Rivalarrival @ Rivalarrival @lemmy.today

Posts

1

Comments

3,272

Joined

2 yr. ago

They aren't a new party.

A distinction without a difference. Whether they are a new party, or a sect within the old GOP isn't particularly relevant. The relevant part is that the GOP adopted their positions and rhetoric.

The potential is there, but I doubt it will come to that. The same potential was there for the Tea Party to spoil GOP races. Instead, the GOP became the Tea Party.

We need a Guillotine Party to drag the Democrats back to the people.

Exactly this. When the GOP had similar problems, they sparked the "Tea Party" that ended up taking over the party.

We need a "Guillotine Party" to do the same for the Democrats.

I think it's pretty insightful.

The ending, at least.

Canada should totally call Trump's bluff. The GOP would lose their everloving shit at the prospect of another state the size and political leanings of California involved in US federal elections.

If you don't defend that speech

Just because something is spoken does not make it speech. The spoken word can, indeed, be "violence".

You've described "disturbing the peace" ("megaphone", "yelling"). You've described "harassment" (Every day for years while the kids get on and off the bus). You've described "assault". (causing stress and great anxiety; harming).

The actual "speech" you've described, you have explicitly defined as insufficient to get him arrested, so I would have to defend his right to say it.

But in the context you've provided for him, the totality of his actions rise to the level of "violence", and nothing I've said demands tolerance for that.

In a public forum that he hosts for himself? The "disturbing the peace" charge falls away. Non-vulgar comments about what he finds enjoyable and the content of his dreams, that don't rise to the level of harassment? The stress, anxiety, and harm you described didn't come from his speech, but from his harassment while disturbing the peace: Since his statements are no longer harassment or disturbing the peace, the "assault" goes away as well.

Now, he's speaking. And now that this is speech, I would invite you to join me in speaking back to him, even as I caution you not to censor him.

We certainly do draw lines in different places. You are calling for the violent eradication of certain people. We agree those people are despicable. We can even agree the world would be a better place without them. But, I'm going to stand between you and them, and tell you not to become them.

When they cross the line from speech to violence and actually try to "silence" others, we will, of course, defend those others. We don't need the paradox to do that; we don't need to become fascists ourselves to identify and defend the victims.

Hatred must be stamped out,

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend - to the death - your right to say it. The same goes for anyone you would silence or eradicate.

You can't out-auth a fascist without becoming a fascist yourself, and I don't want to live in a fascist state.

because we have no other choice except to to let them win and then die.

No, that's untrue. We do, indeed, have a choice.

For the nazis to thrive, society has to value the ability to eradicate others. We have to accept the idea that we may very well be the ones in the wrong. Probably not today, but quite possibly tomorrow. The Nazi does not value such introspection. They cannot consider a world in which they could ever be the bad guys. Our willingness to annihilate a perceived threat must always be tempered with the humility that we are not an omniscient, objective source of truth. We can, indeed, be the baddies.

The delineation always needs to be at the point of eradicating "others". That always needs to be a trait of "them" and never of "us". Our mindset must always be "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

That statement is addressed to a hateful speaker, but that speaker is not the intended audience. The intended audience is the one who would try to stop someone from speaking. The message is "We collectively defend even the people we hate."

Mark and/or Scott Kelly.

The intolerance paradox is an explanation of fascism, not a rebuttal.

It demonstrates the motivation: destroy those who pose a danger to our way of life. It allows us a justification to do to others exactly what we accuse them of doing to us.

We're coming for the Nazis today, and nobody is stopping us. Who are we going after tomorrow?

And I'm not saying I endorse a bullet or a guillotine or something like that.

Hitler died from a bullet, fired from his own gun. His advisors were tried for war crimes, convicted, sentenced to death, and hanged. I think we can all agree that these were reasonable conclusions.

Politically, Canada and California are indistinguishable. The United States with two Californias would look more like Canada than it would the current US.

The GOP cringes every time Trump talks about a 51st state.

We needed "utter chaos" at the convention, and didn't get it. That convention needed to drown out the spectacle of the donvict, and draw in bored and disillusioned voters to participate.

It didn't. They were trying to avoid a "Bernie Bros" scenario that couldn't have occurred because we didn't have months to fall in love with a particular candidate.

It sucked out what little life remained in the campaign, and gave us the most boring presidential race of my lifetime.

That war is how he is going to solve the economic crisis resulting from hia isolationist tariffs.

The URL you posted is not what I received.

Some sort of deanonymizing and/or tracking is the only thing that makes sense here.

A VPN is called for any time we might receive a Nicole message, or any time we access a previously received message.

Which means any time we access Lemmy.

The hurdle to this kind of fast charging isn't the tech in the car nor is it the tech in the charger. It's powering the fucking things.

Agreed.

would require a nuclear reactor sitting out back to supply the required 1.2 Megawatts of power!

Eh....

At 5 minutes a car, each charger would be able to accommodate 12 cars per hour. The 12-charger station, fed by that nuclear reactor, would be able to handle 144 per hour.

A typical gas station that size has an 8500 gallon tank, and refills 2-5 times per week. That amount of fuel will serve somewhere between 1000 to 3000 cars per week, or about 6 to 18 cars per hour.

This doesn't call for a nuclear reactor at the station. This calls for a sufficiently large battery pack at each station that can "trickle" charge continuously. I say "trickle" - if I did my math right, it would be about as much power as 15 hot tubs or 60 water heaters. About as much as a grocery store, with all its freezers, refrigerators, lights, HVAC, etc.

Certainly a lot of power, but certainly not outside the realm of possibility. On-site solar installations could offset a significant percentage of that demand.

Mexican cartels and elements of the heroin trade have been known to use fentanyl as an additive to increase the potency of other illegal drugs.

He's already invoked the alien enemies act against Venezuelan cartels, effectively declaring war on Venezuela. He's setting up a shooting war in Central America.

Ooh, I like... I think you might want to add some sharp cheddar.

Spaghetti belongs in a taco, not a pizza.