If you call them PanoPods you can probably get venture capital funding and then just go buy a train and paint it with a cool design.

And then getting downvoted by people who just disagree with your opinion. I’m one of the Reddit refugees so I don’t know if we brought that with us or Lemmy was like that before but it’s sad to see.

What. I was in the middle of something. What do you want? You know what? Nevermind, I’m just going to go back to what I was doing.

Holy crap. I have Tidal on my phone and Plex at home. I didnt know I could connect them. Thank you!

Reagan was the literal actor hired to play president by a group of Machiavellian assholes, many of whom were also behind the scenes of both Bushes, Nixon, and lots of Republican Congress members. Not disagreeing that Reagan is where they really got traction on their dreams of power, but Reagan wasn’t the architect.

I said “option” to retreat not “duty” which is an important distinction I think. And there’s also the option of other reasonable force. I don’t think killing to protect my TV is reasonable, but fighting back possibly even causing injury might be. If I lived in a place where the intruder wasn’t likely to be armed, I’d probably whack his hand with broom handle, and I wouldn’t even feel bad if I broke his wrist because some use of force to keep a stranger from entering my house is warranted. When it comes to lethal force though the standard should be higher, which is why I prefer the self-defense/defense of others test. Did the guy have good reason to think the person breaking in was an imminent danger, that he might be armed and therefore escalation to firing a gun was reasonable? I don’t pretend to know, but I think that’s the test that should be used. That test should take into account that it was his house being broken in to, and that there was another person present he might have wanted to protect, because that definitely affects your perception of danger. We don’t need a set of principles that say you automatically get a pass when it’s your house, I think it’s better to look at each case individually.

Do Renaults often figure into your thinking? ;)

No disagreement. I’m a commie pinko by American standards, which is to say slightly left by European standards. I support gun regulation but it won’t solve the proliferation until we face up to this weird fetishization of guns we have.

I do not agree with the castle doctrine. It’s too easily used to justify lethal force when retreat is an option, however self-defense is a valid justification and from the description given I think that’s completely plausible. An unknown person breaking the glass and potentially armed could be a threat. It sucks that a guy who possibly did nothing wrong has to defend himself in an investigation, but we should have a high bar on lethal actions for civilians and cops (the standard should be higher for cops).

Of course. They’re patient. They chipped away at abortion for decades before finally getting it overturned in Dobbs.

Similarly they went from Masterpiece Cake Shop to the Creative LLC case which widened the exception further because it’s a “creative endeavor”. Don’t for a minute think they’re not queing up a case to deny medical services based on a “sincerely held religious beliefs”.

“against your Christian religion”. Fixed that for you.

Of course. And if the parents dress them in that and keep them isolated the kids will pass that on to the next generation. If the kids go to school and see there are other options, maybe they’ll choose to be different when they’re independent or raise their kids differently. This is why cults always seek to isolate their members – exposure to diversity breaks the cycle.

He’s the male Gwyneth Paltrow selling brain pills instead of Goop. He promotes alt-right and far-right conspiracies. He told people not to get the COVID vaccine. If he just interviewed people – even people from all sides – I’d be fine with it. Problem is he promotes dangerous conspiracies and usually ignores fact checking. He’s using his influence and authority to do harm. And worst of all, I think he just does it for the ratings.

I don’t know the law in France, but I’d worry it’ll cause religious parents to just keep their kids out of state school and do some form of private religious education, causing a greater divide. The best counter to these attitudes is exposure to diversity and other viewpoints. Maybe the kids going to school and seeing that there are other ways is better.

The drunk driver, and sometimes the bartender who overserved: https://www.scribd.com/document/627785752/Press-Release-4

Sure, but on a per delivery basis that should be like $1.00? And yes, they need to make a profit, so the fee should be $1.10?

The idea of donating alternative posters has already been tried and that particular school board just ignored the issue: https://www.npr.org/2022/08/31/1120239381/texas-in-god-we-trust-arabic-signs-chaz-stevens I’m sure they’d treat a donation of 100s of posters the same way.

And as I (not a lawyer) read the law it only says that a poster has to be displayed in each building and has to be donated or purchased with donated funds: https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/SB00797I.htm so I don’t think you as an administrator would get away with plastering up hundreds of posters around your school, but let’s say you did. The parents will complain to you AND the school board (i.e. your boss). They’ll say you’re making fun of their religion, you’re a communist, etc. Even if they law was unambiguously on your side, they’ll only see what they want to see. You’ll find your chances of promotion to be zero, or you’ll just be managed out. Even if the Board somehow agreed with you, you made a stink.

I have friends who are teachers and administrators, not in Texas, who have left or been kicked over lesser issues. The rest are looking forward to retirement.

These bozos passing these laws don’t understand irony. They just want misdirection, conformity, and compliant kids. We just need to directly tell them to fuck off at this point.

I’m sorry for my continued Very Seriousness.

Yeah, I don’t read it as “must display every poster”. It says it has to be displayed in a prominent place in each building and that it has to be donated or purchased with donated funds. https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/SB00797I.htm

No. They’re not interested in playing fair or being consistent. They’ll simply warp the rules to fit their outcome and declare these posters noncomplaint. You can’t out-maneuver people who simply cheat.

The assholes on that side of things are a mixture of those who actually believe and want the US to be a religious state, and those who simply are using religion as a method of control. That second group is happy to see religious conflict because a) it distracts from real problems while they consolidate money and power, 2) they can use the fervor to further solidify their support form that religious base.

This is absolutely not new and has happened before in history. It’s just sad to see the US going down this path.

You’re about a decade off. It was started in the 80s and ended under Clinton. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative