effingjoe

effingjoe, 9 months ago

Because people keep voting for them, or they simply run unopposed.

effingjoe, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

A federal government being willing to enforce the law Reconstruction style and send in federal troops to effect the arrest of these traitors and the unconditional surrender of their government. Anything less is just giving the anti-democratic forces time to get stronger and chip away at more of our society.

At first I was writing a comment to say the Posse Comitatus Act wouldn't allow this, but it seems like the Insurrection Act of 1807 is an exception, and would apply in this instance.

Specifically:

10 U.S. Code § 253 - Interference with State and Federal law

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1)so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2)opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

Edit: I feel compelled to point out that we're not here yet, because the SCOTUS order has a review process for the new voting maps, and if a judge rejects them, the judge can authorize a third party to draw the maps for Alabama. If the Alabama government rejects those third-party maps, then shit gets real.

effingjoe, 10 months ago

I feel like Spez doesn't give two tiny rat shits about anything but the fact that this counts as more engagement, which he can leverage to call Reddit more valuable.

It should be one giant fediverse ad.

effingjoe, 10 months ago

I think many of us are using reverse proxies, and opening port 443 (https) and maybe port 80 (http).

effingjoe, 10 months ago

A demographic notoriously known for being well informed. /s

effingjoe, 10 months ago

I don’t see any detriment to giving trans people their own space where they can be comfortable and let everyone else be comfortable too

I am confident you don't realize the full implications of what you're saying, so please don't take this as an attack, but would you also support "black only" restrooms for this exact same reason? If not, why not?

effingjoe, 10 months ago

Right? I've been using public restrooms for a long time and I don't recall ever seeing anyone's naughty bits.

..and for me the most ridiculous part of this discussion is that bathrooms have never been a secure space. If some creep wanted to go into a bathroom to harass people, there is literally nothing stopping them. It's not like bathrooms have guarded entrances and now people have a sneaky way to get into a bathroom by pretending to be transgender or something insane like that.

It's literally a manufactured issue to get the GOP electorate terrified, as everything they do is designed to do.

effingjoe, 10 months ago

In places with large crowds, gender neutral bathrooms (assuming you also mean single-use) don't really work. It causes massive lines.

Not to mention, there's no need. It's a bathroom. Why does anyone care who they pee or poop next to? It seems so silly and arbitrary to me. Just get in, do your thing, wash your hands, and get out. haha

effingjoe, 10 months ago

and it's worth mentioning that there is no genital check before entering a bathroom. An "anti-trans bathroom" law would likely also get wielded against masculine women and effeminate men who are not transgender.

None of it makes any sense when you take 30 seconds to consider it.

effingjoe, 10 months ago

This line of attack against LLMs seems just foolish. The data was put into the public for public consumption. There is no right to control whether the data is used to train something; that's just something people are making up.

effingjoe, 10 months ago

and honestly, businesses too. There is opportunity here in the business sector, I think.

effingjoe, 10 months ago

It is like that already, but try, if you can, to imagine how bad it will get if the incentive isn't fake internet points, but actual money.

effingjoe, 10 months ago

What could go wrong with giving a democratic government the power to strip voting rights from those people they deem unsuitable to vote on how they are governed? /s

effingjoe, 10 months ago

I never was much of a Twitter user (and if we're being honest, that carried over to Mastodon) but after about 30 seconds on Threads I hated being bombarded with posts from people I didn't know or care to know desperately trying to attract followers on the new platform. Threads is (unsurprisingly) making itself into a clone of late-stage Twitter, instead of Twitter back in the day. Hard pass

effingjoe, 10 months ago

Saying those things before having any data to back them up was indeed anti-science.

effingjoe, 10 months ago

I don't mind those so much-- for me it's more annoying when they assume their instance/platform is the only one; for example, "How do you cross post" or "should we implement so-and-so feature?" without mentioning the platform being discussed. It's simple enough to determine what instance/platform the user is from, but it's still a little annoying.

effingjoe, 10 months ago

When you're discussing traits inherent to a person-- not things they do or believe, but things they are, it's almost certainly hate speech. A quick test would be to swap the inherent thing you're talking about with skin color, since that one seems obvious to most people. So, would you say that an opinion that you support people of color, you just don't support them playing sports with people that aren't POC, be nuanced opinion or hate speech?

As for your second hypothetical, that is a discussion for doctors and experts, and they've already had it, and that's why children can't get non-reversible procedures until they're 18. No one is transitioning children; they are blocking their development so they can have a choice on how to proceed when they're adults.

effingjoe, 11 months ago

Only to add some clarification: reddark is only showing you the list of subs that announced they'd go dark versus the amount of those subs that have gone dark.

The exact number is hard to pin down, but reddit claims to have "100k+" active communities.

So 60% of the subs that said they'd go dark are still dark.

effingjoe, 11 months ago

We can't tell if you're wrong because you didn't do anything but assert a stance. That's what he meant my "low effort". Show your work.

effingjoe, 11 months ago

I can't find it anymore, so feel free to take what I say with a grain of salt, but last week they had a post explaining that they considered criticism of the Chinese government racism and a bannable offense.

It's a little more than just not banning people who like Stalin.

Lemmy as a software may be fine, if forked and maintained by someone else, but for now I think it's best to avoid the software in general, or barring that, at least the lemmy.ml (et al) instance.