I don’t think that’s what is being said at all. I think what’s being said is that if the future belongs to the next generation, it’s in all of our interests that intelligent and responsible people do not simply give up and allow the idiots to dominate the future. In other words, we all have a stake in the coming generations and simply opting out because we find it somehow inconvenient is not a moral decision.

This is not to say that we all need to have kids, but rather, is to say that we shouldn’t necessarily fault those who do choose to have them. Again, if the children are our future, it would be nice if at least some of them were raised by responsible, intelligent and well-educated parents.

I mean, you just described driving like an asshole, what more do you want?

What hysteria?

In my union good workers get paid above scale or they get promoted or they move to a different company that will pay them above scale. Also, people have reputations and if you’re a complete fuckup of an employee, you will either be fired or laid off and eventually you’ll find yourself on the “available for work” list down at the hall, but never getting hired because nobody wants to put up with your bullshit. You will say that it’s a kind of informal blacklisting, which is true, but I’m in the union too and they can’t make me hire people I know I don’t want.

Public employee unions are a bit different though because unlike labor unions there is a third interested party in addition to management and labor, namely the public.

It’s not bad, it’s funny.

You are seriously confused. OP specifically said that you’re fucked if there is no visual cue.

“Passtime” is also how snakes say it.

The Houthis are an Iranian proxy. The smart conservatives will know this and will incorporate it into their vilification efforts. The stupid ones don’t need anything like a reason or a plausible excuse.

The cat’s for scale.

The answer is that the 1st amendment makes any such legislation nearly impossible. It’s unfortunate, but there are no easy fixes and that’s probably for the best. We want it to be very difficult to regulate a free press.

That’s not Shakespearean English by any stretch of the imagination. It’s not even close. It’s some rando’s poorly-educated approximation.

No, it’s a right because it was deemed necessary to the security of a free state. But the individual right to bear arms was meant to be as part of a “well-regulated” militia, not simply as “everyone can have whatever weapon they want.”

Even our current very loose and I would argue inaccurate interpretation of the 2nd does not contemplate the idea that private citizens should be allowed to own tanks or heavy machine guns or SAMs without a ton of oversight.

And of course none of this touches on the elephant in the room which is the rather obvious fact that if we take originalism seriously, then we have to concede that Madison’s conception of the 2nd as being “necessary to the security of a free state,” no longer applies since he was specifically concerned with large-scale civil insurrections such as Shay’s Rebellion or slave uprisings, and we know very well that militias can play no role in putting down such incidents in a modern context, and to the contrary, generally only serve to exacerbate tensions and escalate violence.

Except that there are other restrictions and as has already been pointed out, you still can’t own any weapon you want. This fact is something you should be admitting and grappling with. You can’t simply ignore it, as you seem to want to do. It may be that there’s an intellectually coherent way around it, but if so I have yet to see you or anyone else, let alone the SCOTUS, lay it out.

This intellectual inconsistency is, I would argue, a direct result of the fact that all of the decisions you mention above are based on a faulty reading of the 2nd.

I don’t get it either. WTF?

Also, one idea is that UBI would give people the financial space to pursue their own interests which in turn could easily --at least in some cases-- be turned into productive businesses of their own.

The country is far more polarized than it has been since the 1850s and 60s. This is an objective fact.

Right? That said, I care about his opinion on AI about as much as I care about the opinions of all the anonymous loudmouths on Lemmy.

Lol, no one thinks he’s “one of the best singers of the last half of the previous century,” WTF are you smoking?

I’m not angry at all. I downvoted your comment because it’s stupid and your edit is condescending as fuck.