Because Davis was a grown adult when he started doing this, not a teenager or younger that is already much more likely to be a victim of violence.

I never said we shouldn’t try to have a conversation, but there are situations where I cannot recommend putting yourself in harm just for the small chance of changing someone’s mind. Davis decided to do that, but it’s not everyone else’s responsibility or duty to do the same.

Made the switch from Podcast Addict recently and I’m pretty happy. It’s much more stable (especially with casting) and I like the queue system, but I do wish I had a bit more flexibility in applying download/update rules to whole categories instead of only one show at a time.

Do you have a solution to enacting progressive policy that doesn’t require electing a bunch of Democrats to create, introduce and vote on said legislation?

The 20216 election was incredibly close. It doesn’t take much to influence the final result with narrow margins, especially when considering our archaic voting system which significantly over-represents less populated areas (i.e. changing a few hundred votes in one district can be more influential than another district with 10x as many voters if all of those voters are more politically consistent).

I am not sure how to interpret “no more influencers” as anything but the primary upside.

Mostly that’s a joke, but to be clear I do acknowledge that the same model that supports ‘influencers’ which I don’t watch, also support creators that I do watch. On the other hand, most of the creators I care about already don’t rely on ads, but accept donations via Patreon or equivalent, so maybe it wouldn’t change anything after all!

So weird to suggest leaving NATO as the solution to other participants allegedly not contributing their fair share. I guess this is one of those “take the ball and go home” compromises I’ve heard about?

When the “something worse” is literal fascism, there are no other choices. Stopping fascism is more important than any progressive agenda item because those agenda items will never happen with fascists in power.

there are no particular rules that can prevent fascism

100% truth. Democracy cannot defend itself against actors that don’t agree with the common principle of following the law, and fascists by their very nature don’t acknowledge any law buy physical might.

I admire your compassion and empathy.

But I think you are missing that the people Darryl talked to had to also be open to that conversation in the first place.

Moreover, the physical risk in that approach is quite high and the level of violence in the modern GOP’s rhetoric has just continued to ratchet up every year. Unfortunately, I cannot recommend the same approach in this situation. Most of the people that we’d need to replicate what Davis did are in no position to put themselves in that kind of situation–and presumed allies like myself can only do so much.

I think I see where you are coming from, but there does need to be a line where we can just acknowledge reality.

What’s the reason behind thinking half of them are acting in bad faith? Is that because you disagree with them?

This is especially galling when talking about the Supreme Court specifically. McConnell refused to do his legal duty and allow a vote on the current President’s nomination to replace Ginsburg. He and his party said this was because it was unfair to seat a new Justice during an election year.

Several years later, the exact same people rushed through a nomination and confirmation of a new Justice just weeks before the 2020 election. The two situations are as close to identical as can be practical with two real-world examples.

Please explain how this should be interpreted in a way that can be described as “operating in good faith”.

Higher education is not liberal leaving a priori. It’s just that acknowledging reality and facts, and even just some parts of scientific consensus, is completely incompatible with agreeing with anything the GOP does or says.

Social media companies generally benefit from high traffic for advertiser appeal, but combating bots is crucial for maintaining user trust and engagement. Implementing CAPTCHAs for every upvote may not be feasible, but addressing bot activity is generally in the long-term interest of social media companies.

This message was generated by ChatGPT.

Not sure if you bought that, but if I was applying for an account on Beehaw using a LLM assistant, I bet the odds of passing a human review is better than 50%.

Depends entirely on the subreddit, in my experience. Places like AskHistorians didn’t even exist when the great Digg exodus occurred. My favorite sub was /r/cfb which also benefited greatly from the mainstream popularity.

Not coincidental that both of these are relatively strongly moderated compared to many of the biggest/default subs.

What level of investigation that doesn’t end up charging Clinton with a crime would you accept?

Why are even we talking about someone that was never President, is not running for President, and is not currently serving in public office?

Investigate and prosecute all criminals. That includes Trump, regardless of who else it also includes.

She did not do “essentially the same thing” for multiple reasons.

• The emails you’re referring to were not classified and went through proper process to get permission to be removed.
• Hillary has already been investigated and cleared, including investigations conducted by the Trump administration.
• Trump was given multiple opportunities to return documents. He kept lying and keeping things even after saying they’d returned everything. There are still classified docs that haven’t been found!
• The nature of the material is orders of magnitude different. Nothing that Hillary has been accused of destroying or storing improperly, even if those accusations were all true, even begins to compare to the sensitivity and importance of the kind of information Trump was hoarding.
• In addition to simply possessing the material he shouldn’t and refusing to give it back, he also breached security by showing sensitive information to people that weren’t allowed and, just at a practical level, has no reasonable need to see it in the first place.