oxjox @ oxjox @lemmy.ml

Posts

31

Comments

1,265

Joined

2 yr. ago

Any signs community might grow/strengthen in the future?

Community and extended family are different things.

Community is a choice blood doesn't specify. You can choose or find yourself lucky enough to live in a community that's engaging. I live in a major US city. My particular block isn't super engaging but I know, and am jealous of, a number of nearby blocks and neighborhoods that are incredibly supportive and engaging with each other - despite or in spite of the appearances or affiliations of the individuals.

Inversely, extended family may be more physically separated than in generations past. We've lost most connection with relatives in favor of the choice to live in an area that's more advantageous to us - be it financially or spiritually or physically beneficial.

I've observed more instances of people establishing their own "extended family" through their communities. I'm not so sure there's an inherent advantage of the extended family being made of blood or friendship.

Also, I'm not sure how you define "extended family". I hang out with some of my first cousins all the time. Second cousins, not so much. Are aunts and uncles extended family - if not "nuclear family"? I see them too often, tbh.

Yeah - fuck those guys reporting on research done by the National Bureau of Economic Research and agreeing with the concluding opinion that "the study shows participants were better off, despite the decline in working hours and earnings. Indeed, maybe that's the whole point?" and "One person wants to learn new skills or start a business? Great! Others want to play video games all day? Awesome.".

The tenth amendment says,

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Given the context, it’s reasonable to assume the Supreme Court (especially today’s court) would hold that the first amendment is specific about Congress not establishing religion and therefor is open to interpretation by the states.

Unless you have a specific case law regarding the application of the first amendment to state legislation regarding religion, I’m not seeing how The Due Process law is relevant.

I really want to know so I’ve ’done my own research’.

Here’s the closest cases I could find. It seems reasonable here that the Supreme Court has historically ruled in a way that specifically objects to Oklahoma’s legislation. I’m convinced that you’ve offered relevant material yet I’m still 50/50 on the matter with today’s Supreme Court. If Thomas were off the bench, I could see it ruled otherwise.

Carson v. Makin (2021)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carson_v._Makin

The case centered on the limits of school vouchers offered by the state of Maine, which had disallowed the use of vouchers to pay for religious-based private schools. In a 6–3 decision the Court ruled that Maine's restrictions on vouchers violated the Free Exercise Clause, as they discriminated against religious-backed private schools. The minority opinions argued that the decision worked against the long-standing principle of the separation of church and state, since state governments would now be required to fund religious institutions..

[Roberts] wrote that the Maine legislature excluded "private religious schools from those eligible to receive such funds" and that such exclusion separates of church and state more than intended under the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. He wrote that, on the basis of Zelman, "a benefit program under which private citizens 'direct government aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice' does not offend the Establishment Clause."

Zelman v Simmons-Harris (2001)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelman_v._Simmons-Harris

The lawsuit was initiated when a group of Ohio taxpayers filed an action against Susan Zelman, the superintendent of public education in Ohio, arguing that the program violated the Establishment Clause. Simmons-Harris, along with other residents of the Cleveland area, argued that the government "could not pay tuition for students to attend religious school".

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the majority opinion, which held that the school voucher program was not in violation of the Establishment Clause. The ruling also determined that government support for religion is constitutional if it does not occur de jure but de facto, and if the use of religious facilities is neither specified nor encouraged. Cleveland's program was declared to be religiously neutral and to be giving parents the benefit of true private choice.

LOL. That works too.

Uh, what? How does this apply? Can you use your words, please?

Which part? Do you have any case law to reference?

“The Bible is indispensable in understanding the development of Western civilization and American history. To ensure our students are equipped to understand and contextualize our nation, its culture, and its founding, every student in Oklahoma will be taught the Bible in its historical, cultural, and literary context.”

We learned this in elementary school. We learned that the colonies were, in large part, established as a way to escape religious oppression and persecution by The Church of England. One of the most important points of this country is to be free to practice any religion you wish.

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of state-church watchdog group Freedom From Religion Foundation, said the guidelines are unconstitutional.

I'm not so sure. The First Amendment stipulates that Congress shall not establish a religion. States are free to do as they wish. This is an Oklahoma matter and I hope they figure out that this guy and the rest of his oppressive cult are full of bullshit.

Actually, I would support our public education covering Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and other non-Abrahamic religions in an honest historical manner. I learned more about the world and human history in my college art classes which were heavily influenced be religious paintings. Human history has been immensely influenced by religion. It shouldn't be ignored.

There's a lot of misinformation and a lot of cultists out there lying to everyone for power and glory. American children should be well educated. Our public schools should have higher standards. Our teachers should be paid more and better educated themselves. The conservative push towards private and (publicly subsidized) charter schools is detrimental to the future of our nation as a whole.

These cult leaders are an insult to our ancestors and our founding fathers and mothers. I think most people would agree that being religious isn't inherently bad. But forcing others to do what you 'believe' to be true aligns you more with the Devil than with Jesus.

From what I'm reading, it seems more like you're on the spectrum more than simply being introverted.

And what you believe to be introverted is more likely shyness and insecurity. Introverted is an overused word that has lost its original meaning. An introvert is someone who finds comfort and energy in doing isolated things. An introvert doesn't explicitly have issues with socializing with people one-on-one or in small groups. You may in fact be both but you have not described introversion here.

I have a friend like you I've known for about ten years. At first, and pretty much until recently, he was very robotic and acted as if he were carrying out instructions he read about being a normal human. After enough time of faking it though, he's more natural in his interactions - though still awkward.

So, my advice is to try acting like a normal person while slowly exceeding the restrictions your insecurity permits. Don't expect others to willfully engage with you right away - they too may suffer from what holds you back. I would venture to guess, given how social interaction has changed in the last twenty years, most people are more similar to you than not.

Seems like you're on the right path so far by introducing yourself. Don't be a dick. Don't be pushy or clingy. Relationships and trust take time to build. Give it room to breathe.

Try to find new hobbies that promote in-person out-in-the-open social interaction and build your confidence around others you share common interests with. This will help build your confidence around others like your coworkers.

Also, know yourself and your place. There might be something about you that people generally aren't comfortable with. Being too anxious to form relationships could be one. Maybe you need to work on your hygiene or maybe word got out that you stole someone's lunch or maybe someone heard you taking a massive dump one day or maybe they found out about your political or religious positions or they resent you for being hired for some reason. It might be something other than you being shy and insecure.

I think you're giving a bit too much credit to someone mentally deficient enough to commit such a violent act. Still, it is a reasonable assertion.

Love admitted to being involved in the attack and said he had become acquainted with the victim beforehand.

"The defendant added he was possibly drugged and someone inserted an unknown object in his rectum," the report says. "Although the defendant is not certain the victim is responsible for this, the defendant made a statement indicating he needed to hurt whoever hurt him and was prompted to purchase the knife at a Target store near Miami International Airport."

Appears not to be a random hate crime.

Good stuff. Thanks.

Daaaannnnnng

I was watching some of the congressional hearing yesterday and was astounded by how little information she had to offer. A truly scary display of incompetence. I'm sure there's details that can't be shared for the sake of national security but she couldn't (or chose not to) even answer basic "what color is the sky" questions. Rep. Biggs asked her what the security perimeter was and she responded with "we're asking those questions". Huh??

I don't believe there to be a conspiracy but, having watched her testimony, I certainly would not argue with anyone who believes there to be one. I wouldn't argue with someone who believes an individual or portion of the USSS intentionally acted in a manner that put lives at risk.

Exactly. Promises that he’s verifiably uninterested in putting any effort towards because: see above.

Trump unveiled the realities of the wasted money and resources the Trump team now has to deal with. "Now we have to start all over again. Shouldn't the Republican Party be reimbursed for fraud in that everybody around Joe"

Can we all please take a moment to seriously reflect on this?

Irrespective of party, campaigning should not primarily be about attacking your rival. It should be about what you intend to do and what you have done to benefit your constituents. Your policies and successful legislation should be what you spend your money on promoting. It should be about the vision you have for this country outside the context of who comes before or after you in office.

This is, in part, why so many people are resentful of elections - they're 100% full of negativity. Give us some hope. Give us some tangible examples of what's been accomplished. Keep the name of your opposition out of your speeches. Reflect on existing policy you want to change, why you feel it needs to change, and how you intend on changing it. Give us some vision of the future for us to unite around and get excited for.

The people who want to elect DT are either extremists, cult followers, uninformed / misinformed, or corporate or political anarchists. There is no one of sound or informed mind who would ever vote for him. He has proven to be bad for the people, the economy, the nation, and the world.

We live in a time where instant access to ideas dilutes and twists reality. The majority of people don't really know what they're voting for nor do they really care what the ramifications of their decisions mean.

I live in a "blue" east coast city. I read news from generally unbiased sources and I engage with others in forums like this. I can't tell you the number of people I've come across, mostly but not exclusively from outside my city, who have unwavering opinions about something they've proven to know very little about (this is not exclusive to MAGA or republicans). I had a conversation with someone I've known most my life about Dr. Fauci. He thought he should be sent to prison. When I asked why he thought that he didn't really have a coherent response and ended with, "well I guess I don't really pay that close attention to the news".

Today's politics is more similar to a sporting event than it is about the democratic process. It's more about engaging with your team's fans on social media than it is understanding the philosophies and mechanisms of government.

That is not the definition of helicopter parents; quite the opposite. Helicopter parents would have been overly attentive of you and ensuring you were doing all the things you should be doing, or doing them on your behalf, even if you fought against them.

You had neglectful parents. Frankly, I wouldn't refer to these people as "parents" at all if they didn't teach you how to bathe yourself.

I'm sorry this was your life and hope you've considered therapy.

Finding a trustworthy source is the hardest part. I generally avoid anyone speaking too loudly of the subject. Someone who’s knowledgeable and confident, most times, can present calmly with context that’s accessible to most people.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a good example. He’s a good place to start for a broad range of topics. Then if I want more details I can dig deeper on my own. A lot of times, his commentary requires digging deeper because he speaks too broadly.

I always check the source of a report or article; if there is no source, I don’t trust it. The source is usually a good place to ‘bookmark’ for further research.

Edit: a few days later and I’ve come across the perfect example. Here Tyson explains “the tide doesn’t come in and out”. What I think he should more clearly say is there’s no “high tide” and “low tide”. To me, and I could be an idiot, I thought he was going to explain the action of the waves coming in and out at the cost line every 30 seconds or so. It’s not that he’s wrong but sometimes his choice of words isn’t super on point. Here’s more info about Tidal Range https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/tides.html

Probably not what you're looking for but this is my favorite time-waster.

https://abagames.github.io/crisp-game-lib-11-games/?pakupaku

Y2K wasn't nonsense. It was unremarkable, ultimately, because of the efforts taken to avoid it for a decade.

20 Years Later, the Y2K Bug Seems Like a Joke—Because Those Behind the Scenes Took It Seriously

President Clinton had exhorted the government in mid-1998 to “put our own house in order,” and large businesses — spurred by their own testing — responded in kind, racking up an estimated expenditure of $100 billion in the United States alone. Their preparations encompassed extensive coordination on a national and local level, as well as on a global scale, with other digitally reliant nations examining their own systems.
“The Y2K crisis didn’t happen precisely because people started preparing for it over a decade in advance. And the general public who was busy stocking up on supplies and stuff just didn’t have a sense that the programmers were on the job,” says Paul Saffo, a futurist and adjunct professor at Stanford University.

What is worth noting about this event is how public concern grows and reacts out of ignorance. Just because a pending catastrophe results in something 'less-than' does not mean best efforts weren't taken to avoid it. Just because something isn't as bad as it could have been doesn't mean it was a hoax (see: covid19). Additionally, just because something turns out to be a grave concern doesn't mean best efforts didn't mitigate what could have been far worse (see: inflation).

After the collective sigh of relief in the first few days of January 2000, however, Y2K morphed into a punch line, as relief gave way to derision — as is so often the case when warnings appear unnecessary after they are heeded. It was called a big hoax; the effort to fix it a waste of time.

Written in 2019 about an event in 1999, it's apparent to me that not much has changed. We're doomed to repeat history even provided with the most advanced technology the world has ever known to pull up the full report of history in the palm of our hands.

The inherent conundrum of the Y2K [insert current event here] debate is that those on both ends of the spectrum — from naysayers to doomsayers — can claim that the outcome proved their predictions correct.

Joe Biden was not picked in 2020 because he was the only person that could beat Trump. He was picked because he was the only person that could beat Bernie Sanders, rightly or wrongly. … That conclusion was made, okay? “Oh my gosh, coming out of Nevada, Bernie Sanders is going to be the nominee!” And people, just like they are now, said, “Ahhh, I don’t think that’s going to work,” so they were looking for an alternative.

I have a hard time understanding how "the party" "picks" the candidate.

We have primary elections. There's months of publicity and news reports. There's debates. There's polls. What mechanism(s) does the DNC have to "pick" the candidate? What's the point of the primary if the DNC can overrule what the people want?

I presume the DNC gets to choose where to spend their campaign dollars and can shift marketing one way or the other. Is there some other way they can pick the candidate?

I actually just picked up "Primary Politics" by Elaine C. Kamarck. I'm sure the answer lies in this book I've yet to read.