MirthfulAlembic

It's crazy. He was already tied for sixth most SC justices appointed (with seven other presidents). If Alito and Thomas retire and he replaces them, he'll only be behind Washington, FDR, and Taft. His numbers for other judicial appointments were already very high as well.

People really do not appreciate how long we'll be feeling the consequences of this if we survive this term and move on to someone sane.

The solutions here don't seem to really be solutions in my opinion, especially the third one. It's like if the problem a patent solves was "being able to individually package sandwiches on a conveyor belt" and the solution was "have a machine that recognizes where one sandwich ends and another begins so it can stop and start packaging appropriately." Like, no kidding, but how?

Reading that article is a serious indictment of economic literacy in the United States. People don't understand what role the president plays in the economy, what causes inflation, or how and why interest rates change. They draw really superficial causal links and don't think about it after that; it's fact to them.

It's reasons like this education may be the single most critical issue, since we can't make progress on the climate or anything else if the population is incapable of critical thinking. I hate to say it like this because it feels patronizing, but Jesus fucking Christ.

Indeed. I think it's why cults of personality are so dangerous. You don't need to convince that many people if you can get a large enough, dedicated number to consistently do what the leader says and push others around.

I'm not sure that love is the word for Bernie, but I was certainly much more enthusiastic about him. Some people did get weird about it which made me uncomfortable, though. The policy should always come before the politician.

I think the problem is that plenty of people might like Harris, but not so much that turnout for her matched Biden. The people who like Trump love him, and they turned out in the same numbers as 2020 basically. He didn't need to meaningfully grow his base if people weren't motivated to show up for his opponent.

It's definitely a demonstration that having the most palatable candidate doesn't matter. It might if voting were compulsory, but it isn't.

The red mirage/blue shift will probably be much smaller than prior elections, since it seems Trump supporters are using early or mail in voting more than before. The splits by party for these methods are smaller so far this year.

It takes a lot of the magic out of it. I'm sure a bit of this is rose-colored glasses, but it was a really neat experience as a kid. The entire neighborhood was out in the streets, people got to know their neighbors, and you felt like you were part of something. These days​, it feels spooky due to how empty it is besides cars.

Yeah, in my area trunk or treat is the main reason for no trick or treaters these days. It's a very urban area, so getting a lot of candy on foot would be easy, but walking around a parking lot is way quicker. It seems to be what most parents prefer also, so I think it's here to stay.

Then it's not a binary system. It's a system with two extremely dominant members. Those are different things. You can be more binary in specific contexts e.g., gametes and egg vs sperm.

I'd be very cautious about the healthy description in reference to intersex people. I don't believe you are trying to say anything nefarious, but there's a reason it shows up in eugenics arguments.

I didn't say sex was a spectrum, though perhaps someone else you were speaking with did. I wouldn't use spectrum for sex, since there are multiple differentiating factors with differing measures.

I'm not quite certain the point you are making here. Is the implication that because humans typically have two hands, those that do not are not a group that can be described? Or that they can be, but only should be as the product of developmental errors?

We don't generally, where we know exceptions exist, refuse to acknowledge their existence. Saying sex is a binary is saying there are only males and only females. That's literally what binary means. Like binary notation either uses 0 or 1. If it was possible for sometimes to have a 2, it wouldn't be binary anymore. That's a different thing.

This is especially true for something like sex that is based on a grouping of traits, genes, expressions, etc. which are not universally 0 or 1. Sure, we generally agree on a category when some are different, but there's some points where it's not so stark. Hence, the binary fails because there can be overlap and grey.

Nobody is saying we have to stop using male and female to describe sex in most cases, especially in a medical setting. But if you had a child born intersex, and the doctor turned to you and said, "Nah, my gut says male. Nothing will be different," you'd probably ask for a second opinion.

It made me double check if it was real because that sounds like the opposite of what you'd expect from JRE.

It's only going to get worse as traditional outlets try to compete with the immediacy of random people posting confidently on social media. There is no gentleman's agreement for this situation to wait on confirmation unless you want to become irrelevant.

I admire any outlets that stick to their scruples and wish them the best. Just because information can move fast doesn't always mean it should...