When I'm talking about perspectives of who is operating in good faith, I'm referring to the general American populace and not politicians. That was based on the comment I was replying to. Politicians as a whole, and I think the majority of people can agree, not that trustworthy.
To the example you provided, I think McConnell was operating based on what congressional rules of procedures allow. Should he have let it go to a vote? Yes. However, he was acting in the interest of the people who elected him. He used the means available to him to achieve the outcome his electorate wanted. It wasn't fair that he didn't allow the vote but unfortunately the system isn't fair.
Americans need to get more involved in elections. A max of roughly 40% participation in non presidential years and 60% in presidential election years is abhorrent and we need more involvement to get politicians who have been in office for 15 plus years out of office.
For a long time I was against what this senator is doing since I was ignorant of what his proposed end was.
His position to get DOD policy codified in law because the Hyde Amendment exists, makes sense.
However, I want to be clear that the ultimate outcome should be the status quo remaining. DoD personnel should still get reimbursed for travel regarding abortions.
It is embarrassing that it takes several months to get this resolved.
However I think because consumers have become used to having cameras and microphones in their house it will likely not be addressed to the degree it needs to be.
I don't think that the board members are sitting there and pondering how they can exercise more control on the user via snaps.
The auto updating is a nice benefit but it doesn't seem like a big enough benefit to allocate so many developer man hours into. I would think that Canonical would realize that the developers time is better spent making features the users want.
But what do I know? I'm just someone posting on Lemmy not a Canonical board member haha
I'm not saying it's easy. From the people I have interacted with that are in the vocal minority group, often have no interaction with the groups they are vehemently against. If those people are given the opportunity to interact with someone that is trans or a group they are dehumanizing, they will come to relate to them and that will change their views. When people interact with people they will humanize them and realize that first and foremost we are all human beings.
A good case study of this is Darryl Davis, a black man, who ended up befriending several members of the KKK. Those people he interacted with ended up abandoning the Klan and that made an impact on racism.
If people demonstrated more of that compassion, the world would be a better place than it currently is.
I would recommend using Linux Mint. It is Ubuntu without Gnome Shell and snaps. They use Flatpak instead. I have been enjoying it ever since I jumped ship from Ubuntu about 2 years ago.
What's the reason behind thinking half of them are acting in bad faith? Is that because you disagree with them?
The thought of "there is no reasoning with them" is why each group of the electorate has become more and more polarized. Things have been getting worse because all groups only want to talk to people that agree with their own viewpoint.
We all can just do a better job of talking with fellow Americans about these things respectfully, admit positions we can compromise on and educate to convince on positions we are less likely to compromise on.
To be fair, I don't quite understand the reasoning on why more judges should be added.
If we have 19 judges and 10 are conservative then we are in the same situation as now.
If we have 19 judges and 10 are liberal, we are in the opposite situation but the other side is making the argument "there should be more judges"
In a representative democracy there will be times that a certain side doesn't get what they want but that is not a reason to rewrite the rules to improve the chances of a particular view being more represented. The spirit of rule changing is how we got things like gerrymandering.
While I know that people don't like this opinion but just because people don't like the conservative or liberal judges doesn't mean those judges have any less of a claim on the position they hold. The courts views on issues ebbs and flows over decades.
If citizens take issue with the current justices on the court, they need to hold the incumbent politicians accountable that approved the justices to be there.
While true on the more likely to roll due to their higher center of gravity, unless they are lowered after purchased, I was surprised to find that at least for the f150, the roof strength is almost 6 times the weight of the truck.
That's according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety which is an independent review organization that gave the f150 one of its highest ratings.
That's true. Moving past the emotional attempt to rile up the community by stating "throw it into the fire", it isn't clearly defined what a business can refuse business for.
If someone at a restaurant acts like a complete jerk and the business rejects providing service, is the business wrong for punishing the customer for expressing their freedom of speech? As long as that customer is not trying to incite violence, as it stands, there is no clarity on which party would be in the right.
I came to beehaw because it seemed to very welcoming and the fediverse provided freedom which was excellent. It is difficult to process because now users on beehaw are being told "you can be open and welcoming as long as you don't dare integrate your beehaw and lemmy world experience". Hopefully the beehaw staff understand that ultimately, users desire freedom to choose how they want their online experience.
I can only see this hurting beehaw in the future and hopefully this is a short misstep and not a permanent decision. The only reason that beehaw has seen massive growth is because of the association with lemmy world and other popular instances. This fragmentation will only hurt Lemmy when Reddit was seen as a "one stop shop" for all posts.
When I'm talking about perspectives of who is operating in good faith, I'm referring to the general American populace and not politicians. That was based on the comment I was replying to. Politicians as a whole, and I think the majority of people can agree, not that trustworthy.
To the example you provided, I think McConnell was operating based on what congressional rules of procedures allow. Should he have let it go to a vote? Yes. However, he was acting in the interest of the people who elected him. He used the means available to him to achieve the outcome his electorate wanted. It wasn't fair that he didn't allow the vote but unfortunately the system isn't fair.
Americans need to get more involved in elections. A max of roughly 40% participation in non presidential years and 60% in presidential election years is abhorrent and we need more involvement to get politicians who have been in office for 15 plus years out of office.