alilbee

@alilbee@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

alilbee ,

It's newsweek so probably not, unfortunately. They reference a single Unilever focus group of Hispanic/Latino undecideds. Not sure that's enough to justify this title at all.

alilbee ,

This is so far beyond salmon fishing. This is going to weaken every executive agency we have severely. Congress is broken and they're never going to give piecemeal explicit authority to these agencies for comprehensive work. The EPA, the FTC, the FCC, the SEC, the ATF. They're all damaged and weakened by today's ruling and thus so is our environment, our economy, our utilities, and our regulations. This was the conservative wet dream ruling above almost any other this session. This was the Dobbs-style meat thrown to the educated, more lawful evil Republicans.

Please vote, so we can nominate justices to the Supreme Court. Please help us add another Sotomayor or Jackson instead of an Alito, Thomas, or at this rate, Cannon. Not feeling hopeful right now, but I have to ask.

alilbee ,

Everyone here wants ranked choice. It's just not simple to pass. I do highly recommend that those who are able should push for a ballot initiative in their state and/or campaign for the issue. Do you have any links or resources for those who might be looking to get engaged further in those state-level efforts?

alilbee ,

It's going to be a real spectacle watching what happens to these agencies. This is going to open the floodgates for SCOTUS cases. They're gonna be mighty busy dismantling it all next year.

alilbee ,

Patently untrue at the executive level. Each of the last presidential elections was easily winnable by the other candidate. Even Bush v Gore was avoidable if more people in Florida voted blue. Our elections for representatives are fucked by gerrymandering, but that does not factor into our current Supreme Court who made this decision. Fact of the matter is, if more people would have voted for Hillary (and we all know the tiny margins by now) we would have reproductive rights, empowered federal agencies, and a healthier democracy. We just failed and we need to self-reflect on that instead of just throwing our hands up and saying "rigged" and I would hope after the last few years, everyone can understand why.

alilbee ,

Conspiracy theories, "XINOs", the uni party, "the votes are rigged". Where have I heard all of this before? Oh right, MTG. I'll pass on this populist drivel, thank you. And for fucks sake can we all just let MLK rest in his fucking grave instead of trotting him out for every unrelated argument online?

alilbee ,

That's what populism is. Rule of the uneducated, driven by nothing but passion. It's a legal mob, ripping through the government with pitchforks and torches. I think horseshoe theory is shit, but this is why it exists. Populists don't rule with law, they rule with anger. That's the one time I'll agree with "both sides", even if I'm likely gonna be on the side that would "win" under a populist left gov. If there is anything the last decade has given me, it's a burning displeasure with populists who refuse to measure their passions with law and the ideals behind it.

alilbee ,

If they already had ranked choice, I doubt this would be on the ballot.

alilbee ,

Voters stunned.

Voters pleased with the choice they've made because of their insane religious beliefs. This is the leopard eating the other faces.

alilbee ,

It's both. I've spent plenty of time in Texas and trust me, there are more than plenty voters over the moon about this.

alilbee ,

My condolences. I don't like giving away personal info on these sites, but I lived in a similar environment for a roughly similar period of time. I know how draining it can be and I'm glad it sounds like you escaped like I did.

alilbee , (edited )

We really need an amendment or two around medical care. However, the same problem preventing that is what is causing the need in the first place: Republicans in national and state legislatures. The judiciary sucks right now, but it's really not their job to do anything but evaluate whether this is constitutional and it likely is (in a post-Dobbs world). I'd love to see the right to privacy ruling come back, but that's not happening. All of those assumptions can be changed with dedicated, long-term strategic voting and a bit of luck with justice health. Please vote.

Edit: Somebody replied and I have you blocked. Just don't want you to have to wait for a response. Lemmy should really just hide my comments from you so we don't run into this issue, but such is life.

alilbee ,

The Bible takes place almost entirely in the middle east and I would guess this guy's mental reel of it looks like an Imagine Dragons concert.

alilbee ,

Of course there's a reason? Legislation was passed (the real problem here) and the entire point of the court is to evaluate legislation against our constitution. I agree with every single statement in your last paragraph, but you have to point the blame at the correct place. SCOTUS taking this up is completely legitimate and falls entirely within their role in our government.

The state legislators are infringing on private citizens and their medical care. That's the crime here. Even then, it's important to understand that nothing is off limits to legislators. Even our core rights can be changed by a supermajority in the national congress. Power decides what rights get protected in a society. That's been the recurrent tale of history for all time. We are beyond fortunate to have a sliver of that power and we are failing to use it to stomp these legislators into the dust. That's the crime here, not SCOTUS taking up a case that falls entirely under its jurisdiction and mandate.

alilbee ,

No worries! I'm full of rage on all this nonsense lately too and I've been in that same mode. I'm happy to join with you in November and in the meantime to start to fix this nonsense!

alilbee ,

They withheld the vote on obama’s nominee in order to get a Republican to install them.

Yup, because they had control of the Senate. They were voted in. I'm not denying that Republicans are immoral, unethical scumbags with the intent to power game the system, but we have no tools to fix that in our current system other than overwhelming it. It only gets worse the longer we wait.

There really aren't a lot of other options for the citizenry. You can LARP at revolution or whatever, but I'm not volunteering first and I don't see a lot of others doing so either. I, and a lot of other vulnerable people, are not going to come out on top, so I'll pass on that solution.

Fact of the matter is, we could have elected Hillary in 2016. Sure, there was Republican meddling and Comey and yada yada, but it was fully within our abilities and we failed. The Supreme Court would look entirely different right now and we would still have medical rights. We did flip the senate, so it was fully in play before and then Mitch would not have been able to block the Garland appointment. Those are concrete outcomes from something that was fully possible for us to prevent. So I'm just not comfortable writing off voting as worthless at this stage, even with the acknowledged difficulties, gerrymandering, etc.

alilbee ,

Right, which was in the early 1800s. For better or worse, it's been a major component of their role for 90% of the nation's history. You're right though, I erred in using "entire point".

alilbee ,

All good, friend. I just think this is possible for us to defeat, even at the ballot box. The American people are powerful when they decide to wield their votes for the actual, true betterment of the country and our democracy. I really think we can do this, together.

alilbee ,

To be fair, this was the case in my secular(-ish) public school as well and I believe it was there until the early 2000s. The catholic church has many sins (which Squid did a great job laying out above), but I don't think they, as a group, endorse the concept of corporal punishment like they do with anti-choice practices or the rampant pedophilia. That's a cultural issue with certain regions of the US.

alilbee ,

As someone without skin in this game, I have a clarifying question and you seem willing to discuss. Why is phrenology junk science and evopsych not? What separates the two, for you?

alilbee ,

In your mind, how do you think a phrenologist would respond to that explanation?

alilbee ,

I guess what I'm getting at is: Is there a way you can explain why evopsych is a valid science where phrenology is not, without relying on an argument that a phrenologist would also make? That's a tough set of criteria, but I think it's required.

alilbee ,

Right! So accepted "science" can become pseudoscience once further discoveries are made. I think we all agree on that. The question being debated in this thread, I think, is whether evopsych will also eventually be found to be a pseudoscience. To be clear, I am not proposing we try and guess the future, but to look at the state of the science now and extrapolate that as best we can into the future.

I am a complete lay(wo)man here, so I'm not casting aspersions either way. I would need to do a lot more research for that. I see the other arguments devolving into semantics and rhetoric though instead of focusing on that core conceit.

So you feel any confidence in evopsych as a science? Why or why not? And if those same arguments could be applied to phrenology prior to its official debunking, how valid is that confidence?

alilbee ,

That all works for me. Again, I have no opinion on evopsych itself because I just genuinely know nothing about it. Might read up a bit on the sources from the opposing narratives in the thread if I get time. I don't think you in particular are approaching it from an unscientific or unethical point of view, but it could just be a bit of guilt by association with individuals who are using the topic nefariously. It's not very fair, but it is common and I kinda understand why.

alilbee ,

I've seen you enough Squid to know you're not approaching this in bad faith either, as much as just reacting to what is likely exactly what you say. This is a tough situation because I don't feel that either of you are racist/reactive respectively as much as just sharing info you feel is important. Platforming is weird and nuanced and I do think the other commentor is trying to separate the racist prof from the ideology itself, which could be applied in a non-racist manner. I still think that platforming is open to criticism even if the intent is noble, so that's a valid bone to pick.

Again though, no skin in this game and I have not personally research any of the science or people involved. I just don't want to see what could be a productive argument on a science turn into the rhetoric/semantics debate that online discussions inevitably turn into.

Edit: And also, I'm not trying to approach this from a high and mighty perspective. I just know it's easy to get lost in it when you're passionate. A brief glance at my history would tell you I'm by no means immune to a good internet argument.

alilbee ,

Sure thing, always happy to add to my reading list.

alilbee ,

I think that's a valid take I'd like to see discussion on. For me, I think it's not black and white. Just because of cultural context in the time they lived, I'm certain almost every scientist before 1900 was a raging homophobe and likely racist to boot. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if Darwin and Mendel had problematic beliefs in this same regard. We take the ideas and iterate on them in non-problematic ways to validate the underlying assumptions. Is this guy in the same sort of bucket? Hell if I know.

alilbee ,

Of course, and I agree with that (on faith, because I genuinely don't know who the guy is yet). I've met enough people who are incredibly talented with fucked up views to know that intellect and morality are not as entwined as we might hope. Death of the author, applied to science.

I'm not sure I even agree with this take btw, as much as just finding it a valid one to hold that I would disagree with. It's also fully possible I'm getting invested enough in a hypothetical to the point of being irritating. If so, I do apologize. I'm not trying to provide any sort of moral cover for someone who sounds like an overall shitty person.

alilbee ,

Michael Jackson, Elvis, George Michael, Madonna. Solo artists on that level always generate a fair bit of... extreme fandom, you could say.

alilbee ,

Sure, but music is also one of those subjective things. Hell, I'll even be open and say I never really enjoyed Michael Jackson's music. Even being old enough to know who George Michael is puts our spot in the zeitgeist near the edge, I have to imagine. These big pop stars are also an image of success, celebrity, and youth. That all creates a big stan culture.

alilbee ,

You should stop thinking anything they implement is going to be fair and hurt them in any way. They don't mind being hypocrites at all.

alilbee ,

They just weakened the NLRB in another opinion and when they destroy the Chevron deference principle this year, the NLRB (and a lot of other regulatory agencies like the FDA, EPA, etc) is going to be neutered.

SCOTUS is potentially on the ballot in November. Hope you all vote with reproductive access and labor rights in mind.

alilbee ,

The National Labor Relations Board is the federal agency that is responsible for regulating labor and workers' rights. 15-20 times a year, they use a court injunction to force a company to rehire employees that were fired due to attempted unionization (usually hidden under a BS other reason). The court made it much harder for those injunctions to be granted, meaning unionization efforts are going to be chilled.

The Chevron deference principle refers to a principle stemming from a prior case that effectively defers to federal agencies over courts when there are questions on implicit powers of those agencies. Weakening or destroying this effectively means any power for a federal agency must be explicitly granted in the text of a law, which republicans will never, ever do or allow. This is going to severely undercut the powers of every federal agency we have in varying degrees. Another conservative wet dream.

alilbee ,

I'm just wondering what the supposed benefit of a protest vote even is and how it stacks up against what we lost as a result of 2016? On one hand there's Dobbs, weakening of every federal agency, millions dead from a fumbled pandemic response. On the other, there's... Wait, what is there?

alilbee ,

Not a lawyer either, to be clear. I think your general description holds, but the example wouldn't. Individual drugs would still fall under the explicit granted ability to regulate "drugs" as a whole. I think the injunction power referenced in today's NLRB ruling might be a good example actually, even if they didn't explicitly reject it via this mechanism today.

alilbee ,

A perfect candidate for you is an imperfect candidate for others in the democratic coalition. There is no perfect democratic candidate and we will all have to compromise on as least some levels. Biden has delivered a lot of stellar wins for most democrats and even the side of the party further to the left. Our largest unifying belief right now is in defeating fascism at home. We cannot pursue purity at the expense of progress.

alilbee , (edited )

They. Cannot. Do. This. Legislators cannot just wake up really motivated one day and enshrine reproductive rights. They need numbers, and we have to give it to them for that to happen. There's no alternative, no magical ideal route just waiting for the perfect congress person. Republicans will pull out all the stops on this, so you need a filibuster-proof majority. Give the Dems that and you'll get reproductive rights.

4 months (with a flimsy proper majority due to Lieberman) gave us the ACA, one of the most impactful pieces of legislation regarding healthcare the country has ever seen. We need to vote in large numbers to achieve our political ends.

alilbee ,

I'm really, really worried about it. The FDA is going to lose powers it uses to ensure our food and medicine isn't killing us. The EPA is going to effectively be an advisory agency after this. The FTC looked like it might be back in business this admin, and it's going to be neutered. I'm not even explicitly opposed to this if our legislative branch wasn't inept and/or captured, but... we all know it is and it's not getting better soon.

Hopefully they kill the FDA and all drink raw milk to death, idk.

alilbee ,

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/7aee5e98-76f2-4742-87b4-ac0aeefab71f.jpeg

alilbee ,

And I hate guns and would happily amend the second out of the constitution. I'm sure we both have our reasons behind our beliefs and I respect yours, truly (I only bring this up to illustrate our differences btw, not trying to start a spat). I have my own objections to some Dem candidates and policies, certainly. I love you all though, because we are allies in a much more critical endeavor than any wedge issue: the continuation of our freedom and basic democratic norms. I just don't feel that it's hard to compromise this way and it's the clear path to victory, even for the more divisive issues you care about.

alilbee ,

They had 4 months. And they passed the ACA.

alilbee , (edited )

Can you give me an example of a law steam rolled into place by Republicans in the way you describe? Should be easy.

Edit: Any of the downvoting cowards can feel free to chime in with the republican-passed laws that they shoved past the democratic attempts to stop them. I'll wait!

alilbee ,

Right so you have no idea how our government works. I ask for laws and I get SCOTUS. You view it that way because it is all one big number in your head shifting back and forth, because you have no civics education. It's sad.

alilbee ,

Almost everything listed is an executive order. Democrats cannot stop those (other than at the ballot box). Try again. L-A-W. It's a bill, passed by both chambers of Congress, signed by the president. Like the Affordable Care Act, the Inflation Reduction Act? Can you give me a single one? Hell, I even left the doors wide open to give me the fucking omnibus from each year and you couldn't even do that. Know why? Because you have no idea how your government works.

alilbee ,

hasn't done really any good.

My partner was able to have a surgery this year she would not have been able to otherwise. She got medications she never would have been able to afford. Sure looks like a bunch of good from over here, but maybe I'm biased. Maybe we can ask them?

alilbee , (edited )

Edit: Yknow what, fuck it. Let's just call it. You're trying to de-escalate and I should let that happen. Have a good one.

alilbee ,

I've seen it mentioned by quite a few democratic candidates and politicians. Did you have somewhere specific you think it should have been posted or talked about?

alilbee ,

And we got the ACA, one of the most positive, transformative laws of the last two decades. Did it go as far as we wanted? Nope, but it has changed lives for the better across the country. 4 months.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •