Then that's a completely different scenario from the one under discussion, isn't it?
Episcopalian. Patriotic American. Scholar of Russia, Ukraine, Canada, and the people who moved between them. Massive avgeek, hobbyist computer programmer, and committed Slackware user. Pritzkerism-NCDism (Elizabeth Warren thought)
402 followers 554 following 5,412 posts
view profile on Bluesky
Then that's a completely different scenario from the one under discussion, isn't it?
That is in fact what like 90% of the complaints boil down to, though. The vast majority of parents are just absolute shit *in general* (I was one of the lucky few), never mind when they're mildly inconvenienced in ways they can't control.
Blocking Santino Ferrucci should be encouraged actually
He's a picker He's a grinner He's a lover (tennis, get it?) And he's a sinner He plays his tennis in the sun
Until probably about 15 years ago you used to be able to get them free for the asking directly from Intel. I did that *so many* times in high school just to have the thrill of receiving a package in the mail.
Remember when Intel used to send you print copies of the (multi-volume) IA-32 Programmer's Manual, free for the asking? I did that so many times in high school just for the thrill of getting a package in the mail.
The Rock is definitely prepping for the role of a lifetime in a Michel Foucault biopic
The Democratic Party you described bears no resemblance to the Democratic Party that actually exists in the real world. If you can't handle having that pointed out to you, I'm not sure what to tell you.
JD Vance is Alexander I to Donald Trump's Paul, if Alexander I had been completely incapable of remorse and reflection.
Like, it's definitely not something we *should* be doing, but it would be a pretty straightforward thing to do.
Change the law to exclude them and them only.
It'd be easier to take you seriously if you showed any cognizance of what the actually-existing Democratic Party (as opposed to the version of it you invented in your mind to be mad at) is up to.
Also worth nothing that as far as urban warfare goes, Fallujah was one of the *cleanest* instances in modern history.
Bucha? Mariupol? Izium? The specific tactic you're referring to isn't possible largely because, again, Ukraine is just so much bigger and isn't boxed in on all sides, but that doesn't mean the ultimate goals aren't the same.
Do you think that's because Ukraine and Israel have fundamentally different intentions and goals, or might it be more likely because Ukraine is 2,000 times as big as the Gaza Strip?
Which, in turn, is another symptom of a fundamental failure to understand how parties work in the US.
Fever-Valkyries started well over two hours ago and they're not even out of the third quarter yet? What's going on?
"People say they don't like Democrats" but when you interrogate why it turns out that it's mostly because of made-up shit, and most of the stuff that's not made up amounts to them being mad that Democrats don't agree with them that the US should be a cishet-normative patriarchal white ethnostate
"People say they don't like Democrats" but when you interrogate why it turns out that it's mostly because of made-up shit, and most of the stuff that's not made up amounts to them being mad that Democrats don't agree with them that the US should be a cishet-normative patriarchal white ethnostate
(this is not a problem limited to sociology, of course, but it's simply the one apparently most pertinent here)
Structural analysis is *useful.* It is not *sufficient* to the point of excluding everything else including individual agency, objective external constraints, pure random chance, and so much else. And I'm not denying any "documented facts," I'm questioning your assessment of their significance.
See, this is the problem with pop/amateur sociology (academic sociologists generally don't do this, because they've matured past it): in your eagerness to show off you well you've internalized the genuine insights of your discipline, you completely exclude other, equally-useful explanatory modes
Placing blame where it belongs!
You'd still have to get to Union Station or whatever--by bus, by streetcar, by private automobile, it's all the same--and get on the big train that takes you across the country.
Replacing streetcars with buses does not actually make accessing inter-city rail any more complicated or inconvenient for someone who prefers that. It's not like you could just stay on the same trolley that took you to work, all the way to Chicago or St. Louis or whatever.
Believe it or not, people are actually capable of forming wants and desires on their own initiative and aren't simply robots waiting for the programmer to update their firmware. The relevance of what GM and friends did to intra-city transit, to long-distance intercity transport, is questionable.
Oh, yeah, the US absolutely had nearly-universal passenger rail. Every house used to have a wood stove, too. Then something that people liked better came along.
That's cool. When we're talking about population-level patterns and trends, the fact that you, personally, are a very very very special person is largely irrelevant.
Look at where the actual population centers are. A vast area where very very very few people actually live is basically irrelevant for the economics of building a passenger rail network.
The countries that are of comparable wealth to the US, reasonably free, and have higher rates of rail usage are so small, or their population centers are so closely clustered, that the travel time differences aren't significant and the economics of rail are substantially easier to make work
I think the most straightforward explanation is that people simply prefer more private and self-directable (cars) and/or faster (planes) transpo when they have the means to do so. While policy choices (building roads and airports) certainly facilitate that preference, they follow rather than lead.
The one exception, of course, is Canada (bigger by area though of course not by population), whose transportation habits are basically the same as the US. And sure enough, VIA Rail's ridership is, relative to Canada's population, basically equivalent to Amtrak's.
I'm not sure what specific less-dense countries you have in mind, but the only countries that are bigger than the US (whether by area or population) are, with one exception, substantially poorer than the US and violently authoritarian (even by the US's degraded standards of latec
I mean, yes, in the sense that that policy choice is "do things that lead to general prosperity."
People say this, but what they actually mean is that professionalized, democratically accountable policing is a relatively recent invention. Before that, there were fewer controls on the people who were authorized to use force against you.
Or maybe it's not! But you can't assume that just because it's a lowish number in absolute terms doesn't mean it's meaningless or useless.
Compared to the baseline of 0/3? Yes. Maybe 1/3 is getting close to the limit of what's literally possible given the limits of technology and Constitutional guarantees.
There's an Asajj Ventress show now?
Remember when Reddit thought it had found the Boston Marathon bomber?
Meanwhile, in the county in Indiana where I grew up:
Do Michigan civil townships largely align with survey townships? That grid...
You can call the office if you need to know what time to pick them up and they should not be getting reminders from mommy and daddy to turn things in come on, guys. This is being used as such a crutch for parents who don’t want to let their kids be independent and do things for themselves
I don’t know how to keep telling other parents that we need to give our kids some independence and stop smothering them with constant surveillance and check ins. It’s literally affecting their confidence and keeping them unprepared to live life and make decisions on their own
This is fair and relatable.
Far too many parents are idiot shitheads who are very likely to give wrong advice to their child that conflicts with what the teacher (who actually knows what they're talking about) says, because they value feeling like they're in control more than they do the safety and well-being of their children
medievalists will be like 'if Bede were alive today, he'd breathe the true passion for learning we need back into the humanities and save them', no, he'd have started running his own Mastodon instance about railways and started getting in fights about rolling stock on the Brussels metro
(GORILLAS was better because it was completely randomly-generated ever time, the levels in NIBBLES were static)
You can only play monochromatic "Snake", which is just a shittier version of NIBBLES.BAS that we were playing in the early-mid 90s, so many times before it just becomes a solved problem.
Well, no, you're not taking *those* odds. 2% of automobile trips do not end in a fatality. It's a substantially higher rate than commercial aviation, yes, but it's not *that* high. It's several orders of magnitude lower, in fact.
This is the hair-splitting problem, when again, we're all beating around the bush that the real problem is the insane prevalence of firearms in this country. if we took guns out of the hands of people, we could take guns out of the hands of most cops, too.
If you could broadcast short Hanoi Hannah-style messages to ICE to demoralize them, what would you say? Same question, but for National Guard? I want to make a list. My fav HH quote: "Isn't it clear that the war makers are gambling with your lives, while pocketing huge profits?"
Daryl Gates--famously a gigantic racist piece of shit--was a huge proponent of strict gun control laws and enforcement! (he also refused to cooperate with immigration enforcement, because he understood that it made local policing more difficult)
So that 2% chance of any given interaction means that, even with this (very conservative) estimate, there's a 98.2% chance you'll encounter at least one of these 1-in-50 interactions in a given year. I'm not taking those odds.
I wouldn't get on an airplane if there were a 1-in-50 chance it was going to crash into the side of a mountain. If it's your job then let's say you engage in one of these interactions that has a 1-in-50 chance of going bad every day. 200 working days in a year, .98^200 = 0.018
This is M&M analogy territory, though. A 1-in-50 chance that the person I'm about to engage with in an adversarial manner has at his instant disposal a device that could easily kill me is enough to make any reasonable person want an equally-powerful means of self-defense equally easily at hand.
OK but that just goes back to their original point re: the prevalence of guns in the US.
they had an apple cannon
But that's really not relevant for, like, Indianapolis or St. Louis or other cities who are constrained by restrictions imposed by state governments the see their large cities primarily as concentrations of Black people who need discipline imposed from without.
New York City is in a state whose government is generally content to let them do their own thing, and the tools they use to solve their problems are shaped by that environment.
How New York City responds to the occasional hurricane that makes its way that far north does not actually have a lot of bearing for how we in Los Angeles need to respond to regular wildfires.
Every major city in the nation is not effectively a federation of five smaller cities in their own right! Every major city in the nation does not have NYC's physical geography or climate! Like 90% of local governance is particularistic solutions to particularistic problems.
The reason we dismantled what welfare state we had was because the *working class* voted to destroy it rather than suffer the indignity of having to share it on an equal basis with Black people!
Don't spare them the trouble just because you've imagined it's going to happen anyway. Bouie's right. Y'all doomers are just cowards looking for an excuse for capitulating in despair.
So now you're just speculating about wild theories you've invented in your mind about what might conceivably happen instead of dealing with the reality in front of you. Cross bridges when you come to them. In the unlikely scenario that this is what they do, make them fucking do it then and there.
Snowden is exactly the person all the shitlibs claimed he was and like every time the shitlibs turn out to be right about one of these guys all the cool kids have just memory holes their years of support for him and pretend they never defended the guy.
That you don't generally see state police patrolling non-state highways is merely an administrative choice about resource allocation, not because there is any legal bar to them doing so.
Really not how it works. Unlike states vis-a-vis the federal government, cities are not separately sovereign and so yes, the state can still intervene if it so chooses.
If 218 of those people are Democrats, it really doesn't matter what the 217 Republicans want. Any attempt to refuse to seat someone will get voted down.
Do you understand how a new Congress is constituted and installed? The people elected just...show up and organize themselves. It's up to the duly-elected members who show up to determine who (if any) was legitimately elected or not.
The former group has not shown it is able to overcome the latter on a regular basis when the latter shows up and the former does not have the law on its side.
He's not a fucking wizard. Him "doing what he wants" doesn't mean he waves a wand and says "make it so," it means people who are willing to do what he wants overcome the resistance of the people who don't want to do what he wants.
every day i see hundreds of comments of people spinning elaborate scenarios to explain how trump can control everything and all opposition is futile. a) i think a lot of you need to log off and stop following professional doomsayers. b) i think a lot of you are cowards
make it a quote
Other way around, actually.
Look, I hate deleting 16 emails a day and ignoring another 20 texts as much as anybody but a bunch of y'all are giant babies about this and I'm embarrassed for you.
This is something I ardently defend- when you're going into Congress, you actually are representing people in your district, so you should know what their concerns and wants are. Knowing your district is Politics 101 shit, and this site treats it with contempt.
Oh, that's *rich* coming from someone who rejects multicultural pluralism.
Gotta say, in addition to being a liar I've also got to question your reading comprehension skills, because that is in no way a response to anything I said.
The author of this "article" has now admitted that she fabricated or falsified important details, and has a history of promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Are you planning to retract this, or are you willing to destroy your journalistic credibility for the sake of Taylor Lorenz's ego?
Moreover, if we are to have accountability from leadership, we should also strive to have it as constituents
The fundamental problem this shit runs up against, and has no explanation for, is that it was the working class and rural folks who voted to *dismantle* the welfare state when they found out they were going to have to share it with Black people!
My Crank clause I would add to a new US Constitution would be a ban on referendums except for adopting state Constitutions, creating new states, and merging existing states, and those would all be highly optional.
Seriously, this is like Exhibit A of "hasn't been updated with new information since 1848"
The defining characteristic is values: multiculturalism, pluralism, and an open society.
Who said anything about landlords? The average educated urban professional is closer to being a renter than a landlord, if anything.
It helps that I haven't enslaved myself to a prepackaged Weltanschauung that hasn't been updated with new information since 1848.
Anyone who supports multicultural pluralistic liberal democracy should support the Democratic Party, because that's what the Democratic Party *is.*
The Democratic Party isn't "supposed to be" a working class party at all, because the entire idea of a class-centric political party is fucking stupid. It's a party of values and ideals that in theory could, though in practice really don't, transcend class lines.
I think you should respect them enough to let them enjoy what they asked for, instead of paternalistically assuming that you know what's best and you're the one who's going to save them.
As opposed to the professional-managerial class, which on the whole (thanks to education being the biggest driver of these values) sees multicultural pluralism as the goal.
The working class in the US, who collectively want a patriarchal white ethnostate and are thrilled at the prospect of impoverishing themselves to get it.
I'm talking about actually-existing class structure, not the abstraction you've invented in your mind for LARPing purposes. Seriously, go talk to these people sometime. They want us all dead, and they'll enthusiastically tell you so.
Yes.
They got their guy in and they're politically dominant over the people they see as subhuman, which is all they care about. To these people, poverty is a small price to pay for putting the [whatever slur they prefer] back in their place, and they're eager indeed to pay it.
Regardless of what Stephen Miller told you, yes, it was.
If you want to identify yourself with the class that defines itself primarily by its commitment to white cishet male supremacy, that's your choice, but you're not one of the good guys in that case.
I'm sorry that my commitment to the interests of the one class that has been unwavering in its values-based commitment to multicultural pluralistic liberal democracy upsets you so much.
I want to explain a few things and then it might be clearer why UK trans people are upset. In 2001 I married my wife, Sylvia. In 2005 I started medical transition. (1/13)
That's a grotesque oversimplification, of course. He protested Iraq, he served in Afghanistan. One was just made-up shit because the Prez had daddy issues, the other was a legitimate act of self-defense against the perpetrators of 9/11 and the state that had facilitated their activities.