the political climate, not the weather. A lot of people were pushed to move by their jobs, or elected to move because they saw a cost of living benefit. They figured they could do the blue city in a red state thing. With people like Abbott in charge, that’s no longer going to be a viable option.

I haven’t yet seen an article where a reporter totals up the numbers and associated dollar amounts associated with Musk’s mismanagement. In terms of general classes - and I’m just going off the top of my head here - we’re looking at (including only the twitter related ones):

1. Failure to pay agreed upon payouts for fired employees
2. Age discriminatory termination lawsuits
3. Violation of employment contracts re: return to work and other conditions
4. Failure to pay rents and infrastructure fees
5. Failure to moderate content according to legally required regulations
6. Allocation of TSLA employees to work at Twitter, a different company with different shareholders, thus robbing Peter to pay Paul on investors’ dimes

There were also potential suits over mass terminations contrary to state and national laws, but I haven’t heard as much about those recently.

She really changed after she was sent to that women’s prison though.

Why would someone with a consulate job avoid China, of all places?

Employees of foreign governments, especially in embassies and related posts, have very specific rights under international law. They have a huge amount of leeway compared to tourists, who often can get more than nationals.

Honestly, China is Disneyland compared to a lot of the rest of the planet. I knew personnel who were stationed in the USSR and Eastern Europe during the Cold War, including one woman who got the crap beaten out of her for meeting with the Solidarity people in Poland despite having a diplomatic passport. I’ve also been to even more colorful places myself at the government’s request. International business is the same. Millions of people travel to China every year for business.

No one is going to mistake China for Norway, but it’s also hardly the DPRK. I’d even go to the DPRK just for the hell of it if I could.

My favorite is when they take a song that everyone likes as a gentle, generic, feel-good song and turn it into something creepy. My favorite example is 1408’s use of “We’ve Only Just Begun.”

I think that this is common enough that it should be a trope, but the tendency to look for and enjoy them is itself very common. People love to trace back fairy tales to their bloodier origins and propose dark origins to children’s rhymes like “Ring Around the Rosie.”

This version of the bot is pretty bad. It often misses the major facts of an article and copies over random paragraphs.

I might be confused about what you’re saying.

In general, at the state level, you cannot prevent someone from going to another state even if you suspect they’re going to do something there that’s illegal in your state. Once you cross state lines, you’re subject to the laws of the state you’ve entered, and to federal law. Interstate crimes, like trafficking, fall under federal law, and that’s when the FBI gets involved. In addition, the drinking age policy was enforced, not by state law and not even by federal criminal law, but by the federal government passing a policy that restricts highway funding. Oklahoma could not criminalize traveling to Louisiana to drink “under age,” the feds had to get Louisiana to change their state law.

Texas can’t arrest you for flying to California to legally smoke weed. They can’t arrest you for going to Las Vegas to gamble. What they’re trying to do is make traveling while pregnant a trafficking type of crime such that existing the state while pregnant is a suspicious act.

The current SCOTUS has made some ridiculous rulings, so I wouldn’t want to gamble on this, but I honestly don’t think that it’s going to be more than political virtue signaling on an obviously unconstitutional law until the republicans take power at the federal level and pass a national anti-abortion law that permits federal agents to arrest patients and physicians in New York and California as well as having the sheriff do it in texas.

What domain is your area of application for bipartite networks?

Also, most current linguistic work In familiar with ignores etymology i. favor of statistical usage models, but you might have a more particular focus.

I love your posts and have assumed that you chose your username after one of my favorite Trek characters in the history of the franchise, but did you know that Paul Stamets the Discovery mycologist was named for the actual Paul Stamets, a real life mycologist? Real-Stamets is interesting particularly because he is largely self-educated in mycology and who has multiple publications and awards in the field?

If one person fails at something, maybe it is on them. We don’t want to rush into some kind of moral judgment about them deserving the consequences because they may have issues with their personal history, cognitive abilities, or relationships that led to the failure, but it’s still individual characteristics (even if it’s not their fault, per se).

If hundreds of thousands to millions of people are failing in the same way, we’re looking at a systemic problem rather than a personal one, and bootstraps aren’t the answer. Don’t think about it like someone who made it and is justifiably proud of what they did. Think about it like a statistician. How many people in similar circumstances to yours made it without falling into religious fundamentalism, conservative politics, or even substance abuse and being stuck wherever their birth landed them? I bet it’s a pretty high percentage, even if we only count the ones whose parents threw them a textbook.

Systemic problems require systemic solutions. We have a lot to get through before we can get there, but it’s still easier to fix if the problems are properly diagnosed - and demonstrably the existence of the internet and smartphones is not solving it.