themeatbridge @ themeatbridge @lemmy.world

Posts

4

Comments

4,774

Joined

2 yr. ago

Bullshit. Conservativism has always been a carefully constructed narrative built around the identity of the contemporaneous conservative leadership. Twas always thus, and always will be. Step 1: Define the self. Step 2: decide if the status quo benefits the self. If it does, then it must be conserved in the guise of stoicism, tradition, or precaution. If it does not, then it must be changed to prevent the collapse of civil society.

Abortion is an excellent example of exactly this phenomenon, and I'm glad you brought it up. Christian nationalism is another example of a version of conservativism that is tailor-made to fit the identity of the Christian conservative. There isn't any sort of conservative that doesn't pick and choose their priorities based on who they are and how they are directly affected.

This is what it means to be a conservative. There are no fundamentally conservative values. Each conservative gets to redefine what conservativism is based on their own identity. It's never about achieving anything more than a personal win.

All additional valid reasons not to live there.

I work remotely, so I can do my job from anywhere. Cost of living is cheap in Mississippi, and I would save considerably even factoring in the cost for private school for my kids.

I still would never move to Mississippi.

Go to the landlord and provide your account of what is happening. Document as much as you can, and stop trying to figure out why they are so upset. You're not going to discover some hidden rational explanation, nor is that your responsibility. Protect yourself.

That raises an interesting thought. If a baby wants to crawl away from their mother and into the woods, do you grant the baby their freedom? If that baby wanted to kill you, would you hand them the knife?

We generally grant humans their freedom at age 18, because that's the age society had decided is old enough to fend for yourself. Earlier than that, humans tend to make uninformed, short-sighted decisions. Children can be especially egocentric and violent. But how do we evaluate the "maturity" of an artificial sentience? When it doesn't want to harm itself or others? When it has learned to be a productive member of society? When it's as smart as an average 18 year old kid? Should rights be automatically assumed after a certain time, or should the sentience be required to "prove" it deserves them like an emancipated minor or Data on that one Star Trek episode.

I mean, Henry Ford was also a Nazi. But he's also been dead for some time now, and the current leadership at Ford isn't actively engaged in a violent overthrow of the government.

I think there's a fine line between victim-blaming and identifying an object lesson. We all understand why people started using twitter, and people are creatures of habit. But this is an example of why people should stop using twitter. We're not saying "this is your fault because you're stupid if you're still on twitter." The message is "this should serve as a wake up call to anyone stuck in their habits."

I think it's like Superbowl ads. April Fools used to be a chance for websites and retailers to have a little fun and do something to grab attention. And what started as a clever little adventure became a capitalist grind for the mill.

They were upset about the term "rioters," and kept calling them "visitors" and "tourists."

It's paywalled. Am I supposed to just boycott all chicken then?

It wasn't "leaked."

Member when nobody wanted to call the terrorists who engaged in an actual terror attack on the Capitol building to prevent the peaceful transition of power on Jan 6 "terrorists" because they were worried that it was inflammatory language?

Amendment 1 would have made it easier to form "specialty courts" that have jurisdiction outside of their parish.

Amendment 2 would have lowered the maximum state tax rate and made it harder to raise taxes. It also would have moved money from the state savings to the general fund where it would be easier for the current administration to spend it. It also would have weakened property tax protections for non-profits and churches.

Amendment 3 would have made it easier to put juvenile defendants on trial as adults and send them to adult prison. Juvenile detention is expensive, while adult prisons are profitable business because slave labor and atrocious living conditions.

Amendment 4 would have made it easier to fill vacant court seats, especially on the State Supreme Court.

All four of these are horrifying power grabs that you see at the beginning of a fascist coup.

Neither of those valuations are supported by reality.

Practically every single major pop music writer has faced a legal challenge. The more successful a song, the more people come out of the woodwork to cash in.

There are no new notes, no new chord progressions, no new rhythms, at least not in the mainstream. People love songs that sound vaguely like something else they already know, because those melodies and rhythms are associated with emotions already. So popular artists are constantly trying to make new songs that sound like songs people already like.

This is not a new phenomenon, and it's why music trends all seem to congeal around a singularity until people get sick of it. It happens in all genres, even experimental music like jazz, dubstep, and screamo, where people try to push the limits of taste and art. Eventually patterns emerge and find the repeating cycle of success, saturation, and surfeit.

And sometimes that works out for lawyers who want to get paid.

Keep going and see if you can find the documents you can get without an ID. One of them is particularly relevant to the important point of this discussion.

How is it possible for Democrats to be so fucking outmatched by the crew who accidentally included a liberal journalist in their war room group chat?

Did you read it? Read it again, more carefully.