flipht

Correct. Most states’ laws do not envision the situation we are currently seeing, let alone what’s coming.

Check your state. What constitutes harassment, and can you think of harassing things that could be done without violating the law? I can for my state.

The beauty of the panopticon and the surveillance state is that everyone breaks some law some time. So you just have to wait until you hate someone enough to notice them, find out what they did, and off they go to become slave labor.

The whole gag to fascism is that it is 100% projection at all times, both internally and externally.

They attack people because they’re afraid to get attacked and they can’t imagine a situation where everyone isn’t thinking exactly like them, so of course it’s only a matter of time before they’re attacked…and thus must attack.

It’s circular and deeply uncreative, but it is the root of every bully, from the playground to the autocratic despot.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I think you’re right if the goal is to stop them all together.

But what we can do is stop people from sending them around and saying that it’s true/actually the person.

Once they’ve turned it from a art project into a weapon, it should have similar consequences to “revenge porn.”

It looks like red sharpie from the thumbnail, but when I looked at the full picture it’s pretty clearly red splotches along the side of his index finger too, and that part does not look at all like sharpie.

Because they know a lot of people agree with them on individual policy ideas, but if they claim/accept that label in particular, it will alienate the low information people they target.

English only education
Immigration quotas
Policing policy and methods
Incarceration
Tons of other things

All of these have racial implications, and a huge swath of “middle America” will buy into specific stances. Their MO is to get them agreeing on anything, and then gradually ramp up the rhetoric to get them to more extreme views.

As a normal looking white guy, it is shocking the number of times people will say borderline racist things to feel you out. Depending on your immediate response, they will either cloak themselves in whatever plausible deniability they built into their initial comment and stop talking to you, or they’ll continue with gradual escalation until you match them, at which point they know they’ve found a kindred spirit.

Wonderful in theory, but in practice it’s a dumpster fire. Quick, mainstreamm-acceptable takes are incentived, and nuanced, alternative viewpoints are nearly impossible.

If it were all for hobby stuff, it would be fine, but when this is how most people get their news, it’s not good.

I 100% disagree, but this is hilarious and I will definitely find myself repeating it. Good job.

This is a good idea in theory, but it doesn’t really hold up when you look at what we ask reps to do.

They have to maintain two households, basically, and have a lot of travel expenses.

State legislatures are a great sandbox to review how pay impacts the folks who can afford to hold seats. Turns out, the less they’re paid, the more likely they are to be independently wealthy. You will never “show them what it’s like” to be poor by paying them less - you’ll just ensure that actual normal people can’t afford to take the position.

I think it was Maine that had a fully volunteer legislature? And had the richest legislature ever.

Ultimately, this is another problem of America trying to retain an agricultural mindset (part time legislature so that everyone could go home to farm), despite the world having changed.

This. They mean “find one of us to start a family of you want us to be friendly.”

Lol what?

There are no empty spots for them to claim, and I highly doubt you can draw a line anywhere that would work. They tried that with India/Pakistan and it was an absolute cluster.

This isn’t like the civil war where it was regional. This is a lifestyle divide.

As with all things regressive, their whole truck is to treat their own viewpoint as a default state, and then try to force everyone else to argue around it, which allows them to steer the discussion and eventual outcome.

When they’re headed off on one avenue they pivot, but this is the consistent direction of almost all regressive talking points.

These folks won’t witness it either. Not with that eye anyway.

This was a large part of the discussion in Europe at the end of WW2.

Germany wasn’t the only country trying to decide an answer to “the Jewish question.” Some advocates may have had good intentions, but many just didn’t want to open their borders to Jewish refugees, and the idea of Israel was a convenient way for them to wash their hands of it.

Many governmental entities will not contract with companies that “boycott Israel.”

This, of course, is poorly defined. And is being litigated in Michigan, I believe.

But the argument from regressive AGs is that boycott is not speech - it’s action, and therefore they are permitted to enforce a ban on that action.

Pretty shit tier argument, and one that will probably bite them in the ass if there’s any chance of consistency from the supreme court (slim chance.)

The hypocrisy is the point.

Not the original person you responded to, but I type 120ish wpm. The trick is to try to tap into the same part of your brain that verbalizes words when you talk, rather than the part that composes stuff when you write.

This. It’s all a giant, “Nuh-uh, you!”

They create a specious argument, present it as a straw man of “what democrats want,” and then ridicule it as if they didn’t make the whole thing up themselves.

It’s dumb as shit, but it’s all on purpose. These people are ivy League lawyers who took speech and debate. They know what a fallacy is, they just choose to use it for its effectiveness in mass psychology rather than actually governing or leading.

They understand. They just know if they say the shitty thing, it will give their bubba voters a misogyny hardon, which translates directly to votes.