Plenty of activists, even those with radical opinions, take that approach. They have a long term goal in mind, but to get to that goal they try to make incremental changes with the power they have.
Hermione got involved in house-elf welfare as an adult and was successful. I am not sure where that is covered, I think maybe Cursed Child? I don't know much about what happens after the series is over, so I can't speak to that in detail.
The fatphobia is real, but I've never bought the bit about the books being against Hermione's anti-slavery stance (I assume that's what you mean by a woman who speaks up as well). My interpretation was that Hermione was always assumed to be in the right because slavery is almost universally condemned in modern society. But she's standing up against a system where even one of her two closest friends has been indoctrinated into it. Standing up to "others" is hard, but standing up to peer pressure is harder.
That said, the depiction of chattel slavery is of course inaccurate. Slave revolts were common, whereas the house elves want to be subservient to humans. I guess that could be marked up to house elves being a distinct species that may have been manipulated to be subservient, but that's never explained.
I hated that attack line so much. It was about an optional benefit that my representative wanted to add for Medicare recipients, a voluntary consultation on living wills. This had been requested by the AARP. Sarah Palin latched onto it, lied that it would press people into ending their lives, lied that it would be mandatory, lied, lied, lied, and lied some more. It really demonstrates how much Sarah Palin was a large part of the Republican Party's descent into Trumpism, though you could also trace that back to Reagan's lies about "welfare queens".
There's a polling paradox. The majority of insured Americans rate their insurance as good or excellent, according to Kaiser Family Foundation polling. But if the cost, especially if they are paying full cost, polls much lower.
I work at a university IT department. It's been a struggle with our auditors to loosen up the password expiration requirements. At least with the students they let anyone with 2FA to go without password expiration, which acts as a nice little carrot-and-stick. But for staff it's two years (2FA always required), regardless of password quality. I'd rather be able to base password expiration on password quality, personality.
LessPass and similar software has some problems. Things like you can't simply change your master password, you must then recompute and change every site. It's also not strictly stateless, since you need to know which password iteration you're on and the user name. Full fledged password managers also typically provide other secret management features, like API keys, SSH keys, credit/debit cards, and identity cards.
What does that even look like as a business model, though? There's an expectation now that you don't pay for web browsers. What would a standalone Chrome, Inc. look like?
you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire
This SCOTUS case has been largely overturned. It's from Schenck v. United States, a case involving people distributing fliers to draft age men during WW1 encouraging them to resist the draft. The ruling was narrowed in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to only allow free speech restrictions based on imminent harm, not just making the government a little uncomfortable.
The specific example of causing a stampede in a crowded theater could be criminalized as imminent harm. Speaking of that specific scenario, apparently it had come up because there had been multiple deadly stampedes in crowded theaters from false alarms. I wonder if now we would not have that. People have been trained from childhood to evacuate a building in an orderly fashion.
Biden goes along with a hair brained Trump era plan with a nebulous link to the Trump administration. News media sources have found no link to any official agency, but fortunately we have social media to discover a link (based on nothing). Biden then goes on to prosecute the perpetrators for weapons smuggling. None of the perpetrators complains about a deal being broken.
OR
This only had links to political figures in the Trump administration, but not anyone in the intelligence services. Those figures are long gone. No one bothered to tell Biden on the way out the door. Biden is prosecuting the perpetrators of an operation he allowed for fun and they're happy to stay quiet while they get imprisoned for running weapons.
All it said is that this group that was not part of the US government was in touch with someone in the Trump administration. That could be literally anyone, likely some Trump sycophant. The Trump administration leaves, attempts a coup on the US presidency on the way out, and now whoever was in contact is probably gone. Then the incoming Biden administration doesn't even know this bullshit is going on, let alone who's supposed to be contacted to call this thing quits. Now that same administration is prosecuting them for running weapons.
First, the definition of appeal to authority, since it's one of the most misunderstood fallacies. Citing someone based on their area of expertise is not appeal to authority. The problem is when you cite the stated opinion of someone, but their area of expertise is not directly relevant to that opinion. I'm a software developer, I could give you an expert opinion on various topics in that area. But outside of topics I am an export on, appeal to authority.
I didn't say he's necessarily wrong. But at the same time, he got his Nobel prize by being an economist who made a substantial contribution to economics. He is not an expert on fascism. His expert opinions in economics often run counter to many other credible expert economists, so you should consider those other expert opinions as well and not just listen to the person who tells you want you want to hear. That's certainly not anti-intellectual.
Experts and intellectuals should absolutely be considered to better understand a subject, but they're not some infallible oracle of truth. They contradict each other, are often limited by an ivory tower environment, and operating in the same societal context as everyone else.
This feels like an appeal to authority. He's an economist, not a political scientist. His Nobel prize was in contributions around screening, which is important but has jack shit to do with fascism. And he's held some opinions before that were highly controversial to say the least, like advocating for the breakup of the eurozone. Just because he says it and he has a shiny prize doesn't mean it's right.
I'm well aware of the history of covert CIA involvement in Latin America, at least in broad strokes. But you're still making assumptions to get to "why didn't Biden immediately shut this down?" Just apply Occam's Razor, he couldn't shut it down because the Trump administration used unofficial side channels.
Plenty of activists, even those with radical opinions, take that approach. They have a long term goal in mind, but to get to that goal they try to make incremental changes with the power they have.