Just give me a link to reading Lenin. I’ll take it from there

if they kept up similar rates of growing energy consumption to our own.

…but what if aliens weren’t as stupid as humans and didn’t do this?

Well, you asked if I was arguing against improving safety when compared to fatality rates for any activity.

But for me to have made that argument, I’d have to have said that there is no rate of fatality that would justify improving safety. So, I was asking if you think that’s true:

Does no threshold for the rate of any cause of death justify improving safety?

But I sucked at wording it clearly. That’s on me.

In short, no, I’m not arguing that. Really, I was just clarifying what the person you responded to was saying. I’m not making an argument either way.

Does no threshold for the rate of any cause of death justify improving safety?

Well, nothing is 100% safe, and we allow plenty of things that are demonstrably unsafe to continue. So if you compare bike-car collisions against say, firearm suicides in the US, you’ll see that bike-car collisions aren’t that bad.

The fundamental argument is that nothing is totally safe, but some things are safer than others.

More like if you contextualize the incidents of bicycles and pedestrians with cars, you might realize they’re safer than you think. This is absolutely false for cars and pedestrians though in America at least.

It’s cute af too, with their little tongues sticking out

All Republicans do this. Fascism, communism, socialism, and liberalism are indistinguishable for them

I’m all for socialist policies, but the Biden-Harris administration didn’t kill the expanded child tax credit. Republicans did.

Clinton is not wrong. Only those of us that actually care about politics as a means to do something about social problems care about policy. The overwhelming majority of us those care about politics as a spectacle, a variation of edu-tainment with the social dynamics of team sports. And in that framework, message that distract from the team as us or the opposition as them are of no value.

The current Lt. Governor of North Carolina is black and worse than Trump. Idk about the sexual assault stuff, but he’s still an absolute piece of shit.

Every answer so far is wrong.

It can be used for good purposes, though I’m not sure if characterize creating a personalized Jarvis as good per se. But, more broadly, capitalist inventions do not need to be used only by capitalists for capital ends.

There’s a few ways in practice.

1. Court decisions are binding broadly. The conservative capture of the Supreme Court is political genius, honestly. They tend to have the final say regarding policy.

2. Federal agency rules are also broadly binding. EPA rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions, for example, apply everywhere in the country.

3. State legislatures are often less polarized, which facilitates a more productive legislature.

4. State agencies, like a state environmental department, mirrors its federal counterpart but is more localized.

5. Non-state organizations can get things done, though their interests are often limited and not necessarily in the interests of the broad public as state and federal institutions are.

6. International institutions can ‘set the tone’. They may not have any power to actually do anything within a specific jurisdiction, but people within those jurisdictions can draw policy inspiration from international organizations and try for something locally binding.

It’s just a fact of life, ya know.

Oh c’mon! I thought I still had at least a decade

Exactly

What’s particularly strange about it is that it doesn’t really serve any purpose for a vast majority of people aside from a government-approved official statement that someone finds their in-laws unbearable.

That’s a pretty good purpose. Everybody can save face by taking part in bureaucracy. That sounds like I’m being facetious, but I’m serious. Think about the alternative: avoiding them awkwardly all the time or telling them to screw themselves directly, which will engender negative feelings. At least with the bureaucracy, the sentiment gets filtered through a impartial, uncaring medium.

The Federalist is a bottom of the barrel website. They lie and distort everything they talk about.

I think this misunderstands free speech in principle rather than as interpreted by law or colloquially.

Classical liberal philosophers, like Locke, Mill, and Dewey, understood that deliberation required broad perspectives to handle sufficiently. Understanding and solving problems required a debate about their nature and their solutions for society to choose well. Free speech was instrumental in solving problems in principle.

But a modern understanding of it is basically license. It’s like calling freedom both the opportunity to live your life on your terms and shoot black people on your doorstep because you’re afraid of them. And then someone comes along and asks, “Do you think people should the freedom to defend themselves from intruders?”

Free speech, similarly, nowadays is just conflated with pure lies and obfuscation. It’s about creating unreal problems and redirecting social energy into some ineffective bullshit.

Thus, it’s not a contradiction to say that Americans support free speech and that some people need to have their platform taken away. Productive free speech would be improved by a reduction in unproductive and destructive speech done freely.

While he had fake electors last time, they weren’t as widespread as they’ve become over the last 4 years. He also didn’t have the coordination of the Heritage Foundation either like he does now. He also didn’t have a House of Representatives willing to steal the election last time.

He has a lot going for his machinations this time.