miak

Literally one of the best movies of all time.

Know your rights, flex your rights

…and pair that with “this is what you voted for when you voted third party or stayed home, to say nothing of directly voting for this mess,”

Lol, if that’s the approach the Dems are going to go with, I hope you loooove the current Republican regime. Attempting to shame people into voting for you is not likely to win much support.

Or they could have addressed both fentanyl in the US and the cartels in Mexico by just agreeing to end the war on drugs…

Help us, Han-Tyumi, you’re our only hope.

It sounds like we’re largely in agreement. Absolutely, you want to tackle the issue at the source. I don’t see how one hopes to accomplish that without empathy. Understanding those racist ‘losers’ is how you begin to understand how to tackle this at the source.

deleted by creator

Fear is often a motivating factor in a person’s choice. This was equally true of the left and right in this past US presidential election.
I haven’t seen any evidence that fear is a value that most people hold though. The source of their fear is concern over the things they do value.

There’s those broad strokes I was talking about. I appreciate you providing an example.

Refusing to empathize and understand how people arrive at their views in favor of this kind of prejudice will never contribute to positive changes.
Yes, the best cure to bigotry is love and compassion. Love and compassion start with empathy. It’s easy to empathize with those that think and act like you do - it can be difficult, but all the more important, to empathize with those that don’t. Refusing to do so only ensures polarization of society and a perpetuation of the cycles of violence that permeate society. This is something that has become all the more clear with the rise of social media and the info bubbles they trap people in.

Often when I see someone accusing people of voting against their own interests, it’s pretty clear that the person making the accusation has not taken the time to understand the values others are basing their choice on.
If I could rob a person and be confident that I would never be caught and punished for doing so, am I acting against my own self interest if I chose not to rob them because it goes against my moral code? No, of course not. But based on the way some people talk about voting against ones self interest, you might think I just cheated myself out of free money. Is it possible that a person might “vote against their own interests” because of a misinformed view? of course, but you’ll never understand a person’s motivations by chosing to paint them with broad strokes based on your prejudices instead of getting to know them individually and trying to understand what it is they truly value.

As a Bi-man, a bigration sounds great! Would be great to have more bis around. Mono-sexuals are just weird, imo.

From a practical standpoint, I don’t see any difference between Huckabee’s position and Biden/Harris’s position. Biden and Harris may not be stating this explicitly, but their actions imply a similar view.
How many stern letters will Biden send to Yahoo before actually taking some action against Israel’s crimes? How far will they move the goalposts to avoid pulling support for Israel?

Just make sure to wash the toner off after.

Cyrus The Virus. What a great 90s villain. Upvote for the Con Air reference.

Doesn’t this kind of assume humans are a central focus of the simulation? What if the universe is a simulation, but the rise of humans was an unintended result in the simulation. Maybe there is actually other civilizations elsewhere that are the actual focus, or just to get a look at the diversity of life that would form throughout the universe. Or, maybe life in the universe isn’t the focus at all and they just wanted to look at the evolution of galaxies and the like.

Or maybe I am misunderstanding your point. I kind of like the idea of being an unintended result of a simulation meant for other things though.

If you want to reach someone, the best way to do it is to be prepared to view things the way they do. If you can’t set aside your prejudice assumptions on the why/how they have come to their viewpoints and really empathize with them, you’re not likely to get far.

There have been studies that show otherwise. It’s been a very long time since I read about them, but was able to find this on a quick search: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/

I would have to disagree. States are just groups of people. They can hold all the rights that people hold, but cannot hold any rights people don’t hold (since those people cannot grant a right they themselves do not have).
I struggle to see how it can be deemed acceptable to tell a state they can’t leave because it may have a negative effect on the rest of the union. This is saying that once you join the union, you are a hostage of the union. Any negative effect this has on the rest of the union is not the responsibility of that state. If the union would benefit from continued use of infrastructure in the departing state, they can try to work out an agreement around that, or the union can figure out a way to fill the gaps left in infrastructure, but it makes no sense to hold the state hostage for the sake of saving the union from the hardship.

Right, so you can only leave if we say you can leave mentality, which is a kind of gang mentality. To say that a state that feels it’s membership in the union no longer aligns with its values (whether you agree with their reasoning or not) cannot choose on its own to leave in no way aligns with the values of freedom and autonomy.
If you want to advocate for such a system, fine, but it would be dishonest to then turn around and say that this system is one that values freedom.

At it’s most basic, freedom is the ability to say no and to disassociate with those you no longer wish to associate with.

Also, this Texas Monthly article from late 2022 is an excellent read on the subject. It can never happen, because a post-Civil War law from 1869 makes a state’s unilateral secession from the union illegal. There can be no secession, nor even a referendum. No wonder these drama kings are so confident.

Which is pretty whack. I don’t in any way endorse what the Texas government is doing with the border, just to get that out of the way. The idea that a state isn’t free to seceed is completely ridiculous. One can not rightfully claim the U.S. is a free country if the states are not free to leave the union. This idea that once you’re a part of the union, you’re apart of the union forever is a gang mentality that has no place in a free society.