The purpose of reading news ought not to be indoctrinated to any one side, but to get accurate information so you can try to make good decisions outside of whatever a left or right wing establishment wants you to do.
No political faction has a monopoly on the truth, and no political faction has a monopoly on lies. Therefore just choosing one and assuming they'll be the "good guys" forever is stupid. No major political faction has perfectly clean hands and that's why if truth matters -- and it does -- individuals must think for themselves and critically analyze what they're presented with.
Both parties have at one time attacked the Supreme Court. Nobody on the left had anything to say when the supreme Court judicated away a major policy contention in Obergefell, but the right wasn't happy with it. Now the right is quite happy with the outcome of the Trump immunity verdict, and the left is laying the groundwork to destroy the institution by going after every Justice who doesn't agree with them politically. Whether the left or right likes it or not, both cases were tried based on existing law, and while individuals may disagree with the outcome, it isn't as if these were legislators creating something out of whole cloth. Civil rights already existed in the case of Obergefell, and sovereign immunity existed in common law predating the United States by hundreds of years.
The same chief justice presided over both cases, and yet for political partisans one was an example of the law working right and the other was an example of the law working wrong.
It's probably for the best that prosecution for official actions gets taken off the table for both parties because political processes are the things that should be guiding the decisions of presidents, not whether someone's going to be able to pigeonhole them into a partisan conviction. And in the end, Obergefell ended up being the right decision regardless of you political affiliation, with 51% of Republicans now supporting gay marriage in spite of it being a contentious issue in the past. Not saying that either decision is fully correct, but it's hard to say either one was entirely wrong either.
A counterpoint to Obergefell or the Trump immunity case proving how partisan the court is would be other cases at the same time that the same side lost. The Trump election cases could have taken on those cases and overturned the 2020 election but the supreme court chose not to in a major loss to the Republicans. Around the same time as Obergefell which gave the left a massive win, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. limited some Obamacare mandates based on religious freedom, handing the right a win.
That isn't to say the court is infallible or that it isn't occasionally partisan, but rather to show that reality is a lot more complicated than hit pieces might portray.
No political faction has a monopoly on the truth, and no political faction has a monopoly on lies. Therefore just choosing one and assuming they'll be the "good guys" forever is stupid. No major political faction has perfectly clean hands and that's why if truth matters -- and it does -- individuals must think for themselves and critically analyze what they're presented with.
Both parties have at one time attacked the Supreme Court. Nobody on the left had anything to say when the supreme Court judicated away a major policy contention in Obergefell, but the right wasn't happy with it. Now the right is quite happy with the outcome of the Trump immunity verdict, and the left is laying the groundwork to destroy the institution by going after every Justice who doesn't agree with them politically. Whether the left or right likes it or not, both cases were tried based on existing law, and while individuals may disagree with the outcome, it isn't as if these were legislators creating something out of whole cloth. Civil rights already existed in the case of Obergefell, and sovereign immunity existed in common law predating the United States by hundreds of years.
The same chief justice presided over both cases, and yet for political partisans one was an example of the law working right and the other was an example of the law working wrong.
It's probably for the best that prosecution for official actions gets taken off the table for both parties because political processes are the things that should be guiding the decisions of presidents, not whether someone's going to be able to pigeonhole them into a partisan conviction. And in the end, Obergefell ended up being the right decision regardless of you political affiliation, with 51% of Republicans now supporting gay marriage in spite of it being a contentious issue in the past. Not saying that either decision is fully correct, but it's hard to say either one was entirely wrong either.
A counterpoint to Obergefell or the Trump immunity case proving how partisan the court is would be other cases at the same time that the same side lost. The Trump election cases could have taken on those cases and overturned the 2020 election but the supreme court chose not to in a major loss to the Republicans. Around the same time as Obergefell which gave the left a massive win, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. limited some Obamacare mandates based on religious freedom, handing the right a win.
That isn't to say the court is infallible or that it isn't occasionally partisan, but rather to show that reality is a lot more complicated than hit pieces might portray.
I was just joking, I've been using brave on all my devices that can run it for years. The only Google product I still use on a daily basis is YouTube.
I have a rule: Don't go to New York City, not even once. It is, as I understand it, a little hell.
Yep. Design your shit to last forever and design your shit to be repairable if it does break. 90% of things we replace would never be replaced in our lifetimes after that. "But the companies will go our of business!" maybe or maybe they can try to create stuff we actually want to buy instead of just selling us progressively worse versions of the same shit year after year.
The AC/DC conversion is just a bridge rectifier and some smoothing caps. They tend to be pretty minimal power draws.
Having officially upgraded from 16GB to a whopping 32GB of memory, I'm excited at the prospect of having three chrome tabs open at once without swapping to disk!
I wonder what would happen if someone tried to wire up a European 220v light bulb to an American 120v light socket? The active current regulation chip would presumably try to keep the current the same, and the voltage across each LED would be half, so as long as you're hitting the minimum threshold voltage, you should be driving those LEDs way less. Pick up a 100W equivalent bulb, it's suddenly putting out 50W equivalent, I'd guess you'd have a bulb that lasts more or less forever.
Or maybe not?
Or maybe not?
lol no kidding. "Wait, that's what this feels like? This sucks! It must be against the rules(when they do it)!"
I might be misreading that, but it looks to me like a conspiracy like "The sun rose today, and now this happened. Clearly there's a connection. Very suspicious."
I mean... of course a political campaign sent fundraising texts?
I mean... of course a political campaign sent fundraising texts?
It really makes you think how important spaces are.
I mean, if you send a text saying you'll "be at my wife", it's bad grammar but it's generally a good thing. Lose one little space, and suddenly you'll "beat my wife".
I was going to say they're totally different things, but really there's no way to beat a wife you aren't going to "be at"...
I mean, if you send a text saying you'll "be at my wife", it's bad grammar but it's generally a good thing. Lose one little space, and suddenly you'll "beat my wife".
I was going to say they're totally different things, but really there's no way to beat a wife you aren't going to "be at"...
These people are so dumb they don't realize that their argument suggests we don't bring in any more Haitians because apparently their presence causes assassination attempts.
The scary part is despite higher interest rates debt has been soaring because households are so badly in distress from the cost of living increases.
Establishment media seems to be predicting a 50 basis point cut to the federal funds rate.
According to the fed and the government things are better than ever before, record low unemployment.
So why cut? If anything if you believe the government lies then interest rates should be shootint way way up! Unemployment being so good, everything's being so fine, you might hold but you certainly wouldn't cut... If you believe what the government and the FED have to say...
So why are they calling for a 50 basis point cut? Could it be that they're just not being entirely honest with us?
According to the fed and the government things are better than ever before, record low unemployment.
So why cut? If anything if you believe the government lies then interest rates should be shootint way way up! Unemployment being so good, everything's being so fine, you might hold but you certainly wouldn't cut... If you believe what the government and the FED have to say...
So why are they calling for a 50 basis point cut? Could it be that they're just not being entirely honest with us?
Whatifalthist has laid out a pretty good case over the years that you are correct to be concerned. The models of Peter turchin predict that there's going to be a major revolution sometime soon, and unfortunately it is often the most extreme factions that win revolutions. It would be one thing if the intellectual petersonians were to win the next century, but it seems much more likely that a much more unreasonable faction will end up taking the reins and all reasonable people should have reason to be concerned. Arguably the French revolution marked the beginning of the modernist period, and even today we are still living with the fallout of the policies of the Jacobins around the world, as well as the Russian Bolsheviks and the Chinese maoists. In a lot of ways, extreme progressives are still trying to achieve some of the societal changes that were already tried back during the French revolution and scaled back because they were just too much.
New eras tend to be reactions to the last, and this era that we're likely concluding right now is the most feminized, the most egalitarian, and the most open in history. For that reason, I would fully expect there to be an incoming era of extreme masculinity, extreme hierarchy and class distinctions, and potentially one of the most closed in history. That our current state of Muslims are part of a reaction to the Muslim Golden age ending and everyone can see what that looks like.
I think it's important overall to have a view of the world that isn't just a reaction to whatever exists today. Yesterday I wrote a pretty long post describing a way of being that in my view is about the only way that we could improve the world on a personal level, and one of the key things about it is that other than my criticism of modern movements as trying to save the world where the individuals participating can't even save themselves, it is rooted in timeless ideas of acting with virtue and following your personal moral compass. In doing so, often you will start to see movements that you did agree with starting to miss their Mark and movements that you didn't agree with saying some things that you can't argue against, and that doesn't mean that you should go flipping between one side or the other but rather that you need to have that moral center within yourself and not rely on society to necessarily provided for you.
New eras tend to be reactions to the last, and this era that we're likely concluding right now is the most feminized, the most egalitarian, and the most open in history. For that reason, I would fully expect there to be an incoming era of extreme masculinity, extreme hierarchy and class distinctions, and potentially one of the most closed in history. That our current state of Muslims are part of a reaction to the Muslim Golden age ending and everyone can see what that looks like.
I think it's important overall to have a view of the world that isn't just a reaction to whatever exists today. Yesterday I wrote a pretty long post describing a way of being that in my view is about the only way that we could improve the world on a personal level, and one of the key things about it is that other than my criticism of modern movements as trying to save the world where the individuals participating can't even save themselves, it is rooted in timeless ideas of acting with virtue and following your personal moral compass. In doing so, often you will start to see movements that you did agree with starting to miss their Mark and movements that you didn't agree with saying some things that you can't argue against, and that doesn't mean that you should go flipping between one side or the other but rather that you need to have that moral center within yourself and not rely on society to necessarily provided for you.
We're all just trying to find the truth here. All of us are occasionally going to use some inflammatory words, myself included, as long as we can pat each other on the back and call each other friends at the end I'm thankful for people who are willing to push back against the things that I say.
You know I didn't include it, but I tend to think that you're probably on the right track there. If Osama bin laden had sons, if they found the events of 9/11 reprehensible then you can't very well hold them responsible for the things that Osama did, but if they cheered for it and say death to America and are planning to do the exact same thing all over again then you can judge them on their own demerits.
Now that being said, there's probably multiple layers here where you can hold them in contempt for the views that they hold and the things that they've personally done but it's not like there's a moral justification to hunt down, kill, and feed little billy bin laden to the sharks because his dad did a 9/11. You judge him for the things that he actually did.
Now that being said, there's probably multiple layers here where you can hold them in contempt for the views that they hold and the things that they've personally done but it's not like there's a moral justification to hunt down, kill, and feed little billy bin laden to the sharks because his dad did a 9/11. You judge him for the things that he actually did.