teuast

The article says the order came from the corporation that owns the facility and says nothing about the government. Do you have evidence that the government was behind it?

As far as I can see from the article, the government didn't have anything to do with it.

Not every group of people has recently, within the last year, had to contend with two of their members being murdered and thrown in a landfill, and then it becoming a major national political campaign issue.

There's a rail station in my neighborhood (in the middle of the freeway that also runs through my neighborhood, fucking awesome thanks California) that has some five-story apartment buildings near it, but the nearest grocer is 1.7 miles away. It would literally be faster to walk to the train station, take the train to the city, get your groceries, and then take the train back than to walk to the one that's actually close. Whose fucking idea was this?

I can leave the house if I wanna see that

too bloody right

Yeah, like I said, I didn't see any concrete evidence of what I would expect from the name of their organization, and the actual policies they support are mostly things that I also support (increasing density, investing in infrastructure, generally pro-transit, stuff about healthcare, education, allowing remote work, etc). I guess I just find it weird that they're supporting all of that specifically because it gets more people to have kids, and not because they just make people's lives better, which is my reasoning. Maybe it's my personal bias as somebody who doesn't want kids.

This is good news.

The framing of the organization being called "stop population decline" strikes me as weird given that the global population is far from declining, and either already has surpassed or will soon surpass eight billion. It is true that data is more granular than that: some demographics have more children than others, which leads to shifts over time. All of this is normal and, if not good, at worst neutral. The problem arises when by far the most common voices to say anything about "population decline" or "overpopulation" or anything like that are typically using those terms as dogwhistles for white supremacy/Great Replacement bullshit.

I'll grant that their About page seems to mostly be stuff I agree with, and from a cursory look at their website, I'm not seeing evidence of white supremacy on it. But idk, the vibes are still off for me.

Why'd you just say "bosses" again?

As it should be.

You know, if someone is trying to kill you, you don't have to let them. You're allowed to take any necessary actions to defend yourself, up to and including killing them.

In this metaphor, Russia is trying to "kill" (take over) Ukraine. Everyone including me would love it if they stopped, because war is in fact bad, but as long as they don't, Ukraine is acting in self defense, and thus supporting them is morally justified.

You would have a point if they'd both been pointlessly agitating against each other for ages. But in cases where both sides are not morally equal, arguing that they are runs cover for those in the wrong. That's what you're doing.

Hell yeah.

Sidenote, referencing the comments, I hate when people call Jane Jacobs a NIMBY because she didn't want a freeway built through Manhattan. The thing with construction of new housing projects like this is that they provide homes and businesses and create communities. Freeways destroy all of that. Jane Jacobs had homes, businesses, and communities in her neighborhood and wanted to keep them from getting destroyed. The NIMBYs who tried to stop this want to stop homes, businesses, and communities from existing. Those two things are polar opposites of each other.