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.
The point is that many don’t believe they have been open and transparent, including people in government and military. Why do you think they have, just because they say they have? If they have been open and honest, then they shouldn’t mind these amendments being passed.
I’d suggest checking out the subcommittee hearing on this from July:
https://www.youtube.com/live/KQ7Dw-739VY?si=FE16gX760e0w7Ydg
If you care for music that touches on climate change and class disparity, you could check out King Gizzard and The Lizard Wizard’s albums Infest The Rats Nest and PetroDragonic Apocalypse; or, Dawn of Eternal Night: An Annihilation of Planet Earth and the Beginning of Merciless Damnation.
I really enjoy those albums even though I don’t typically get into Metal music.
For something that’s not Metal, the song Plastic Boogie from their album Fishing For Fishies is also great.
This is really interesting. Without knowing there was a word for it, I’ve often found myself wishing people (including myslef at times) did a better job of the Connected Knowing approach.
The Unix Epoch is obviously the correct base for any calendar.
It’s really refreshing to see someone else point out the issue of how the small size of the House results in shitty representation. I have never seen anyone else bring this up before, thank you!
And what about when I find both candidate A and B to be incredibly distasteful? If I vote for C and terrible B wins over terrible A, I don’t feel disappointed in the way I voted because I voted my conscience. I know this from experience.
I’ll agree that the voting system is a part of the problem, but then maybe Democrats should get a little more serious about reforming that process. I don’t see that as likely since that would challenge their duopoly privilege, but would love them to prove me wrong.
In the meantime, if a party wants me to vote for their candidate, they should put up a candidate I can support. I will not vote for someone that doesn’t represent my values.
Have to strongly disagree. If there are going to be political parties, the more the better.
Unfortunately we don’t have a Presidential primary this year, when we desperately need one. So our choice is Biden or … Full-on fascism.
You seem to make my point here. You don’t think more parties are needed, but you want to keep pushing the “vote for my guy because the other guy is a monster” line. Sorry, but I’m not going to vote for someone based on who they are not. You point out there are only two shitty choices after stating that we don’t need any more choices…
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.