zbyte64

Laws don't bind the in-group

Religion is open to interpretation just like art. If someone interprets art and feels empowered to be a shitty person then they or the art is wrong. I don't have to "believe" anything particular about the art to arrive at that conclusion, the same is true for religion.

They’ve helpfully characterized “the five principal forces of antiscience “ into alliterative groups: (1) plutocrats and their political action committees, (2) petrostates and their politicians and polluters, (3) fake and venal professionals—physicians and professors, (4) propagandists, especially those with podcasts, and (5) the press. The general tactic is that (1) and (2) hire (3) to generate deceitful and inflammatory talking points, which are then disseminated by all-too-willing members of (4) and (5).

They're so incompetent but also incredibly lucky.

Because the conservative justices have signaled that precedence doesn't matter if they don't want it to. Maybe other judges need to follow suit to make a point...

About as much as I love having 9 people appointed for life that can overrule that voting system in case it does actually let the majority win.

They only anticipated white land lords voting. But then again, that's exactly who voted for this.

Why expect consistency from the courts starting now or in the future?

What I like about her campaign is the fundraising spends the money on things that matter to people: mutual aide. Many of us saw recording breaking fundraising followed by a loss and asked, what if we spent that money on things we wouldn't regret? And Kat answered.

He will condone the bad in order to prevent the worse and in so doing no longer discern that the very thing that he seems to avoid as worse might well be better. This is where the basic material of tragedy is to be found.

• Dietrich Bonhoeffer, "After Ten Years"

They ask more of people's ignorance than they do of their virtue.

See also: setup a public wifi share box to help your neighbors scale back on subscriptions