Trickle down economics, as a theory, has been around well over 100 years, and it’s never been believed in by everybody. Hell, a presidential candidate gave a speech against the idea in 1896

You’re correct about misinformation having been around forever, but access to and ease to create misinformation is greater than ever before thanks to the Internet.

The author assumes the Court doesn’t understand the consequences of what it’s doing, but I really don’t think that’s a reasonable assumption. It’s entirely possible they know exactly what they’re doing.

Democrats are not “so called progressives”.

Some progressives are Democrats, but not all Democrats are progressives. Most Democrats are not progressives, in fact. Things make a little more sense once you accept that.

But only a little.

IMO you should report the things to the labor board and let them decide. You never know what you might be missing with your own read through of the rules.

Because there couldn’t be any legitimate reason to do the things they’re banning, like cloud seeding, crop dusting, air dropping seeds for reforesting, I dunno, literally releasing anything as you fly over even like CO2 exhaust as mentioned by the other commentor.

Literally all matter is a chemical, chemical compound, or substance. IMO this law is going to be struck down super fast just for being overly broad. Not that that would stop Republicans from passing it and spending millions of dollars in public money defending it in court.

You mean birth rates + immigration > people leaving the state? I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you.

Seriously though, there does need to be an asterisk after “fleeing” that says “if they can afford it” which, let’s be honest, excludes most people who want to leave the state.

My parents were just telling me about a friend of theirs who moved back to Ohio… fucking Ohio… after discovering that retirement in Florida was terrible.

Yeah it must be pretty bad if Ohio and Kansas are looking better.

Never mind that the whole point of a provisional ballot is “I don’t know if this vote is valid, but here it is just in case it is valid”

I feel like casting a provisional ballot should protect you in cases like hers, not condemn you!

I’m starting to wonder if they’re putting her in the limelight as setup for her being Trump’s VP pick.

man who is able to think things out for himself

Otherwise known as a man who ignores people who have actually worked things out for realsies instead of just playing at mind exercises. A man who has “thought it out for for himself” that the earth is flat, modern medicine is poison, and immigrants are lazy criminals here to steal his job.

This is America, we don’t go back and redo things just because they were done illegally! Trial results, elections, arrest records… Once they’re done, they’re done! Nothing to be done about it! Except taxes, they can always redo your taxes.

I wish I could add a /s I really really do

I think it’s pretty authoritarian to seek to stifle any speech.

Ohhhhh you’re a free speech absolutist. Gotcha.

There’s a fuckton of philosophy and case law behind why free speech absolutism is a bad idea. Maybe you can spend some time looking into that, you might gain some insight into why everyone is shooting you down.

Also, words mean things and while authoritarianism always shuts down free speech eventually, not all restrictions on free speech is authoritarianism. This would be the nuance that you claimed other people refuse to see, that you yourself have eschewed in this case.

Canada will no doubt be laying claim to Greenland

You jest, but territorial disputes between Canada and Russia over the Arctic are a thing, and there was an active territorial dispute between Canada and Greenland over Hans Island that wasn’t resolved until last year.

Obviously I don’t mean to suggest that any of the stuff you mentioned could reasonably come true, just that it’s less removed from reality than you probably realized.

It’s not about nuance. It’s about deal breakers. For some people, a deal breaker might be something like poor hygiene. For other people, it might be voting for or otherwise supporting politicians who belong to a party that’s actively trying to curtail human rights for anybody who isn’t a white cishet man.

That you or anybody else would find the first example acceptable, but not the second, is ridiculous.

You’re 100% correct, but don’t think that’s enough for Meta. It’s inherent to the nature of corporations to sell to grow, ie increase market share. If Meta thinks it can increase it’s market share, even a little, by destroying mastodon.social it will.

You do see how it could have a chilling effect on engagement if the “someone” judging you negatively for your vote is, say, a repressive government, right? And what’s the point of a social network without engagement?