ricecake @ ricecake @sh.itjust.works

Posts

4

Comments

1,553

Joined

2 yr. ago

Probably, but a judge can't just override the president on matters of foreign policy, and he's the head of the political party in charge of both houses of Congress.

Relying on the system to save us from the people given control of the system isn't going to work.

The military that he just dismissed the leadership of and replaced with his own people, and the CIA that's directed by his people?

who?. He's the one with the authority.

Well, you can't legally arrest someone without a warrant. We're talking about a situation where the rule of law is being dismantled.

Although, I also wouldn't put it past them to argue that you don't need a warrant to arrest someone for "issuing a treasonous court order" on the grounds that it was done in plain view or that they have probable cause to believe the judge committed said treason, which is a felony and thus doesn't require a warrant.

It's obvious baloney but that doesn't mean it's not a workable veneer of legitimacy.

While trump v America had the wrong ruling, the conclusion your sharing isn't correct.

The ruling shielded the president from personal liability for actions taken as president. It didn't touch the offices ability to be sued or be legally restrained.

If trump, in his capacity as president, violates the law "the president" can be sued and forced to stop, but not trump personally. You can't send him to jail for improperly claiming authority over the FEC, but you can prevent the office of the president from doing so.

People lived in hot climates well before air conditioning was invented. The modern window air conditioner is less than 100 years old.

Your examples for why people say Canada has a brutal climate or that the UK has bad weather are poorly chosen. Winnipeg has winter lows around -20C, which is cornea freezing cold. The UK is often overcast and rainy, which is why people loathe the weather, not because of the cold.

Largely, people don't like sweltering heat like you described, they like it on the warmer side. Your cold weather preparations are all just ways to get us to that temperature inside our clothing or homes. Because humans likely evolved in a region where the average winter low temperature was around 12C and the summer high around 30C, it makes sense that we prefer our temperature on the warmer side. Particularly since we evolved the ability to handle uncomfortablly warm temperatures by sweating profusely, but it cost us the ability to handle the cold.

In the grand scheme of things, it's more surprising that the hairless animal that drips sweat decided to wander into the snow than that they went into the slightly warmer places.

The part where you then licked the boots, most likely.

"I'm a staunch vegetarian, but even I like a big ribeye once in a while". You can see why people might disregard the first part.

It's hard to focus on where you say you dislike trump when the following bit is where you justify calling criticism of him treason.

Except for the whole "first amendment" part, remember? Bezos isn't legally prohibited from infringing on freedom of the press.

The government isn't allowed to do things an individual might be able to.
You're literally arguing that the first amendment doesn't apply to government employees, which is absolute horseshit.

So you're going with "freedom of speech doesn't apply if you work for the government"?

We've never been in a situation even remotely like this before. A lot of people aren't sure that doing a coup would be fighting for our democracy because removing them from office would be removing the, as far as any evidence can show, legally elected government. It's about as bad as it's been in nearly 200 years, but what if we "destroy the democracy to save it"?

Invading a country that most Americans like more than their federal government is an entirely different question. This current bullshit is disgusting and heartbreaking.

Anarchism is opposition to power hierarchies, specifically non-consensual or coercive ones. Wealth inequality without safety networks is a coercive power hierarchy, and so needs to be fought. Capitalism as a whole is almost always incompatible with anarchy, at least in the way we tend to do it now. In a system with strong social safety networks the choice to work for someone can actually be a choice, and so some schools of thought would view it as compatible.
Others view exclusive ownership of property as someone asserting power over someone else's ability to use said property, and therefore wrong. Needless to say, abolition of private property is not compatible with capitalism.

Depends on the anarchist. Many would focus on seeking the absence of involuntary power hierarchies. A manager who distributes work and does performance evaluations isn't intrinsically a problem, it's when people doing the work can't say "no, they're a terrible manager and they're gone", or you can't walk away from the job without risking your well-being.

Anarchists and communists/socialists have a lot of overlap. There's also overlap with libertarians, except libertarians often focus on coercion from the government and don't give much regard to economic coercion. An anarchist will often not see much difference between "do this or I hit you" and "do this or starve": they both are coercive power hierarchies.
Some anarchists are more focused on removing sources of coercion. Others are more focused on creating relief from it. The "tear it down" crowd are more visible, but you see anarchists in the mutual aid and community organization crowds as well.

I mean, you have your answer right there. It's not like Harvard is a particularly untrustworthy source for diet recommendations.

Why are you doubting the number? If you feel fine and don't want to change, don't. Everybody is different and has different needs, and you might just need less, but anyone reputable is going to give the same rough range.

In my opinion, public figures, including celebrities, give a degree of consent implicitly by seeking to be public figures. I dont think that for celebrities that should extend to lewd or objectionable material, but if your behavior has been to seek being a public figure you can't be upset when people use your likeness in various ways.

For politicians, I would default to "literally everything is protected free speech", with exceptions relating to things that are definitively false, damaging and unrelated to their public work.
"I have a picture of Elon musk engaging in pedophillia" is all those, and would be justifiably removed. Anything short of that though should be permitted.

SSN is about the worst identifier, but they have revamped the process to remove some of those issues. It should no longer be possible for people to be issued the same number, and they're no longer sequential or assigned in geographic blocks.

Doesn't change the existing ones, but going forward.

And do you think that that prevents them from disclosing that they terminated an employee for unprofessional conduct or unsatisfactory job performance?

Further, for government employees certain details about their jobs are simply considered matters of public record. It's not something they divulge, it was simply never private in the first place.

It's public information if a government employee is terminated, and there's nothing stopping them from reaching out to the previous employer.

Sabatoge can carry extremely harsh legal penalties, particularly if it has any type of lasting impact. Beyond that, just phoning it in and doing a bad job can slow things down but doesn't actually stop it. If you're then let go it's on their pace, it looks worse for you and it's less noticeable.

A mass resignation can be the only thing some people can do. It sends a message, it gets noticed outside the organization, and it lets objective news reporting share your motivation, which would normally fall under opinion.
It also leaves a big gap in the organization that isn't getting anything done.

It's the AP. They're a wire service, not editorial. Unless he says that that's his objective it's only speculation, and even then you can only report that he said it, not that it actually is.

Eh, I really don't agree that thinking about future rounds is even remotely like gambling.

It's not the random chance that makes it gambling, it's the wagering and possibility of a payoff.

No one would mistake vanilla solitaire for gambling even though it's based on random factors and minimal strategy.

I think what you're referring to as gambling tropes are more engagement tactics, which are often used by gambling apps but are fundamentally distinct.