This is the sort of article I don’t want us to get in the habit of posting here.

“Having more charges filed against Trump would add to Trump’s charges.”

Wow, thanks APnews.

On August 8, Ohioans will vote on Issue One, a ballot measure that would increase the threshold of support required for amendments to be added to the Constitution, raising it from a simple majority to 60 percent of the vote. It’s hard to overlook the connection between Issue One and the proposed amendment on abortion rights, which would grant individuals the right “to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions” with regard to abortion, contraception, miscarriage management, and fertility treatment.

Counterpoint.

The article was clearly referring to American police, and pretending it was referring to the entire history of law enforcement is pedantic to the extreme.

Also, defund the police.

You need to read the actual article, and not just the first line.

Your understanding of what is being discussed is woefully incomplete.

So, I just read the article.

Which line of it “pretends” policing didn’t exist before the American South?

Because I’m not seeing what you’re claiming.

What I don’t want to create is an echo chamber that only permits the views of people I agree with.

I’m confused.

Do you think I was asking for that?

If so, why?

But I happily draw the line at no neo-Nazi or white supremacy sympathizing.

We seem to be in the same ballpark, I just use stronger language about it.

I pretty strongly disagree with that one for this reason.

When it comes to fascists, white supremacists, and their ilk, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people.

Obviously I’m 100% in the camp of “you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people.”

Sadly I joined this conversation late, so we will see if others filter in.

I’m very curious as to what sort of community the fedaverse as a whole has cultivated after the reddit exodus.

My first question is always going to be, what is the moderation policy for Nazi’s/white supremacists/fascists?

Are you adopting a zero tolerance policy for that sort of rabble rousing trash, the iamragesparkle method, or are you going to say your hands are tied unless they blatantly violate the community guidelines?

(transcribed from a series of tweets) - @iamragesparkle

I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, “no. get out.”

And the dude next to me says, “hey i’m not doing anything, i’m a paying customer.” and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, “out. now.” and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed

Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, “you didn’t see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them.”

And i was like, ohok and he continues.

"you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it’s always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don’t want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.

And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it’s too late because they’re entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.

And i was like, ‘oh damn.’ and he said “yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people.”

And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven’t forgotten that at all.

Oh yes, because when I think facts and understanding, I think about painting as many political factions as I can with the same broad strokes.

That’s what nuance looks like, right?

Right?

Really top notch analysis.

Wait, did you write this non sequiter in defense of rebul’s garbage take?

Bingo.

“Just switch to Bluesky or Mastadon” doesn’t work for artists who have spent years building up their customer base on Twitter.

Translation.

Fuck, we can’t pay our server costs.

This isn’t legalization.

There is no government regulation of sex work being done here, this is partial decriminalization, which in the context of sex work means eliminating the crime.

So far, the research suggests that decriminalization is the best model for sex workers and for communities. New Zealand’s model is better than what you see in Amsterdam. Making it legal and regulated just drives sex work “into more covert forms where working routines are negatively impacted” (Vanwesenbeeck, 2017, p. 1634). It’s why when France implemented a Nordic Model, they found that “not only had it failed to reduce demand for sex work, it also failed to impact the incidence of trafficking into prostitution, and it put sex workers at greater risk by increasing the stigma against them” (Östergren, Dodillet, 2011).

But you can’t fix inequality by treating everyone equally.

The people who are already at an advantage will just continue to grow that advantage, while the people at a disadvantage will fall farther and farther behind.

That’s why, despite being found repeatedly to be a form of racial discrimination, affirmative action was previously found to meet the standard of Strict Scrutiny on dozens of occasions. The Supreme Court backtracked on decades of rulings today.

Certainly a better starting place than what we have now.

They should have written a law that explicitly does that then, and not what they did.

Affirmative action is an opportunity, the opportunity to go to a prestigious college.

It’s not equality outcomes.

Equality of outcomes would look like UBI.

Correct.

But you can’t fix inequality by treating everyone equally.

The people who are already at an advantage will just continue to grow that advantage, while the people at a disadvantage will fall farther and farther behind.

That’s why, despite being found repeatedly to be a form of racial discrimination, affirmative action was previously found to meet the standard of Strict Scrutiny on dozens of occasions. The Supreme Court backtracked on decades of rulings today.

You only don’t like context because it, like so many things, is inconvenient to your ideology. Cant’ have things like facts and nuance, no sir.

What’s important is the language these judges are using.

They are pushing back on the reactionary right’s claims that gender affirmative care is scientifically contested, and insisting that the right back their claims.

They can’t, because the right’s claims are bullshit.