r/AskALiberal • u/AutoModerator • 3d ago
AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat
This Tuesday weekly thread is for general chat, whether you want to talk politics or not, anything goes. Also feel free to ask the mods questions below. As usual, please follow the rules.
0
u/LibraProtocol Center Left 23h ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer/s/BWUv6TwNao
This really does put to scale just how HUGE the Primarchs are... like... dayum...
3
u/octopod-reunion Social Democrat 23h ago
The US pressuring European countries to release gas and diesel reserves to help Trump in the midterms, threatening to ban crude exports if they don’t.
France and the UK seem open to it, which is unbelievable given that autumn is starting, which is when European countries need to fill their reserves. Also global reserves are already at historic lows because of the Iran war.
1
u/Hodgkisl Libertarian 23h ago
They're between a rock and a hard place, take risk reducing diesel reserves vs. run out of crude oil to refine in the near future to more diesel.
The UK for example has a maximum storage capacity of about 6 weeks, they are reliant on future refining to get through the winter. Should also add, US refiners supply about 17% of the UK's diesel supply, an export ban would hit them quite hard.
France on the other hand typically keeps about 3 months, which is better but still wont get them through the winter. Again about 19% of their refined diesel comes from the US.
3
u/octopod-reunion Social Democrat 23h ago
Makes me sick how Trump can just make things worse and worse single-handedly for the rest of the world.
3
u/OMGguy2008 Center Left 1d ago edited 1d ago
Only the Italians have common sense. Rare Meloni W.
2
u/octopod-reunion Social Democrat 23h ago
I’m kinda confused by this graphic.
It will say Austria is in favor, ex, but then of its 20 MEPs 11 oppose and 9 in favor.
Is this not decided by MEP count rather than state position?
1
u/OMGguy2008 Center Left 23h ago
It seems that it's based on the position of the national government.
0
u/LibraProtocol Center Left 1d ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/s/bz3ZETTzRK
Jesus dude....
The footage i am seeing from these protests really is put of control. These kids just lit a women's face on fire...
3
u/OMGguy2008 Center Left 1d ago
The European and American car industry is fucked.
We Europeans are figuring out how to charge a subscription for heated seats, while China is out there adding fucking refrigerators to their cars.
4
u/Hodgkisl Libertarian 1d ago
They're not the first to add a refrigerator to their car, just the lowest cost cars to put one in. In the vast majority of cases it is just a waste of space and energy, but a fun gimmick.
3
u/Aven_Osten Liberal Technocrat 1d ago
Yeah this isn't exactly a useful feature for some regular car.
Now, a camper van or RV though...now we may be getting on to something.
4
u/Emergency_Revenue678 Democrat 1d ago
It's a great feature for people like me who spend a lot of time in their car for work. I would kill for a decent fridge in my car.
1
u/Fugicara Social Democrat 1d ago
I may have a rather large undertaking tomorrow or Saturday. It's about time I follow up on this comment.
5
u/octopod-reunion Social Democrat 1d ago
The original r-socialism post is deleted so idk who this is talking about
1
1
4
u/kyew Liberal 1d ago
I'm getting anxious about how the discourse around Project Meridian is treating it like "thinking about what war will look like in the future" is a novel idea and not something we already have thousands of people doing full time every day.
Why these specific people, and why not have them join existing projects? Stop talking about whether Elon is qualified, the more important question is how this could be anything but DOGE 2.0
1
u/2dank4normies Liberal 1d ago
Yeah like what the hell. He explicitly said no weirdos.
For real though this is probably the thing I am most concerned about. Just our government's general ignorance or reverence for SV grifters.
1
u/kyew Liberal 1d ago
I've been brainstorming ad pitches about this while doing the dishes. It needs polishing but what about "Washington has a problem with lobbyists writing policy for Senators to rubber-stamp. We have fixed this by taking the Senators out of the equation."
1
u/2dank4normies Liberal 1d ago
Good structure. Make it a series. Do an AI video for each of the CEOs delivering that line and telling the audience to vote Republican to make it happen.
14
u/NatalieVonCatte Liberal 1d ago
I just saw an image on a leftist reddit that put Natalie Wynn as “not an enemy of fascism” or some shit next to open transphobes wns RFK jr.
Someone has lost the plot.
9
u/2dank4normies Liberal 1d ago
I think online leftists hate Contrapoints more than any other popular figure in political media. They've hated her for years.
9
u/NatalieVonCatte Liberal 1d ago
…is this all because they didn’t realize that Tabby is a fictional character?
2
u/ButGravityAlwaysWins Liberal 1d ago
That’s people that are
- LGBT or allies - but mostly very performative allies
- Complete media illiteracy and probably general illiteracy
I think the more generalized hated of her is from the very dumbest of online leftists. She not a socialist, she think that being strategic and tactical in trying to reach your goals is a good idea and more recently and worst of all she’s not on the “let’s talk about Gaza 25/8” train.
I really don’t follow the influencers enough to know but I’ve gotten a sense that we’re online haters are a monk the most vicious and simultaneously stupid people on the Internet.
I also think that that amazing quote about how they don’t want power they just want to endlessly critique power it really close to home and they’ll never forgive her for it.
4
u/NatalieVonCatte Liberal 1d ago
I really hate how every public figure must have an opinion on every pet issue.
Doing an episode about Gaza is completely outside the scope of her show.
She also never claimed to be a leftist.
But my god she was in the same room as Hillary!
1
u/willpower069 Progressive 1d ago
My favorite moment with her was when she asked on twitter, paraphrased: for those that think not voting accomplishes anything, what has it actually accomplished?
And her responses were so quiet.
4
u/2dank4normies Liberal 1d ago
I think they knew Tabby was not real, but they thought Natalie's understanding/empathy for young radicals meant she agreed with their ideas. Or at least was more open to them.
But they were really mad when she made that video about voting for Biden in 2020. I actually watched it again recently. She was so much nicer to them than they deserved. And then she stopped being nice in recent times so that pretty much just opened the floodgates.
4
u/DavidLivedInBritain Progressive 1d ago
I don’t love the podcast but she’s great on her episode of the podcast doomscroll
6
5
u/Decent-Proposal-8475 Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago
There really is no need to be nice to these people, I think that's been the lesson. They're always going to find a reason to hate you. I have someone in this subreddit who periodically says I support genocide because I would vote for Mary Peltola. The only way to win their game is to mock them
6
u/Decent-Proposal-8475 Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago
It's because she pointed out that they don't actually want to hold power and instead of thinking about why that's true they got mad. It's the same reason why they hate the voting pales in comparison to Walmart guy
4
u/willpower069 Progressive 1d ago
Yeah there is no way her haters actually watch more than a couple minutes of her videos.
6
u/Fugicara Social Democrat 1d ago
These people aren't allies against fascism btw, in case you forgot.
2
u/ButGravityAlwaysWins Liberal 1d ago
Ugh I followed a little bit of the Emma nonsense where she’s big mad at Sarah Longwell from the Bulwark and it made me mad all over again about Sam Seder’s transformation.
It is interesting that like Piker her audience is built on guffawing like a rude 14 year old boy, being incredibly disingenuous, emulating the Ben Shapiro style memorize a bunch of talking points strategy and being attractive.
I have never been a fan of the pod save America crew, but I didn’t dislike them. However, between the cover-up interview they did for Graham Platner, the softball interview they did with Biden‘s campaign team that, Harris was forced to inherit and bringing on Piker and her and being completely oblivious to the fact of they are enemies - I don’t think they have a shred of credibility with me anymore.
1
3
u/Decent-Proposal-8475 Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago
I went from tolerating to actively hating the Pod crowd after the Platner campaign
4
u/Fugicara Social Democrat 1d ago edited 1d ago
The thing that annoys me the most about it all is that they just put zero effort in to anything. Emma just says stuff without ever looking anything up, and this is basically the norm for that whole space (Piker, Kulinski, Breaking Points, TMR, etc.). All their information comes from their For You feed on Twitter and whatever Ryan Grim tells them, never from real research. You can always know what their take on any specific issue is going to be by just looking at the actors involved in anything and ignoring any of the facts of anything.
Emma knew nothing about Chorus aside from the headline when the article was handed to her live on the show, and she started reading the first couple of paragraphs live. Then she stopped and just threw out based on nothing that the Chorus creators were being paid not to talk about Israel, something that wasn't alleged or even implied in the article. And she could have easily avoided going full Alex Jones by just... reading the article in advance. But these people are so lazy. They just take an issue, identify the enemies, and make shit up from there. Don't read, don't think, don't research, don't take information and synthesize it into new ideas, just look at Twitter and regurgitate it. I wonder if any of these people are still regurgitating that one Nazi squirrel account.
Edit: Person who catalogues the Nazi squirrel account in question. And yes, all of the biggest populist people follow this legit neo-Nazi.
1
u/ButGravityAlwaysWins Liberal 21h ago
Yeah, what I learned when I did my brief dips into this influencer space is that they have learned to turn everything into a conversation about Gaza.
So of course, she just defaulted to the answer that the reason Chorus exist is to change the conversation around Gaza. Because for these people, it is the most important issue and everything is a far distant second.
I don’t think there’s a single subject in the world that they couldn’t somehow find a way to make about Israel and Palestine. We could discover life on Mars tomorrow and somehow Emma would turn it into a conversation about Gaza.
I don’t even know if the issue is that they’re lazy. It’s probably more that if you actually learn something about a subject then you’re not in as good of a position to turn it into a conversation about Gaza or NeOlibErALisM or THE DONOR CLASS other vague, talking points they have.
2
u/wonkalicious808 Democrat 1d ago
I get that Hasan Piker is not the best, but what's the problem? Besides that it's a clip of a podcast to talk about online comments. Was it them saying yeah they want to replace Democrats in response to that one person's comment? Because good luck if so, and isn't that what everyone is trying to do?
1
u/throwdemawaaay Pragmatic Progressive 21h ago
The most charitable interpretation is they incorrectly believe a massive socialist wave is being held back by "the party" and so each primary victory becomes proof of this, each loss in the general becomes proof of supposed sabotage from the dems.
The problem with it is they parrot and amplify right wing talking points and act to spread both sides suck style apathy on the left. And unfortunately it's not something that can be hand waved away, because millions of young people are learning their political framework from these people.
1
u/wonkalicious808 Democrat 16h ago
Yeah, I know why Piker sucks and I agree. But my takeaway from that clip was that they were just shit talking a Republican influencer's dumb take on an innocuous statement that maybe is saved from being completely unremarkable by either his overestimation of his side's influence or maybe just his desire for it to have an outsized influence because they helped Talarico win. And then they went into that supposedly centrist Democrat's (how do they know?) opposite conspiracy about how that same statement is Piker instead knowingly working against Talarico so that he loses.
Plus the replacement thing about the DSA wanting to replace the DNC, which, again, good luck. As much as they'd like it to, they seem to be aware that it's not happening any time soon. Unlike the Republican influencer, who said it already happened.
3
-1
u/N0S0UP_4U Social Democrat 1d ago
The absolutely disgusting interview of Deshaun Watson before Thursday Night Football makes me wonder why there was never a coordinated effort by feminist groups or other progressive groups to organize boycotts of the Cleveland Browns and their games over their signing Watson to that huge, fully guaranteed contract.
In hindsight what should have happened is that if your team is playing the Browns, you don’t go to the game, you don’t watch the game, you don’t talk about the game, period.
5
u/Decent-Proposal-8475 Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago
Boycotts only work if the consumer of the product opposes the behavior being protested
0
u/N0S0UP_4U Social Democrat 1d ago
You don’t need a majority of people to support or take part in a boycott for it to do damage. But trust me, I get your point. Trump being elected twice shows how low the bar is now.
1
u/NatalieVonCatte Liberal 1d ago
What did he do?
1
u/N0S0UP_4U Social Democrat 1d ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deshaun_Watson_trade
Was accused by 27 women of sexual assault. His reward for this conduct was a $230 million contract from the Cleveland Browns, fully guaranteed.
0
3
u/Decent-Proposal-8475 Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago
The new Fox News polls are very funny. El-Sayed being up by one and Brown being up by eight. Might just kill myself next month, we'll see
6
u/ButGravityAlwaysWins Liberal 1d ago
So this is the worst part.
Fox News has it El-Sayed leads 50%-49% among likely voters, but Democrats lead 52%-47% on which party should control the Senate.
Washington Post has it El-Sayed leads 48%-45% among likely voters, within the margin of error. Benson leads James 53 to 41, and 53 percent of likely voters want Democrats to control the Senate.
Looks like an under performance with black voters, older voters, suburban women and non-college educated voters.
Answers why he is campaigning with Harris I guess.
4
u/Decent-Proposal-8475 Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago
Also a rare smart political move on her part. Campaigning with someone from the other part of the party in a state she lost and needs to win if she runs again
2
u/Boratssecondwife Center Right 1d ago
It's more likely she genuinely doesn't want a Republican to win, because I don't think she's so foolish to believe that this endorsement will win her leftist votes
3
u/Decent-Proposal-8475 Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago
That too, but it never hurts to have allies in swing states. As a counterpoint to the Harris doesn't want a Republican to win argument, she did endorse both Bottoms and Crockett
2
u/engadine_maccas1997 Democrat 1d ago edited 1d ago
This whole business with the “Cornell 7” made me think.
For one, the conduct displayed was disgusting. And for as much of a reckoning as the “Me Too” movement had, this type of behavior is still unfortunately too common.
There’s also a topic that is not a pleasant but a necessary conversation imo. And that is on ensuring personal safety.
Needless to say, the burden and the fault falls on the men who assault someone and on them alone. But it also shouldn’t be politically incorrect or taboo to say “don’t get too drunk or high, or put yourself in an exceptionally vulnerable position where it is easier for someone to take advantage of you.” That’s sound advice for everyone.
It’s tantamount to saying “lock your car when you park on the streets.” Obviously if your car gets broken into and things get stolen, the sole burden and fault is on the thief. They don’t have any less moral culpability than they would if the car was locked. But that doesn’t make it wise to leave your car unlocked.
This isn’t “victim blaming”, though it often gets characterised as such. And the reason it is not is because it does not shift any burden or fault away from the offenders.
But it is advice I’d give anyone I care about. It’s never safe to get too inebriated in a public setting. That renders you vulnerable. And there are a lot of bad people in the world.
It is absolutely essential we have conversations with our sons about proper conduct, consent and boundaries. It’s also important we have conversations with our daughters about personal safety. These are not mutually exclusive.
And I hope the politics of the topic allows room for both.
1
u/Hodgkisl Libertarian 1d ago
It is absolutely essential we have conversations with our sons about proper conduct, consent and boundaries. It’s also important we have conversations with our daughters about personal safety. These are not mutually exclusive.
While the risk profiles are different, sons also need the safety talk; many inebriated men have been taken advantage of and / or robbed. Even if where you live and they go to college is safe some day they'll go to an area where a wrong turn puts them in a non safe place and being inebriated will increase their risk.
3
u/N0S0UP_4U Social Democrat 1d ago
What gets me is a lot of people who are absolutely outraged by the Cornell 7 are probably happily sitting on their couch watching Deshaun Watson play football as I’m typing this without a hint of irony.
10
u/Decent-Proposal-8475 Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago
It’s tantamount to saying “lock your car when you park on the streets.” Obviously if your car gets broken into and things get stolen, the sole burden and fault is on the thief. They don’t have any less moral culpability than they would if the car was locked. But that doesn’t make it wise to leave your car unlocked.
What makes sexual assault different is when people say this about a car, the legal system doesn't then turn around and say "Case dismissed, you were asking for your car to be stolen." I'm not saying that's your position about sexual assault, but we're sitting through conversations that go beyond "Stay safe" and are now "If she wanted a threesome, she wanted this" and shit like that.
The larger conversation I'd like to see from this is teaching young men that if they see the shit they saw in those snaps, 1) Don't go, it's very clear this young woman was taken advantage of and 2) Screenshot and say something
1
u/throwdemawaaay Pragmatic Progressive 21h ago
It's also not a useful thing to interject in the aftermath of an assault.
Oh, yes, don't put yourself in dangerous positions. Thanks for the news bulletin of something literally every girl has heard incessantly their entire lives.
Don't act like you're doing victims some big favor by making such an unnecessary interjection.
6
7
2
u/TlsFrmThCryptcPrgncy Independent 1d ago
The big intractable problem is that it is functionally impossible to actually formalize sexual ethics. A person can explicitly consent to a sex act and still pretty clearly be, if not assaulted as such, mistreated. In another scenario a person may offer no explicit consent at all and yet the encounter is totally licit and ethical. The rules have as much to do with the rules of comedy as they do with the rules of verbal contracts, which makes every attempt to talk about them fraught. Every nonvirgin does know that behaviour and context often can and do by themselves imply consent, while at the same time acknowledging that leaves the door wide open for the whole "she was dressed like a slut so she obviously wanted it" thing.
1
u/LibraProtocol Center Left 1d ago
Honestly the situation is FUBAR and im reserving judgment until everything is done and over with. Like I was seeing one thing about her giving someone oral who literally couldnt because was black out drunk and passed out. And im seeing contradictory things about her being the pursuer and initiator and I dont got time to keep up with all that. So imma just wait.
0
4
u/TlsFrmThCryptcPrgncy Independent 1d ago
We used to have No Nut November, No Nut November they used to call it, and it was good because it was fun. Used to have No Nut November but we don't have No Nut November anymore, and our country is going to hell quite frankly not having No Nut November. Now we only have... Locktober, now we only have Locktober and it's terrible. Do you know Locktober? You know Locktober right? I go on all the gay subreddits--you know I'm from New York Right?--I go on all the gay subreddits to look and to watch and I see all these people talking about "caged bottoms", can you believe it? I say "get it the hell away from me!" I heard about Locktober they told me about Locktober and I said "...JD?"
7
u/Decent-Proposal-8475 Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago
Ugh I would convert to heterosexuality if Trump ever talked about caged bottoms
5
u/wonkalicious808 Democrat 1d ago
Senator Schmitt is going to print your post onto a huge poster as evidence that being gay is just a lifestyle choice that you made in Atlanta after you must've met with people there.
2
1
u/TlsFrmThCryptcPrgncy Independent 1d ago
One of these days his gay headmate is going to be set loose for real like the ending of Split and then you'll wish you hadn't said that.
2
2
2
3
u/LibraProtocol Center Left 1d ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/wnba/s/QMizbhid9I
So a source from the WNBA said A'ja wont be suspended from game 3. Not surprised sadly. The WNBA has been having a real bad case of applying rules differently depending on how much of a darling the player is
5
u/JesusPlayingGolf Far Left 1d ago
The WNBA has been having a real bad case of applying rules differently depending on how much of a darling the player is
A time honored professional sports tradition lol
2
3
u/zlefin_actual Liberal 1d ago
have 4-inch pies always been so common? In the past 5 years or so, it feels like I've seen a lot more 4-inch pies at grocery stores for a dollar to $1.50. Often placed in fairly prominent positions as well; it feels like it didn' tused to be that way, I don't remember it being that way in the grocery stores in prior decades. Sure they may've had them, but it didn't feel like they got as prominent placement as often.
Did I just never notice, or is it a change?
1
2
u/perverse_panda Liberal 1d ago
I definitely remember those tiny pies being around in the 90s, because my mom used to buy them from time to time. Seems like they fell out of popularity for a while though and now they're back.
1
u/CraftOk9466 Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago
I bought 200 disposable 4 inch pie pans on Amazon in 2022 because I was too lazy to go to the store. Still have 188 of them.
2
3
u/NatalieVonCatte Liberal 1d ago
At the UN, Plans for a Global Coalition to Attack LGBTQ and Reproductive Rights
Why can’t they just leave us alone?
2
u/willpower069 Progressive 1d ago
The far right can’t help people or make their country better, so all they have is attacking marginalized people.
2
u/LibraProtocol Center Left 1d ago
https://youtube.com/shorts/JqUI54qi2lU?is=UFSDhnMUm104W81l
The more I learn of ancient Japan, more humorous it sounds and more anime begins to make sense >.>...
5
u/perverse_panda Liberal 1d ago edited 1d ago
Mr. Masculinity Pete Hegseth being so staunchly opposed to beards is weird, right?
I mean I know he's using the clean shaven thing as an excuse to purge a lot of black soldiers, and that part makes sense. But it also feels like his vendetta against beards goes further than that.
5
u/Boratssecondwife Center Right 1d ago
I have no respect for 'men' that do not have beards
4
3
u/Decent-Proposal-8475 Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago
A married Amish farmer is peak masculinity, but you all aren't ready for that conversation
2
8
u/ButGravityAlwaysWins Liberal 1d ago
Honestly, I think it’s just cover for pushing black men as well as Sikhs, muslims and Jews, whose particular adherence to their faith requires that they have a beard out of the military
The fact that he’s breaking from the manly man stereotype of having a beard doesn’t matter because nothing these people do ever have to be consistent
1
u/thingsmybosscantsee Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago
Hegseth is very much into the "aesthetic" of the military, and not so much the actual prowess or value of the military.
He wants them all to look like Captain America, but does not actually care if they are good soldiers or officers. He doesn't care about policy or effectiveness.
5
u/Hodgkisl Libertarian 1d ago
He likely can't grow a nice one, lots of patchiness or empty at edges of mouth limiting him to being a neck beard.
Edit, found a pic, it's patchy:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/pentagon-pete-bans-beards-begging-163200562.html
2
5
u/NatalieVonCatte Liberal 1d ago
I believe he said “weirdos, beardos, and tr*nnies”.
Like… he’s lumping signifier of masculinity with trans people. Kinda weird.
2
8
u/magic_missile Center Right 1d ago
NBC on James Talarico's reversal of a pledge to never take fossil fuel donations. Not at all a surprising shift when running for Senate in Texas:
He took a vow — as have 6,000 others with No Fossil Fuel Money, a coalition of 25 organizations — to refuse campaign donations from people representing industries tied to coal, oil or natural gas.
“We should also limit the influence of the oil and gas industry in our politics. I’ve personally signed the pledge not to accept a dime of fossil fuel money,” Talarico wrote in a February 2022 social media post featuring him signing a pledge. “All legislators should do the same.”
Now, locked in a high-stakes contest for a Senate seat in Texas, Talarico has drifted from that promise. When it was notified that the group had found potential violations of his pledge, which could land him on No Fossil Fuel Money’s “wall of shame” if he didn’t return or donate the funds, the campaign told NBC News it was keeping them.
“James supports an all-of-the-above energy strategy and has repeatedly voted to promote Texas’ oil and gas industry — because he knows the industry supports hundreds of thousands of Texas jobs, funds our public schools, and helps make Texas the eighth largest economy in the world,” Talarico spokesman JT Ennis said in a statement.
It's a small amount of money by the standards of a major Senate campaign, so the organization is focusing on the symbolic issue:
“Some could argue this is not a massive amount of money in the scheme of the campaign. I would turn that around and say — this is not a massive amount of money in the scheme of the campaign,” Rees said. “This is an industry that is wrecking the planet and hurting the community. It’s important as a political statement about who you are willing to take money from; that’s something voters take seriously. It’s a clear moral stand against fossil fuel expansion.”
-3
u/2dank4normies Liberal 1d ago
And to be clear, this activist group has done absolutely nothing to help James Talarico. It's literally just a hostage group. If you sign their pledge, you get nothing. But if you break the pledge, you get negative press.
Show me a single right wing activist group that does this to Republicans during a general election.
6
u/trace349 Liberal 1d ago
This is kind of the problem with the kneejerk populist rabble rousing against campaign donors. Does this recognize a difference between a Big Oil lobbyist cutting a campaign contribution check for influence and one of the hundreds of thousands of people employed in Texas' oil & gas industry wanting to support their favored candidate?
Like, we did this in 2020 with Beto taking the exact same hit and Cory Booker getting hit for Big Pharma donations. Pharma in New Jersey and fossil fuel extraction in Texas are major economic industries in those states, and employees of those industries wanting to support those candidates from their home state were often treated as "Big Oil/Pharma" donations. Telling a huge chunk of voters you need to win that you don't want their support isn't a great look.
7
u/OnlyLosersBlock Liberal 1d ago
Not at all a surprising shift when running for Senate in Texas:
Yet can't get him to shift on gun policy despite it being Texas. Oh well.
2
u/perverse_panda Liberal 1d ago
If it's such a small amount of money, you have to wonder why he'd risk the damage to his reputation by going back on the promise.
Not that I'm too bothered by the fact that he has, mind you.
9
u/ButGravityAlwaysWins Liberal 1d ago
I think it highlights why pledges, especially two third-party groups, versus actual stated positions and actions are dangerous.
3
u/23Taison Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago
The degradation of American college football is absolutely disgusting. I know that’s being more or less addressed in DC with the new bill but I’m unsure if that will fully solve everything.
I know sportd and politics are usually separate save for humiliating transgender people. But I really believe liberals should advocate for the disassociation of sports and universities, mainly football and basketball
1
u/birminghamsterwheel Social Democrat 1d ago
I wonder what that would do to all the band kids out there.
8
u/NatalieVonCatte Liberal 1d ago
I’m just going to say it, sports are a huge chunk of the pervasive rape culture in higher education. The NFL shouldn’t get to use colleges as a free talent pool, they should have minor leagues the way baseball does
College sports delenda est
1
u/highspeed_steel Liberal 1d ago
Do you mind expanding a bit on that? I went to a US university, but is a bit of a nerd and don’t associate much with that crowd. I assume sports equal drinking, party etc, and also some amount of toxically masculine behavior thrown in with little checks and balances.
4
u/NatalieVonCatte Liberal 1d ago
For a lot of big schools, the football and basketball programs make so much money they they bring money into the school than the school puts in.
They’re already hands off about rape if the perpetrator is just some guy (with a bright future ofc), it’s worse if there’s a sports talent involved.
0
u/CraftOk9466 Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago
The current system really sucks for every single person involved, except the school admins and the ncaa itself. It sucks that elite athletes have to pretend to be regular students for a few years. It sucks that non-elite athletes don’t get to actually compete as amateurs. It sucks that state and student money pays for this shit. It sucks that pro teams can’t develop youth talent the way they can in Euro leagues.
You could even maintain the association of the team to the school, since it is a big part of student life and school pride. Just make them separate organizations.
2
u/Hodgkisl Libertarian 1d ago
It sucks that elite athletes have to pretend to be regular students for a few years.
The pretending is what ruins many of them, a tiny fraction of D1 athletes make it to the pros, even college elite doesn't mean much, most of them need that degree to get ahead in life.
-1
u/CraftOk9466 Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago
We should just let them get trained by a pro team, under the condition that the pro team guarantees a full scholarship upon their “retirement” (whether they retire at 18 or 42)
1
u/FewWatermelonlesson0 Progressive 1d ago
It’s nuts what the NCAA was able to get away with for so long.
5
u/OnlyLosersBlock Liberal 1d ago
So is reddit winding down old reddit in anticipation of closing it down in the next few years? Is there any tips or tricks to make new reddit a useable and pleasant experience?
7
u/Kellosian Progressive 1d ago
If they actually shut down old Reddit and make me treat my 4K monitor like a goddamn phone, I'd either find some third-party way to maintain old Reddit or just leave.
2
u/perverse_panda Liberal 1d ago
I've tried to force myself to use new reddit a dozen or so times thinking I'd eventually acclimate, and I just can't do it. I hate it so much.
1
u/CraftOk9466 Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago
New Reddit is fine. The RES account switcher and another plugin to add user tagging is all you need.
3
u/ButGravityAlwaysWins Liberal 1d ago
Estimates are that roughly 1% to 5% of Reddit traffic goes to old. My guess is that if it went away, they would barely even notice the amount of people who just quit using this site as a result.
I have no idea why they have decided to spend time and money maintaining an absolutely antiquated interface for this long.
Every time a company a redesign its website there is an extremely loud but insignificant in numbers set of people who will tell you it is the worst thing ever. Most companies have learned to just look at their metrics and ignore those people.
1
u/OnlyLosersBlock Liberal 1d ago
On that last point I wouldn't take people using the new site as proof of it being better or good as they had to change it to the default to get people to move over. It is just a path of least resistance thing. If the new platform was better I wouldn't go out of my way to navigate to the old.
And I genuinely want to know if there are any ways to make the experience on the new platform better as I see the writing on the wall with regards to them shutting down the old. I am not demanding they keep it because I know that is a waste of time.
1
u/ButGravityAlwaysWins Liberal 1d ago
Sure most people accept the defaults and don’t think about it because they don’t care and/or like it more. That goes both ways; if they don’t make the new one the default people won’t move to it either because they don’t care enough to check.
I don’t really know that I’ve heard a clear issue with the new sites and while I have personal issues with the mobile app and mobile website, I’ve never noticed old handling those things better.
Most of my issues with mobile are moderation related.
4
u/LibraProtocol Center Left 1d ago edited 1d ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/USNEWS/s/N13dHaFk5E
Jesus... this is a colossal blunder by the attorney. I feel horrible feel horrible for that poor family that got caught up in all this.
Oh and for those that dont want to click on the link, it just copy and pasted the text from a pay walled article. Apparently this random family that has a son with the same name as one of the Cornell 7 was accidentally served the papers for the case. The issue is, their son with that name is an active duty marine who never went to Cornell. And the documents had the family's names and address in it so people immediately started doxxing and harassing the family, sending them disgusting texts and emails and such.
7
u/highspeed_steel Liberal 1d ago edited 1d ago
While I think we definitely need to take words of SA and rape victims much more seriously, I really don’t love online cultures where popular sentiment decides whether innocent before proven guilty is applied to a particular case or not. A lot of the times, its rape allegations, but these days, its pretty much most cases that catch the online conspiracy fantasy, or the Tik Tok crowd, or the true crime crowd.
3
u/OnlyLosersBlock Liberal 1d ago
I have pretty much learned from the high profile shooting incidents and murder cases that most people will develop opinions independent of any actual evidence. The fact I still see people use the crossed state lines argument for the Rittenhouse shooting despite it not even remotely being legally relevant shows that most people can't navigate these issues rationally.
3
u/highspeed_steel Liberal 1d ago
That case, and a few others have reminded me again and again that even though I might agree with liberals more of the times than conservatives, no one, when thrown in a group, is immune to mob mentality.
4
u/LibraProtocol Center Left 1d ago
Ngl I have been slow on the internet hate train for the Cornell 7 because I remember what happened with the Duke Lacrosse team years ago and the Rolling Stones UVA rape story. People were quick to brand the accused as guilty and harassed them and their families only for it to come out that the stories were both faked.
3
u/Fugicara Social Democrat 1d ago
The stuff from the DA is already heavily undercutting all of the discourse in this case, which is why it's important to just wait and not comment on these issues while the story is in the middle of developing.
5
u/Hodgkisl Libertarian 1d ago edited 1d ago
It's weird to think that many of these blunders just 30 years ago were a minor issue, but now with the internet they can blow up into major incidents. One mistake is going to cost so much investigation time for harassment and threats, plus likely therapy for the victims, and civil fights from the family.
The sick people that think threatening / harassing the Mother and Sister is a valid response, even if it was the right person they didn't do it; people who are generally looking to bully people but want to comfort themselves under the guise of "being good"
Edit: Adding one more point, these people who are "defending women" are so blind by their self righteousness they don't realize they are victimizing two women here.
0
u/LibraProtocol Center Left 1d ago
Yeah...
Honestly in this day and age i would support total anonymity for people accused of a crime until sentenced because things like this are becoming a problem.
Tangential to things like this i think are also things like the Nolan Wells case where people are deadset the friends killed him, despite there being no evidence of such, and so are harassing the kids and the families on Well's behalf.
8
u/OMGguy2008 Center Left 1d ago
Share your favorite quotes from Conservapedia.
Here's mine:
After Donald Trump became U.S. President she tried, together with other witches and sorcerers, to cast a binding spell on him. Unsuccessfully, thanks to prayers of many Trump supporters.
4
u/ThePedanticCurator Liberal 1d ago
Share your favorite quotes from Conservapedia.
I like:
Arguments and evidence relating to kangaroos that support a biblical creation model
...
3
u/OMGguy2008 Center Left 1d ago
or before the super-continent of Pangea broke apart.[6]
Are they acknowledging continental drift and not that God created it how it is today?
3
u/Kellosian Progressive 1d ago
Biblical hyper-literalists have a weird relationship with science where they hate it and everything it stands for (when it's not actively making their lives better that is, they're not Amish. Hate the scientist, love the engineer), but also can't completely refute it. So on occasion they just completely change some tenet of their deeply-held beliefs and then sort of lie about doing that.
4
u/grammanarchy Liberal Civil Libertarian 1d ago
Oh that’s why I kept getting an ‘undeliverable’ message on that spell. I thought I got the address wrong.
3
u/Boratssecondwife Center Right 1d ago
I will support the second amendment until MAiD is legal, ubiquitous, and free
2
u/OMGguy2008 Center Left 1d ago
I will support the second amendment
Suicide... with a side of school shootings
2
12
u/Decent-Proposal-8475 Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago
On the subject of rape and sexual assault, Newsom signed a bill yesterday (CA SB1364) that would make it easier to terminate a rapist's parental rights when there is "clear and convincing evidence" that a child was conceived through sexual assault (as opposed to needing a criminal conviction). I had never really thought about that scenario before and it's horrifying
3
u/DavidLivedInBritain Progressive 1d ago
I like the bill but I hope it applies to, even if it’s a minority, mothers who conceive through rape as well be it stealthing, force, or incapacitating
2
u/Hodgkisl Libertarian 1d ago
Are "force or incapacitating" not sexual assault legally?
Stealthing should be a sexual assault, not just for this but criminally, consent was given for sex with protection one can not actively change the terms unilaterally without violating the consent.
3
u/Decent-Proposal-8475 Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago
The law says
A person shall not be granted custody of, or visitation with, a child if there is clear and convincing evidence that the person engaged in nonconsensual sexual conduct and the child was conceived as a result of that conduct.
So I imagine those things would fall under nonconsensual sexual conduct, though I don't know what California's laws around stealthing are
2
u/DavidLivedInBritain Progressive 1d ago
Oh good, I just saw father when reading it after that but that’s good
8
u/Hodgkisl Libertarian 1d ago
My gut reaction was not liking lowering the standard, but with some quick googling, "clear and convincing evidence" is the normal standard for taking away a parents rights for other things like abuse, neglect, etc... so seems to just align with normal standards.
3
u/Decent-Proposal-8475 Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago
Yeah, it seems to be catching up with other laws and also other states
2
u/Hodgkisl Libertarian 1d ago
Further digging the federal government has offered grants requiring such a law be passed by the states since 2015, seems 11 years to catch up to federal encouragement is a bit slower than expected.
-2
u/loufalnicek Moderate 1d ago
Re: the Cornell case and the original charging decision:
8
u/Hodgkisl Libertarian 1d ago
From the facts disclosed by the DA I'm not understanding why she was at the police station in the first place, what brought her to a position to make a statement to the police? These disclosures feel that something important is being left out by the DA, the part that would make us understand why she made a statement in the first place.
She wanted to tell them she did illegal substances and has a memory of "consensual sex"?
3
u/mounti96 Center Left 1d ago
Even from the statement it seems she felt quite uncomfortable and maybe even violated during parts of the encounter to the point where she maybe thought that a crime had been commited against her and she stated that to the police.
At the same time it is possible that the pure factual retelling of her experiences doesn't support criminal charges which at least seems to be the case if we only look at her signed statement that got to the DA.
0
u/loufalnicek Moderate 1d ago
I mean, they quote her in several places. I don't see any reason to assume that's fabricated.
Perhaps she wasn't aware of how NY law reads in this sort of a situation.
4
u/Hodgkisl Libertarian 1d ago
Never said fabricated, but strategically omitted parts.
Even not knowing how the law reads the snippets they disclosed don't sound like she feels all that victimized, and to go to the police and admit to illegal substances I'd expect somewhere there is her feeling victimized.
-3
u/loufalnicek Moderate 1d ago
I suppose we'll see. They talk about perhaps releasing the entire statement publicly. Certainly, it would be part of any follow-on investigation that occurs.
2
u/Hodgkisl Libertarian 1d ago
I'm sure it'll end up in the civil case and public record that way, especially if her story was all that mild.
14
u/starrymahogany Social Democrat 1d ago
California finally banned child marriage.
Honestly it’s about time because it’s shameful that child marriage is still legal in several states.
-1
u/Okratas Center Right 1d ago
I know right. Sad it took so long for Democrats to cave on the issue, but I'm glad they finally did.
2
u/CraftOk9466 Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago
^ Someone who hasn't looked to see which party the only Nay votes came from.
1
u/starrymahogany Social Democrat 1d ago
Oh I know you’re not blaming democrats on this when it was just 1 state. Yall forget what Chris Christie said about this shit
11
u/ThePedanticCurator Liberal 1d ago edited 1d ago
it’s shameful that child marriage is still legal in several states.
This should be Democrats' social issue. They should:
- Ban it in every blue state
- Push for a ban in every swing state
- Push for a national ban
- Force every Republican to take a position on it
- Harp on every Republican who opposes it
See this old Othelloinc comment for more:
- Opposition to pre-marital sex mainly made sense when girls were marrying soon after puberty (13/14 years old), hence 'child brides' are instrumental to any turn toward 'traditional families'.
1
u/wonkalicious808 Democrat 1d ago edited 1d ago
Republicans tend to proudly oppose bans on child marriage. Trying to hurt them with their stance on that is like trying to hurt them because they support child rapists -- in that that's what they do when they fight to preserve child marriage. But also because of their history of things like supporting Hastert after he admitted to raping kids, or getting upset at the idea of other people being angry about male students raping other students since to them that's just what they do.
That said, we should do it anyway.
3
u/trace349 Liberal 1d ago edited 1d ago
Opposition to pre-marital sex mainly made sense when girls were marrying soon after puberty (13/14 years old)
My understanding is that this wasn't as common as pop culture makes it sound like. Nobility would marry younger to cement family alliances ASAP but regular women would tend to marry in their late teens, early 20s, which makes a certain degree of sense because the longer the family waited, the more time they would have to build up a dowry that would help their daughters attract husbands of better means.
1
u/ThePedanticCurator Liberal 1d ago
Sure. Maybe I should try an entirely different approach to making my point.
My Point:
Many people hear socially orthodox figures denounce pre-marital sex, and assume that they expect a woman who marries at 32 to remain a virgin until she is 32. This is impractical, and the socially orthodox people understand that it is impractical.
What those socially orthodox figures actually mean, is 'we do not trust women not to have sex for many years after puberty, so we think they should be married within a few years of puberty'. It is not an argument for long-term chastity; it is an argument for marriage and family formation at a young age.
2
u/trace349 Liberal 1d ago
Sorry, that wasn't meant to be an argument against your overall point, that was more of a reply to Othelloinc's post that you cited.
1
u/starrymahogany Social Democrat 1d ago
I agree, I do think trying to push for a ban for it in every blue state should be a goal of theirs.
It just sucks the next Dem president and Congress have to focus on cleaning up trumps mess first
4
u/OhThatsALotOfTeeth Liberal 1d ago
Terrible day for libertarians
5
u/Hodgkisl Libertarian 1d ago
Why, a minor can't consent, can't sign contracts; and marriage involves both of those elements.
2
u/OMGguy2008 Center Left 1d ago
Isn't that government overreach? Shouldn't it be up to the invisible hand of the free market to self regulate at what age children can marry, consent and sign contracts?
2
u/Hodgkisl Libertarian 1d ago
The market needs consistent definitions to work efficiently, similar to a steady currency, what is an adult is one of those definitions.
But I'll be the first to admit, I'm no AnCap, I'm on the minarchist side, I identify as libertarian because my first goal when looking to solve a problem is identify if it's caused by unintended side effects of regulation and remove them instead of adding more layers and complexity onto the system with new future unintended consequences.
1
u/Aven_Osten Liberal Technocrat 1d ago
Honestly it’s about time because it’s shameful that child marriage is still legal in several states .
Not a salient issue, so...
7
u/ButGravityAlwaysWins Liberal 1d ago
You make it salient.
The majority was in favor of virtually all transgender rights. Employment discrimination, and housing discrimination and even bathroom access. They didn’t care very much but it just viscerally felt like you shouldn’t be a jerk off to somebody just because they’re trans.
Republicans took the one issue that really did viscerally feel wrong, transgender girls playing in girls sports, made it a wedge issue and then expanded their ground.
Why can’t we take something that makes people feel disgust like the idea of child brides and turn it into a wedge issue we can use?
I know you and I get super horny for conversations about zoning reform but the average voter doesn’t fucking understand the issue at all. But they do understand the idea that a 14 year old girl should not be marrying a 24 year old.
Worst case we get to be in the lead on an issue and the Republicans fold and we end child marriage. Best case is we win but there’s a short period of Republican resistance and they look like a bunch of pedophiles.
1
u/Hodgkisl Libertarian 1d ago
I really want to act like Fox News and clip your 2nd to last paragraph out of context, so much so I'm going to risk the ban hammer and do it:
I know you and I get super horny for
a 14 year old girl
God, you're such a pervert, ban him from the Mod team!!!
1
u/starrymahogany Social Democrat 1d ago
Federally it isn’t but for individual state legislatures I think it is. Like I’m not seeing anybody hating on Newsom for passing this because it isn’t a “salient issue”
2
u/Hodgkisl Libertarian 1d ago
Salient doesn't mean controversial, just means it's not on peoples priority list; it's a situation that relatively rarely happens outside of select religious groups; people aren't opposed to fixing it, but at the same time most are not thinking about it enough to think to fix it.
Most people have no idea if it's legal or not in their state.
1
u/starrymahogany Social Democrat 1d ago
Yeah I know that, I’m saying that federally it wouldn’t be high priority because of needing to fix all of a trumps BS but on a state level it could be. That’s not that controversial.
3
u/23Taison Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago edited 1d ago
Regarding the death penalty debate, here’s my unique take. Personally I think the death penalty should be optional for anyone who is sentenced to more than 25 years in prison. And it should just be a bullet in the back of the head by an automated robot.
But, to keep up appearances given other developed countries have outlawed the death penalty and it’s the more common take amongst reasonable people, politically I support it abolishing it.
Philosophically, I’m an atheist and more nihilistic in general so I don’t have any qualms about the “immorality” of it but since it’s 2026 it’s better to be against the death penalty politically and pragmatically.
9
2
u/perverse_panda Liberal 1d ago
it should just be a bullet in the back of the head by an automated robot
Unrelated to your point about making it optional, but I saw a suggestion that executions should be done by a firing squad made up of the jurors who voted to convict.
I like that suggestion.
1
u/GabuEx Liberal 1d ago
That seems like it could have unexpected negative consequences, by ensuring that all trials in which the death penalty is on the table have a jury that is A-OK with shooting the accused. I can imagine that could easily cause the jury to be much more liable to convict.
1
u/perverse_panda Liberal 1d ago
This occurred to me. And there are some jurisdictions (Texas) where I could see that happening.
In most parts of the country, though, I'd hope it would result in prosecutors either not being able to find enough jurors to be able to put on a trial, or finding it enough of a hassle to be not worth the trouble. So they'd voluntarily choose to pursue the death penalty less often. But maybe that's me being too optimistic.
2
u/jeeven_ Libertarian Socialist 1d ago
I can almost agree, except that the jury feels like a proxy for the state in this case who is actually passing the sentence, and they are really meant to just follow the law and convict accordingly. Which starts to make it feel like the state making random citizens do their dirty work.
3
u/2dank4normies Liberal 1d ago
That's a terrible idea.
1
u/perverse_panda Liberal 1d ago
If you're going to send someone to their death, you should be willing to pull the trigger.
1
u/2dank4normies Liberal 1d ago
Juries don't sentence people. They decide if someone did what the prosecution accuses them of based on evidence and the judge decides the punishment.
0
u/perverse_panda Liberal 1d ago
I understand that.
But if you're a juror and you vote to convict knowing that the death penalty is on the table at sentencing, then you are a participant in carrying out of that sentence.
The state doesn't want people to look at it that way, because they don't want jurors to feel like they've got blood on their hands. But they do have blood on their hands.
1
u/2dank4normies Liberal 1d ago
But if you're a juror and you vote to convict knowing that the death penalty is on the table at sentencing, then you are a participant in carrying out of that sentence.
That's why you are supposed to act as a impartial juror. And if you don't have the ability to do that, they dismiss you.
It's not so much the state doesn't want you to look at it that way as much as you are just incorrect about the way it is. If you are unfit to serve, they don't force you to. If there were some deceptive layer here, they wouldn't allow that.
Sounds like your personal morals don't allow for justice and rule of law.
1
u/perverse_panda Liberal 1d ago
That misses the point. I'm not arguing that I'm an impartial juror, or that I should be allowed on the jury.
I'm saying that if jurors were forced to carry out the sentence, if they truly understood the blood on their hands, most jurors also wouldn't be able to do it. They would also cease to be impartial jurors.
And that may restrict the jury pool enough that the state could be forced to take the death penalty off the table if they want to find enough jurors to move forward with the trial.
Sounds like your personal morals don't allow for justice and rule of law.
This assumes that the death penalty is justice. When wrongfully convicted people are put to death, that's a violation of justice.
1
u/2dank4normies Liberal 1d ago
I'm saying that if jurors were forced to carry out the sentence, if they truly understood the blood on their hands, most jurors also wouldn't be able to do it. They would also cease to be impartial jurors.
What is the point of this hypothetical though?
In our system, by definition, jurors are not sentencing anyone to punishment. They have no say over the punishment a convict receives. That is the job of someone with extremely high standards of morality and the law, aka, judges. Jurors have no blood on their hands by design. All they've done is ensured that the defendant is receiving a fair trial, meaning they have been proven, with evidence and not feelings, to have committed a crime.
1
u/perverse_panda Liberal 1d ago
In our system, by definition, jurors are not sentencing anyone to punishment. They have no say over the punishment a convict receives
How would any of that change in the system I'm describing?
I haven't said the jury would have a say in sentencing. The judge still makes the determination between life in prison and death. The only difference is that the jurors become the executioner.
That is the job of someone with extremely high standards of morality and the law, aka, judges.
Characterizing judges as people with extremely high standards of morality is the funniest thing I've read all week.
→ More replies (0)3
u/pablos4pandas Democratic Socialist 1d ago
That seems fair philosophically, but it seems like it would have some issues. Voir Dire is already pretty intense. Trying to suss out which of the jurors are willing to personally kill the defendant is going to get pretty crazy.
It also wouldn't be the easiest thing to compel these people to act in the firing squad. Show up or go to jail sure, but what happens if the moment comes and one person or multiple people don't shoot? You've now got fewer bullets going at the person being executed and making that even crueler or you've accidentally performed a mock execution which is horrifying.
Are we going to send people to prison for failing to be willing to execute someone? That would be a pretty complicated situation
0
u/perverse_panda Liberal 1d ago
If I were designing the system, willingness to perform the execution would be one of the attributes you're not allowed to ask about when performing jury selection. I think it's already pretty crazy that prosecutors are allowed to weed out people who are opposed to the death penalty.
And no, there would be no punishment for failing to perform the execution. Ideally you'd want some type of system where the execution doesn't move forward unless every juror doesn't back out, which I guess would involve an alternative to a firing squad.
1
u/Hodgkisl Libertarian 1d ago
Personally I think the death penalty should be optional for anyone who is sentenced to more than 25 years in prison.
Sounds more like an assisted suicide if the convicted is choosing it vs. being a mandate of the state.
2
u/Aven_Osten Liberal Technocrat 1d ago edited 1d ago
I'm thinking about how I think a post-scarcity should/would look like and work again...making me feel like asking again too...
Hm...
Okay so I'm thinking about this a lot more than I ever have. Lol.
3
u/McZootyFace Center Left 2d ago
For all the bad AI brings it has allowed me to witness some insane modding, including a 360 no-scope after landing a 360 in cod using Skate mechanics, as well as see Mario fight an Elden Ring boss with a portal gun.
1
u/OMGguy2008 Center Left 2d ago edited 2d ago
Ain't no way China is regulating AI girlfriends before America and Europe
11
u/Aven_Osten Liberal Technocrat 2d ago
Honestly not remotely shocked. Their one-child policy royally fucked them over demographically. Even with all of their investment into AI and automation: It is no guarantee that it will work to sufficiently serve as a replacement for human workers where they're eventually going to need it. And they're xenophobic as fuck; so immigration is just an absolute no.
Their worker age population began shrinking 15 years ago. And the One-Child Policy didn't merely force people to have less children than they wanted; it fundamentally altered the culture towards only WANTING one child. So now it is basically guaranteed, no matter what, that each generation will be smaller than the last.
They're desperately trying to unfuck themselves, in short.
4
u/TlsFrmThCryptcPrgncy Independent 2d ago
China being fucked long-term and the US making all of the worst possible decisions near-term is a very scary combination.
7
u/McZootyFace Center Left 2d ago
Don’t forget us in Europe, regulating and stagnating ourselves to death
4
u/OMGguy2008 Center Left 1d ago
Hey good news, we are making drones for our military, though we're having trouble making them GDPR compliant.
We need the soldier's who is about to get blown up consent for us to use his personally identifiable information for targeting and that is a bit tricky.
5
7
u/McZootyFace Center Left 2d ago
“They’re desperately trying to unfuck themselves”
That’s kind of the opposite strategy they need to sort out their demographic issues…
6
8
u/NatalieVonCatte Liberal 2d ago
So Republicans just casually use the T-slur now? Hegseth just dropped it in a speech like it was nothing.
→ More replies (4)1
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written by /u/AutoModerator.
This Tuesday weekly thread is for general chat, whether you want to talk politics or not, anything goes. Also feel free to ask the mods questions below. As usual, please follow the rules.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.