Sorry, I didn't articulate my thoughts well: I meant that when I CTRL+F'ed the PDF searching for "dissent", the second of three places in the PDF that it "finds" the word dissent is literally behind the word "concurring" in "SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., concurring in judgment" on page 15 of the PDF.

I also don't have legal training to dissect most of what's in there, but I find it interesting that dissent is embedded in the PDF behind the title to their opinion.

I agree with you in boiling it down to: Democrats have failed the people because they haven't done enough good things, while Republicans have failed the people by actively doing terrible things.

So my conclusion is that yes, both parties have done terrible things, and I agree that Democrats haven't gone far enough on most issues I care about, but the GOP is actively going against the things I care about.

It's an easy decision at the ballot box, and it is an easy decision for me to do more than simply vote. Voting is the lowest bar for participation in a democracy.

If your eyeballs are missing, I can make an assumption that your vision isn't great just by looking at you. That's not a moral judgement.

Doesn't mean blood tests are useless, and in fact it means we have some idea where to start investigating a potential health problem.

Yes, I agree that there's bias against folks who are overweight, and also that there's a range of risk associated with being overweight. It's pretty clear, however, that obesity is a health concern that we should take seriously. If someone smokes five pack of cigs a day, I'm going to make an assumption about their lung health. There's always outliers that live to 100 smoking and not doing exercise, but it would be a shit doctor if they didn't tell folks not to follow their example.

I wonder if there will be a couple Putin-approved "vaguely possibly anti-Putin" talking points allowed, for the sole purpose of avoiding that (obviously true) accusation. So the Fox News heads can say "Tucker has the balls to stand up to Putin, it's not propaganda!", and Putin still wins.

I saw your post the other day and didn't have anything constructive to add (my instinct was to say 'just see where it goes, but don't force it to be romantic', but I know so little about the situation that it's hollow advice), but I came across this article in the NY Times that might speak to your situation. It talks about limerence, which is a new word for me. I say might, because it might not be what you're feeling, but it's worth a read regardless, and the tips on how to overcome it in the article seem useful (and have backing by different researchers, so they're bound to have more material on the subject that would be potentially related to what you're going through).

Gift link so no paywall: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/27/style/limerence-addiction-love-crush.html?unlocked_article_code=1.RU0.qcHQ.OMOM2nOkSCqy&smid=url-share

Compromise time: he's a (mostly) retired Batman, and we can have a younger actor as Batman Beyond?

Reminds me of what Warren Zevon had to say about rich people problems, off Preludes. It came out a few years after his death, and the back half of the album has snippets from some radio interview(s?) he did. Neat musings by a complex dude: he was creative genius in a lot of ways, and a titanic asshole in a lot of other ways (he asked his ex-wife to write his biography, and to not go easy on him - alcoholism, violence, absentee parenting...it's all there).

Anyway, that's a preface for the folks who don't know about him: he probably could have been a bigger financial success had he not been a disaster of a human, but maybe his dirty life and times gave him enough material to feed his creativity...who knows.

WZ: I was real lucky, because I always had some kind of work that came along - at the last minute, anyway. I was always able to make some kind of living as a musician I also never really got rich, and that might have been lucky too, ya know?

Interviewer: in what way?

WZ: Well, because the less time you spend with the issues of being rich they're like the issues of being famous they're not real issues so they're not real life.

Interviewer: And it leaves more time to be creative?

WZ: There's more of an exchange - a human exchange of ideas and feelings to be had on the bus stop than over the phone with your accountant, and if you're rich you spend a lot of time on the phone with your accountant. it's necessary, I believe. I know I'm happy and that means I must be lucky. That I know.

The "active resistance" bit was also a metaphor. Living one's life surrounded by people who hate core parts of your identity isn't great for maintaining good mental health.

...or you're being punked, take your pick.

unsourced images on a random post in the fediverse

Bottom right of the image literally reads: "List source: whatbidenhasdone.wordpress.com"

The site isn't as thorough with sourcing from there, but they have a blog post with various sources cited, and their twitter account is full of sources for their claims.

If I can barge into this comment chain, the confusion seems to stem from your initial comment.

It’s not really “common sense” though. The Constitution clearly says you have a right to own a gun.

The state can’t then come through and require a permit to own a gun.

It’s a Right, not a “right”*.

Isn't the application of an FFL the state requiring a permit to own a (certain kind of) gun? Likewise, the state telling folks they can or can't own guns just because of a few measly felonies...isn't that against a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment? Doesn't that deny them a "Right"?

We don't disagree: there's a short-sightedness that causes folks to say things like "once the boomers die out, things will be great". There are systemic issues that gauze the greed and fear and violence, and the folks that get swept up in these movements are in large part products of their environment, as we all are.

So we need to change the environment, but otherwise well-meaning folks don't want it to change because they benefit from it, even when they are vaguely aware that there are monsters out there that keep it that way. I'd like to think there's more liberals/moderates who would be allies against fascism if this kind of thing can be communicated in a way that doesn't alienate folks, but I'm also sympathetic to arguments that fiery language is necessary to rattle people out of comfort zones... So in sum, thanks for the good discussion.

Call it pedantry if you want, but the fascists themselves are what truly "makes fascism possible".

Yes, there are plenty of folks have culpability in allowing these fucks gain control, from short-sighted collaborators who just want profit, idiots who think "they can't really be that bad", but there's an extent to which I think we should be careful about victim-blaming well-meaning (but naive) folks who believe that Liberty and Justice will win the day (being misled by whitewashed historical narratives who erase the boots on the ground required to make social and political changes - and the organization necessary to resist the rise of fascists).

I get your point, and clearly (from the paragraph I just typed) agree to an extent - I just think it's reductive to the point of undermining the movements against fascism when "liberals" all get thrown in the same basket.