This seems like the worst of both worlds — we still get massive suburban sprawl that prevents walkable cities and the density needed for good public transport, but without the perks of a larger house.
Having read this the other day, it seems the lots for them are smaller so it’s still better than typical suburban sprawl, but yeah not by very much. It’s like duplexes, just without the shared walls.
At the same time, I totally understand the logic of the buyers. Condos and apartments really aren’t the same as having your own property that nobody really has say over but you. You can’t make big changes to a condo without approval of the building owner or whatever even though you “own it”, you share walls, and have no yard.
It’s just one more piece to the puzzle, it’s not meant to be -the-solution, just one of many.
Condos and apartments really aren’t the same as having your own property that nobody really has say over but you.
For a normal-sized lot, I agree — but based on the photo in the article, the lot is basically nonexistent. There’s barely enough room for a lawn chair. This feels more like wanting the outward trappings of a detached house without any of the tangible benefits.
If they had gone for proper rowhouses, they could’ve increased the size of the homes and kept the back yards, all for the price of sharing a wall with your neighbors’ houses. Or maybe not even that, as there are rowhouses that have individual walls separated by a few inches while all sharing the same foundation.
I’d definitely prefer that, personally, but I think that would be a tough sell in most of the US at this particular point in society. Especially when most construction of new homes isn’t really urban so people don’t feel the space confinement the way they would in a more urban setting (they just look past the row homes and go “well that field could be housing so I don’t want this”), and with the sprawling layout of suburbs, they would feel super out of place to the point where I bet NIMBY mentality would prevent it.
Perhaps if that was a more normal option here, but it’s pretty uncommon for now.
I agree, but I was surprised to see on the Wikipedia article for townhouses/rowhouses examples of what are apparently recent suburb developments of townhouses in the US. Things might finally be shifting back to some semblance of logic. Though, developments like the one in the article are valid evidence to the contrary…
That would be great! I’d love to be wrong about this one.
I really dislike the “shove them in smaller boxes” idea this seems to have to it, similar to the tiny house “movement” (which actively makes me uncomfortable for a variety of reasons), but in areas that don’t have basements or whatever, where it’s a house on a slab no matter how big, where people just have this “must have freestanding structure to fully own it” mentality (which in a lot of cases is legit, but if we planned for it could easily be handled). This is an option.
Just my own curiosity, and you seem fun to talk to; where you are from, are your foundations accessible spaces, or are you in a slab foundation swampy area? I ask because I’m from a “has basements” area, where the foundation of the house actually adds space to it. I assume most row houses have basement spaces, because you tend to find them in densely populated areas that existed before modern conveniences like refrigeration and roads. So maybe you’d need a basement to store preserved goods. I doubt there’s space on average to have that in the main space right? (Legit asking, idk, maybe space isn’t right, but root cellars have different conditions, cooler.)
But I lived down in Texas for a while and a lot of their land you can’t build basements on because it’s really flood prone, so it’s literally just floating concrete slabs on land with houses atop. Honestly if you are going to put houses on that, you might as well do it this way and maximize the space between them with native shade plants to use up the moisture.
I’m in Massachusetts, and we kinda have a mix of everything. I live in a condo on a concrete slab that was built in the 70s as a neighborhood of duplexes rather than what people think of today when they think of condos, while my parents’ house has an unfinished, root cellar style basement in a flood zone, and a friend of mine recently moved back into his mom’s furnished basement a stone’s throw from where I live. There’s a house near my parents that even had to put their front lawn up several feet with a concrete foundation so that they could put in the septic system above the aquifer.
As for rowhouses, I don’t know much about them, but I assume that they’re usually on a slab with no basement because they usually have 2 households in them with 2 separate entrances for them. The more fancy townhouses you see, like the brownstones in NYC or the ones in Boston, might have basements since they were built for the wealthy and are single family homes that even had servant’s quarters, but I’ve never been in one to see. There’s a cool section of Boston with townhouses that was originally built to attract the wealthy, and there’s streets behind the buildings simply named Alley #1, Alley #2, etc. because they were only built to allow the servants to move out of sight of the wealthy.
Understandable, but they could’ve built detached rowhouses and got like 50% more space by getting rid of those gates to the backyard and building up to the edge of the lots. And if developers didn’t cheap out on the construction (asking for a lot, I know), it wouldn’t be an issue anyways. I live in a condo that’s a duplex built in the 70s and I hear people out on the street, noise from a nearby construction yard, and gunfire at the range a quarter mile from here far more often than I hear my neighbor.
These are some of the kinds of things your neighbor can do that will affect your life or your property when you share a wall. Even 6 feet or a couple of meters separation between houses can save you from every single one of the things I listed above.
Yes, except these have none of the advantages of townhouses (higher density, lower construction cost) and to make up for the cost of those shortcomings they are far smaller than a typical townhouse. These houses are the residential version of Elon’s Hyperloop — something that looks cool at fist glance but gets increasingly nonsensical the more you think about it.
Zoning laws aren’t the only thing holding back these things. Their just a tool used to create literal divisions between classes. Areas can remove our change zoning until the cows come home. But without the political and financial will to create environmentally sound, affordable, and community focused housing all you’ll get is the exact opposite of your original goal.
That would have to be negotiated in the Police Union contracts. Same reason they can’t fire pedo teachers immediately, they are contractually obligated to keep paying them until they are investigated or found guilty.
Most of these cops “retire” to end the internal investigation and keep their benefits, then decide to “unretire”, and get hired in the next town with a clean record.
The police have one of the strongest unions in America, and almost no one bats an eye. But let Starbucks employees try to unionize and you’ll hear how greedy and corrupt unions are.
Most of these cops “retire” to end the internal investigation and keep their benefits, then decide to “unretire”, and get hired in the next town with a clean record.
This is honestly the only real problem imo. I get sometimes it’s a pretty obvious case, but we do still have due process and they deserve their time in court, no matter how shit they are.
If they couldn’t investigate themselves and the investigations didn’t just end when they quit, we’d be in a much better place.
You made that sound really goofy by saying birth date.
They go by year born and not date born. So right now for instance, you’re at 100 years if you were born in 1924, regardless of if you’ve had your birthday yet.
We’re a small town, I’m not really surprised. But be happy you don’t have to hear all of the conspiracy theories about the shooting that happened a mile from you, its maddening.
After people went through his social media, there were hints he may have been leaning towards coming out as trans. News then went quiet about this one.
He would have been able to speak, but decided not to when he realized there would be rules and he couldn’t bring in irrelevant facts and outright lies.
It was a win-win for him really. If he DID get to testify he could spout his usual “witch hunt” bullshit and fund-raise off it. Since he can’t, as your pointed out, he can claim he’s being silenced and fund-raise off that instead.
The thing is, he wasn’t trying to testify. Instead he was trying to deliver a closing argument. But the judge said closing arguments can’t be used to raise new evidence or discuss anything not already covered in evidence in the case. So he couldn’t just stand up there and spout a bunch of bullshit.
He chose not to testify in the trial. That was his chance to make his case. He made that decision long ago because cross examination would have destroyed his claims.
Closing arguments are a summary of your position, nothing more, and clearly he was going to try to use it as a soapbox, again.
Closing arguments are where Hitler ranted for literal hours about being super-patriotic and insanely antisemitic, and it won him more followers and more loyal followers. Thank fuck Trump won’t get that same opportunity in the courtroom.
I wish they’d required him to endure cross-examination… I’d love to see a competent lawyer dismantle his entire baloney-sandwich machine in front of his followers.
He can say anything he wants as he watches his assets be seized and his business be dismantled. This law was set up specifically to catch people like Trump that would slip through the laws normally used to prosecute the mafia.
I said it in his last special, a comedian doesn’t punch down. Apparently he heard this criticism from others and decided to double down. He’s truly become a piece of shit of a guy and I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s jumped on the Maga train.
“Punching down” also indicates that he thinks he’s somehow on a different level from them. So, it should mean, for example, that he’s making fun of comedians who are less successful than him. Or maybe it means he’s making fun of people who have less money than him.
But, there’s likely a trans person out there who has more money than him, so what does he actually mean? He’s the one quoted in this special as saying “I love punching down!” Those are his words that he chose. Is he saying that he’s inherently better than a trans person or a disabled person?
It used to be popular for white people to think they were inherently better than black people. Talk about a lack of perspective.
Just a heads up, punching down is a term used in the comedy world. It’s more like, telling a dumb joke that’s easy. It’s an easy win that most people will laugh at, rather than creating humor using actual skill.
Just a heads up, ‘punching down’ means ‘To attack or criticize someone in a less powerful position’. That’s the definition. It’s not limited to the comedy world.
OR, ya’ll are missing the joke entirely, in that he doesn’t think he’s ‘punching down’… nore is he making fun of who you think he is.
In fact, the joke is at the expense of people like those in this thread who are getting bent out of shape taking words out of context. It was tailor made to upset YOU, specifically. YOU, and your unnecessary outrage, are the butt of the joke. He’s mocking those who go overboard with the virtue signaling, and you all here are taking the bait hook, line & sinker.
There is a problem right now with self elected ‘thought police’ trying to remove all discourse, and that is VERY unhealthy for a liberal society. Totalitarianism is not healthy, no matter what your motivation is. Sacred cows are ALWAYS something to be targeted by comedy & satire, and the left wing totalitarianist word/thought police are very much a valid target, every bit as much as the MAGA idiots. For society as a whole, they are equally as dangerous, the end goal is the same but with different underlying motivations.
That being said, the special was lackluster. It felt like he was contractually obligated to give Netflix another special by the end of 2023 but didn’t have enough material yet & even what he had wasn’t very polished.
You’ve set off my 1984 alarm: Never use the term, “thought police” in reference to private individuals making decisions about others actions. If you actually read 1984 (it’s a short book and easy to find online, go read it) the Thought Police were part of the government. As in, policing people’s thoughts was a function of the government (in order to maintain the status quo, avoiding change aka extreme conservativism).
Here, you’re referring to a collection of people that have decided–on their own–to boycott a comedian because they don’t like where he stands on certain topics. That’s not Thought Police! Call them snowflakes or “too sensitive” or “hysterical” or some other bullshit (don’t care, really) but please for the love of Orwell stop using that term to refer to non-governmental entities or the actions of people that aren’t part of any authority.
When the government starts cracking down on people’s speech then by all means refer to this action as, “Thought Police”.
Don’t believe they aren’t aware that they’re hypocritical.
I have heard the 1982 argument numerous times from people that support banning books.
These strategies have been used for ages
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Wow, it usually takes some knowledge about a subject to come to a conclusion like that.
But you came to that conclusion without any knowledge at all.
Just like most of these comments about Dave Chappelle’s latest standup.
Pretty on brand of you to form an ignorant and severely judgemental conclusion based on little to no information at all.
You sound like an American Republican.
Wow, why are you so angry? Are you trying to cancel me for my free speech? I’m just making a joke! Can’t say anything these days without the snowflakes getting riled up. SMH.
You can’t even make a real argument, and just use sarcasm and personal attacks.
Be angry at me all you want.
But next time you see such an obviously baiting headline, like this “article”… ask yourself if it’s a real article or just clickbait that wants to trick you into scrolling through 40 ads to read something that doesn’t expand on the headline AT ALL.
And then wonder if there is a lot of “news” floating out there meant to make you angry just so you drive traffic to the source.
If you question this kind of nonsense even once, moving forward, then these last 10 minutes was well worth the effort.
When I tell someone to shut the fuck up I’m merely expressing my own right to free speech, I’m not taking away someone else’s right to speak! How is that “thought police”? They are still free to ignore me, they just have to deal with the fact that I disprove.
And that’s what babies like this are really mad about. Baby can’t stand the thought that people don’t like him!
I’m also free to not watch his special, not give him money, and tell other people to do the same. And baby doesn’t like that!
This represents a common issue in the discourse. Conservatives tend to use a group of people to try and score points against leftists, liberals people NOT a part of the minority while using the minority as nothing more than a weapon. It doesn’t matter how much we get banged up. In this case it’s cis people using the existence and expressed needs of trans people to try and discredit other cis people while misrepresenting the needs and causes of trans people. We are not bullets to be fired at our own defenders.
You think no trans people are made to feel alienated by this? That in the shockwave following another bombing run we don’t get to hear variations of this rhetoric in our workplaces and get to feel like we need to chose between our mental health and the precarity of keeping food on the table? That people won’t feel empowered to come at us with new fodder to make us to routinely have to defend ourselves against whatever transphobic nonsense is getting panned as a “dig against the libs”? We fight for rights to actually live in our bodies with a mental load out that is hard for cis people to comprehend at a basic level and that gets represented as high humor by someone who very obviously hasn’t got a clue during a time when we are under political fire and human rights campaigns have labelled the USA actively hostile to trans people. It’s beyond poor taste, it’s preaching to the ignorance and intolerance of people directly.
That’s a separate issue. That’s a contractual issue. We’re talking in terms of speech here. Because this whole ‘thought police’ thing sure makes it sound like his rights are somehow being violated if he doesn’t have a Netflix special.
I’d think that trans people would feel more alienated by being treated with like they, unlike other people, are too fragile to handle being the butt of a joke.
There is definitely trans friendly humour that can see us be the willing butt of the joke… But representing us as “just pretending” or appealing to the squeamishness of cis people about our potential medical choices or making open commentary on our genetalia or coping strategies isn’t exactly humour we can laugh along with when we face that shit from people regularly and have to either pretend it doesn’t bother us or ask people to drop it just to move on with our day.
For you it’s a novelty, for us it’s fucking routine annoyance. People want to confront us to have these conversations about how we’re weird or wrong or liars with us over and over again and repeat like mindless parrots idiotic shit people believe about us that is patently false and then have the gall to wonder why we dislike them for it.
Chappelle wants to make believe he’s saying the taboo things that people are forcibly restrained from saying to our faces… But we hear this shit from family members and friends we have to let go of and coworkers and random idiots who corner us in public. But when we ask people to please for the love of god just STOP they get offended and wheel out the “you can’t tell me what to do!” and the "you’re so fragile! "
We aren’t fragile, we’re just tired of your stale bullshit.
There is a problem right now with self elected ‘thought police’ trying to remove all discourse, and that is VERY unhealthy for a liberal society.
Is Dave Chapelle entitled to a Netflix special? Does he have a right to a Netflix special? Is not letting him have a Netflix special taking away his basic free speech rights?
Harshly criticizing a powerful group or system (punching up) is considered fair social critique. Harshly criticizing a group or system that is already vulnerable (punching down) is just bullying. It’s not about feeling superior in this context, it’s just about someone with a huge platform using it to put down people who already have a harder life than they need to.
No, it’s about people with too much time on their hands and no ambition to fight any real cause being able to pretend like they’re doing something that matters.
Pretty sure the whole punching down thing comes from a story he told in one of these netflix specials where a trans woman in a bar told him she likes his comedy but that he needs to stop punching down against her people. He got all indignant about it and tried explaining that it’s not punching down because he’s black. His logic being that black people are so far down the totem pole it’s impossible for any one of them to “punch down” against a different marginalized group.
Him using the phrase now comes across more to me as him reveling in the position that he’s, in his mind, been mischaracterized into by the trans community. And less so him actually believing he’s better than anyone.
Still not at all a good look. And he’s definitely an asshole. The fact that he’s still fixated on this one perceived slight that happened to him several years ago should tell you all you need to know about him. My dude has produced multiple Netflix comedy specials focused on getting back at a community he feels wronged by because a woman said something to him once in a bar that he didn’t like.
He’s obviously making fun of the people who have nothing better to do than clutch their pearls over the jokes that comedians make. The whole “punching up” and “punching down” thing is idiocy invented for people to harvest more likes on social media by pretending they’re fighting some social justice cause.
I said it in his last special, a comedian doesn’t punch down. Apparently he heard this criticism from others and decided to double down. He’s truly become a piece of shit of a guy and I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s jumped on the Maga train.
it’s essential to consider the broader context of oppression when discussing the dynamics of ‘punching up’ or ‘punching down’ in comedy. historically, black people have faced systemic oppression, which continues to impact their lives in various ways. this systemic oppression isn’t just about individual experiences of racism but also about the overarching power structures that disproportionately affect black communities.
when a black comedian addresses topics related to race, they are often speaking from a place of personal and collective experience with these systemic issues. their humor might be a way to cope with or highlight the absurdities and injustices of these systems. therefore, even when their jokes might seem to target groups traditionally seen as more powerful, it’s not the same as ‘punching down.’ ‘punching down’ implies attacking those who are less powerful or oppressed, and given the historical and ongoing context of racial oppression, a black comedian making jokes about race or related societal structures isn’t an act of punching down but rather a form of social commentary or critique.
In November 2022, McCormick noticed a news report detailing an "unauthorized and unlicensed cannabis farm, located on unincorporated land," that was raided by members of the Riverside County Sheriff's Office. McCormick then met with members of the sheriff's office to provide paperwork showing the legality of his cannabis farm.
At around 4:30 a.m. local time on December 7, McCormick was woken up by members of the sheriff's office as they began their raid.
Fuck! He proactively went to show his legal status and all that did was put himself on their radar.
However, the sheriff's office was informed by members of the tribe that they were not authorized to conduct the raid on their land. In turn, members of the sheriff's office said the tribal members "didn't know what they were talking about," the lawsuit said.
Much of McCormick's property and cannabis plants were destroyed during the raid and officers confiscated $300,000 from the tribe's safe.
Outright theft. They had no jurisdiction and didn't care that they didn't.
Additionally, the lawsuit said that on January 8, 2023, McCormick's "family home 'mysteriously' caught fire, after the sheriff's office ordered power and water to his property to be turned off, resulting in the home "being completely burned down," along with much of his personal belongings.
Why would the water be shut off?! Goddamnit. Every part of this article is infuriating, nothing about this was law enforcement, just armed thugs raiding locals for fun and profit.
Oh Jesus christ they didn’t even put the worst parts anywhere near the title. They didn’t just have a pizza party, they celebrated the destruction of a man’s property on land they weren’t allowed to police on, LEFT THE BOXES, and then engaged in a little bit of freelance arsonry (or aided arsonry). Fuck me
To the cops involved, it was probably their annual work party. Bastards stole his money and burnt his shit down for morale and their mutual holiday cheer.
Wolves need to be reintroduced in many parts of the U.S. Here in Indiana, hunters have to keep the deer population down and even they can’t do a good enough job. Other states have even bigger problems with feral hogs. Wolves are essentially no threat to humans but there’s always scaremongering.
Meanwhile, these ranchers are throwing a shit fit about TEN WOLVES.
Probably not because those won’t affect their bottom line as much. Wolves harass cattle herds and run the weight off of them, requiring more workers to protect the herd and also reducing sale price. With wolves reintroduced, the price of beef will increase.
That being said, we definitely still should reintroduce them, they have so many positive effects on the environment. Even if not reintroduced, it won’t be long before the wolves in Wyoming start making their way down anyway.
“About…. 5 bucks a pound. These idiots will be pissed at the wolves and we’ll have record breaking profits! Like the Egg industry.”- Big Beef, certainly
Speaking of reintroducing species- It’s too bad we can’t convince America (who I doubt we can convince to get off meat entirely in the foreseeable future) to switch from cattle to bison. Not only would it put the fauna we replaced back where it’s supposed to be, I just think it tastes better. You can usually only get it at local places for a premium, but back when I ate meat, it was definitely worth going out of my way for a buffalo burger.
It can’t be that difficult to farm them, because I drive by a pretty sizable (but still clearly owned by one family) bison ranch on the way to my mother’s house on a fairly regular basis and they seem to be doing fine on the same pasture I see the cows grazing on nearby. If anything, there are more bison per square footage than cows and the bison don’t seem to be suffering. Considering they used to be in herds so huge that indigenous Americans would regularly stampede them off of cliffs for their meat and have plenty left to do it again, I’m guessing they can be farmed in greater density.
Bison are quite a lot less feed efficient and a fucking pain in the ass to work with since you can’t get in with them like cattle, or work with horses. Treating them when they’re sick is a good way to get hurt or killed.
But yah, it tastes better. So does elk, but that’s another species that’s better left wild.
I farm right next to (within 10km) pristine forest stretching for a few thousand km in a couple directions. I’ve seen plenty of wolves, but they never really come into the farming areas, and even if they do, the cattle aren’t very concerned. You have a couple hundred head together in a field, they aren’t worried about wolves, cougar or coyotes. They’d stomp them into a paste.
We have neighbors that bitch and moan about the coyotes “killing calves”. I’ve seen plenty of coyotes chewing on dead calves, but I feel it’s pretty unlikely to have been them that killed it, they’re just cleaning up a late miscarriage that might have walked around for a while looking for a place to die. It’s almost always calves I’ve looked at and thought they weren’t going to last long.
And there are more than enough deer, moose and elk around for these predators to go after that they would much rather take anyway, rather than risk an angry bunch of momma cows mopping them up.
Frankly, if the price of having a healthy wildlife population means losing a few sick calves to them and a couple tonnes of grain to deer, I’m fine with it. That ecosystem benefits us in a lot of ways.
Interesting. Maybe the reason so many ranchers complain to the Wyoming Game and Fish is so they can get damage payouts. Perhaps they’re over exaggerating the issue.
Maybe it’s a very small amount of people complaining and the story is being made about them, and not the thousands of other ranchers that don’t give a fuck.
the price of beef won’t increase because of this. The meat packing companies set the price that they’ll buy beef. they also set the price that they sell beef. they’ve been keeping their buying price down and increasing their selling price. it’s a fucking racket. Don’t let anybody sell you the idea that supply and demand effects this.
Just caught someone raising some kind of live stock (prolly dairy cows,) talking about the deer problem here in MN- getting into her feed by the hundreds (perhaps an exaggeration on her part.)
It definitely is cutting into her bottom line…. She wants the DNR to kill the deer because it’s too expensive to put up fencing around her feed pile. (Yeah, they had to fill that part in… is the interviewee probably realized she was pushing it already.)
I’m not pushing for one side or the other but you should really look at the costs for deer-proof fencing. It’s not just setting up some barbed wire lines like it is ranch animals
Even if not reintroduced, it won’t be long before the wolves in Wyoming start making their way down anyway.
They already have. It’s not been publicly acknowledged because there are powerful land-use interests that want us to believe that they are only shooting “coyotes.”
That said, the cheapest and most effective way to protect herds is with dogs. They’ve been doing it in Europe and parts of Asia for thousands of years, so it’s not as if the knowledge isn’t out there. It’s what your giant breeds like mastiffs, great Pyrenees and Anatolian shepherds and the like we’re originally bred for.
No, they convince rich assholes to spend $3,000 to shoot a hog on their land.
It’s a huge problem here in Texas where hogs are destroying everything, but all the ranchers are leaning that charging people to hunt his on their land brings in more money than the damage the hogs cause.
So much for that whole "doctors are simply being overly paranoid in administering justified abortions - we never intended the law to work this way!" talking point thing they were doing. Here we have a woman whom both doctors and judges agree should be able to get an abortion, yet they're like "oh, well, no, that doesn't qualify!"
And this woman also WANTS to have the baby. She and her husband were trying to get pregnant. Unfortunately, the fetus has abnormalities that mean it won’t survive. Without an abortion, she will need to wait until she hits term, have a C Section, and then have a dead baby.
Oh, and thanks to her medical history, she’ll likely be unable to have another pregnancy after that C-section. So it’s either give birth to a dead baby now and have no more or have an abortion now and (after she recovers) try to have another baby. Only one of these options might result in a baby that’s alive and it’s the option that includes abortion.
But Paxton will scream about how he’s “protecting the unborn baby” without caring that the fetus has a nearly zero chance of survival and without caring that the woman faces potential severe (possibly life threatening) medical complications if she’s forced to continue the pregnancy. He’ll force women to carry pregnancies to term even if it kills them!
My only surprise is that this kind of scenario came up so fast. I expected years of matricide before all the right spines aligned.
Roe was passed in the courtroom on privacy - which another future court can still make a solid case for - but it was sold to the people as protecting women. Abortion is going to happen, that’s the hard truth. How many women, and girls, have to needlessly die? That’s just future mothers being removed from the field. Population goes down when abortion is outlawed, because girls will travel, or take it into their own hands. There isn’t some mythical white baby boom. There is, however, a marked decline in crime starting ~20 years after Roe was passed. Cuz all the unwanted children weren’t born and raised being reminded that they’re unwanted their whole life.
I’m not a fan of abortion as elective birth control, but I can acknowledge when my opinions would make terrible policy. The “irresponsible” women who couldn’t stick to a pill a day, or re-up on her implant appropriately, if she can’t handle that, do we want her to raise children?
That’s rhetorical. The answer doesn’t matter. It’s the implied reasoning that’s the point.
In my humble opinion, Paxton can’t leave this planet fast enough, Texas needs to go blue, and Republicans can prattle on and on on Fox news until they become a meme, the face of white fragility.
I’d love to see abortions be safe, legal, and rare. If people want to reduce how many abortions occur, they should find out why women get abortions and then figure out ways to help women so that they aren’t in those situations.
For example, if women are getting pregnant and resorting to abortion as “birth control,” then give better sex education and make contraceptives as affordable and available as possible.
Sadly, the right seems to want to make it so more women NEED abortions while less have access to them. Using birth control again, they like pushing abstinence only sex education (which doesn’t work) while restricting access to birth control. Some have even been calling for making birth control illegal!
Way more dangerously: those white old blokes honestly think that their opinion should have any weight when a judge has told them it hasn't and a doctor has told them the facts.
Republicans are selling some delusion they have (or lie if they know better) that there’s a magical moment a doctor can 100% determine whether or not someone will live or die at that exact point if they do or don’t get an abortion. Doctors mitigate risk whenever possible, you can’t wait until things are a total catastrophe and then expect doctors to be able to rescue a patient from it unscathed. It’s just not how medicine works, it’s probabilistic. There’s no way you can write a law about this that will accurately capture all situations, any law limiting the ability of doctors to perform abortions will hurt people in the end. Government needs to keep itself out of the doctors office and let patients make these difficult decisions with the help of their doctor.
That’s the problem when they look at the world in black and white. In medicine doctors are dealing with complex systems, using limited information, and leaning on statistics both for the likely diagnosis and the proper treatment.
For the love of god, can we stop treating everything he does like it’s news? Let him be a shitty person in some dark corner, don’t feed his ego by putting him in headlines.
It’s not a bad thing that more people realize that he’s not actually a super genius that’s trying to save teh world, but a giant piece of shit. If you don’t like reading about what a shit head he is make a filter or something.
He’s also super-effective at dismissing the notion that billionaires earned what they have, and the concept of meritocraty under capitalism - he’s clearly far too stupid to be worthy.
Hard disagree. It would be one thing if he was just off in his corner by himself being a terrible person, but he’s very much always in the limelight and has a whole cult of personality worshipping the ground he walks on. We need articles like this as a counter to all the ass-kissing going on.
He’s always in the limelight because of these “news” articles, not in spite of them. Can we not collectively decide to ignore him and let him die in irrelevance?
The cult of personality thing is the big part IMO. If it was just him being a piece of shit without any influence, then whatever. But he has a cult following that are influenced by him and his actions (plus Twitter seems now designed to push his thoughts). It’s important that the vast majority of people understand that Musk is an idiot and a piece of shit. It needs to be lame and gross to like him.
I really don’t understand this constant complaint that comes up whenever a news story about Musk is posted. Of course it is newsworthy that the (once) richest man on Earth is doing this, and providing news about what these billionaire oligarchs are up to is definitely part of a relevant newsfeed.
Keeping their actions in the dark only helps normalising their existence and behaviour.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.