TurtleJoe

I think his main motivation for continuing to run the company is to spread his agenda. If it only costs him a small percent of revenue to keep pushing Nazi taking points, thenbi think he’ll just pay the fines.

Well, yeah, I would agree with that. The author also does a good job of pointing out how that’s bullshit, and gives several examples of ways that the Times is covering the candidates differently, demonstrating their hypocrisy. (They’ve been laundering right wing ideas into mainstream public consciousness for decades now, anyway.)

It is still shocking to see the editor just come out and say, in plain English, that the very concept of democracy is a partisan issue, and that they refuse to weigh in on it.

Go for it. I’m not sure which forum it belongs in.

They know exactly what they’re doing. Their editors have decided that American democracy is a “partisan issue” and have decided to cover it as such, meaning they won’t “take sides” over it.

https://presswatchers.org/2024/05/new-york-times-editor-joe-kahn-says-defending-democracy-is-a-partisan-act-and-he-wont-do-it/

The article says that the specific people they’re featuring have been ostracized from the gay community. I wish the article was longer, because there’s a remarkable lack of self-awareness on display in the few quotes it includes.

This country was founded by white men, and built by enslaved black people. The white supremacy was baked right in from the beginning. Black Americans didn’t gain full civil rights until the 1960s (when my parents were in college.) The legacy of that white supremacy remains to this day, both from existing power structures and ways of thinking, and due generational wealth differences.

It is not racist to point that out.

Because if Biden can’t finish his term, a black woman will be president.

I don’t know if you don’t realize it, but you just agreed with the pithy quote.

I mean, the big philosophical divide between liberal and conservative judges is usually whether or not the constitution is a “living” document. That is, whether it can be interpreted through a modern lens, or if laws must be strictly limited by what is exactly written in the document.

I would argue that it’s easily the former, since, one, they explicitly allow amendments to the Constitution, and, two, there is a session of the Bill of Rights where they basically say, “we can’t possibly list all the rights that people are entitled to. This list is by no means comprehensive, and just because something isn’t in here, it doesn’t mean we’ve left it out on purpose.”

I agree that the constitution is very flawed, and that we would probably be better off without it, but one thing they were very clear on: no kings. The Trump immunity ruling was not only legal nonsense, it was clearly not an originalist interpretation (what the conservatives claim to be.)

When you take into account all of the rulings that this current court has made, it’s quite clear that they just start with the conclusion that they want, and reason backwards to get the justification. Once you’re at that point, I’m not sure that it really matters what your legal system is based on; they’re just doing make-em-ups anyway.

That’s why NASA invented Tang.

Every single consecrated Catholic altar contains a relic of a saint. Usually they’re pretty small, maybe a piece of a fingerbone or something. You’re right that a good one like this would bring in lots of pilgrims (tourist dollars,) but it’s a tradition that way predates capitalism.

I’m not in the business of defending the Catholic Church or capitalism, just wanted to clarify.

I think that a lot of those people likely live in a very car dependent, suburban area, and therefore don’t get any regular interaction with people outside of their immediate family.

I live in a city, so I have regular infractions with people that I know when I’m out and about: I pop into the butcher shop, coffee shop or green grocer and talk to the employees I know. I walk the dog, and run into friends and acquaintances that live the next neighborhood over, etc. People in rural areas usually have similar sorts of relationships with people in the area.

Contrast that with the suburbs, where neighbors may know each other to say hello to, but not much past that, and it’s hard to build any kind of relationship with the barista at the drive-through Starbucks or any employees at the local Kroger superstore.

Duh. Everybody knows the only thing that works is Velostat. You cannot use any other material.

But of course, police are given 3 months of training tops, so they just fire them wherever.

I don’t think they fire them wherever. I think they aim at people’s faces because they think it’s funny.

Bleed the Beast.

Waste money on bullshit like this, then cut useful social services to “balance the budget.”

No, they need to actually report on him. That includes the court cases, but also the constant stream of crazy shit that he says at his “rallies,” as well as what his plans are for a second presidency.

Musk raised $6 billion in a recent funding round for his would-be OpenAI competitor, xAI, whose first product, Grok, is meant to serve as a politically incorrect answer to ChatGPT. In addition to Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI, Musk is founder of brain interface startup Neuralink and tunneling venture Boring Company.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Musk raised $6 billion in a recent funding round for his would-be OpenAI competitor, xAI, whose first product, Grok, is meant to serve as a politically incorrect answer to ChatGPT. In addition to Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI, Musk is founder of brain interface startup Neuralink and tunneling venture Boring Company.

In case anybody is wondering why he’s making a big deal out of it.

As to why emoji feels the need to make his own “anti-woke” AI, it’s because he thinks that, at some point in the future, our AI overlords will decide to cull white people to meet “forced diversity quotas.” I’m not kidding.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/05/i-read-everything-elon-musk-posted-for-a-week-send-help/

It’s not the last 40 years, it’s been since Civil Rights legislation and the Brown vs Board decision.

That sounds like more of an assault than a disorderly conduct.

This is one of those situations where I like to imagine what would have happened if the guy did that to a cop. Likely a litany of charges, including assaulting an officer, and would have had the shit beaten out of him.