dachte

There are Republicans at the state level who never got on Trump's bandwagon. I don't see them as a problem; if anything, they're important because if and when Trumpists are pushed out they can rebuild their party.

Does anyone following me work for or know anyone working for Fraunhofer?

I don't think it's that important that everyone use the same definitions, but it is important that when asked we're ready to give our definitions for things. And if our definitions are sufficiently weird that can be grounds for legit criticism.

I think if someone shows up on social media they shouldn't expect to be treated with kid gloves.

I see totalitarianism as being authoritarianism (no real political pluralism), plus being concerned with broadly controlling culture to a deep extent, policing not just political expression but views on all sorts of other topics.

I don't see that flavouring that marks a totalitarianism as fascist in NK, at least the way I use the terms. Although its totalitarianism is quite strong and brutal.

I see fascism as a particular (not necessarily worse than others) form of totalitarianism (which I use a bit more loosely than you do) with flavouring of "attempt to recapture a mythical past", focus on internal enemies, militarism in culture, and exaggerated gender roles.

It is possible to communicate with other humans, disagreeing and making points and stuff, without punctuating messages with a GFY. I get that these topics can be very personal, but we don't need to sprinkle insults in for spice.

I, personally, will not have the chance to do anything about this. I'm just some guy. I have no standing with the military, and I will never be close to the president.

The norms against political violence are very important for a society. Same with the norms against military coups. But if you were to put both of those on one side of the scale and all the other norms of governance on the other side, the second side must sink.

we threaten our allies, send the military and masked agents into our own cities, and celebrate brutality. Among many other things. We have crossed so many red lines at breakneck speed.

Whatever is the least bloody way to get us out of this state is something I could probably support; I don't think the generally strong norms against interfering with an elected administration matter much when

I have no desire for a quick win on any issues for my political tribe, and I would welcome, somehow, a return of the sensible Republicans as our rivals on the right. It's gone from seeming arguable, to likely, to pretty certain that we're descending into fascism, and we'll screw up us and the world.

Reading up on Trump's actions in Chicago really makes it hard to think the US is going to come out of this moment in a reasonable state. Trump's abuses are too severe, his power grabs too extreme. It's not just Chicago.

I would welcome an irregular transfer of power, at this point.

I don't think the "GenML changes everything" or the "GenML can't or should not be allowed to do anything" perspectives are particularly reasonable.

Societally we are probably overinvesting in it, and the efforts to ban it are deeply misguided.

Your positions on it don't need to be exciting.

This morning, the Trump Administration’s Department of War gave me an ultimatum: call up your troops, or we will. It is absolutely outrageous and un-American to demand a Governor send military troops within our own borders and against our will.

Low standards and appealing to the worst in people will pull a lot of people who might've fixed their life problems and contributed to society into the military instead, diluting its professionalism and making the job of future presidents harder.

A lot of those hired now will need to be fired.

I think Dr Becky Smethurst does a really solid job at communicating, on a regular basis, recent discoveries in astronomy.

The best Ilan, Bar None?

#2 and #4 are extremely bad arguments

1) You're almost certainly wrong on this
B) Doesn't matter, ugly thing to use as an excuse
C) I don't know about this one
D) Doesn't matter; a warning doesn't make the unacceptable acceptable

Not that that's always a bad thumbnail, but it's way too common, and seeing endless fake-shocked or fake-angry faces does weird things to a person. I go down my list of videos I could watch and it's person-after-person with some extreme expression and it feels like a freakshow.

Wishing Google would tweak whatever algorithms it uses for thumbnails to somewhat discourage everyone using the thumbnail of "presenter making a very non-neutral face paired with an image of something".

This is a good way to handle ICE.

Everyone knows that stage names are part of a concocted persona. For publicity. In his normal life he goes by his name.

I don't resent those people their stage names; authenticity is not actually all that important. But if it's claimed, people should think skeptically about it.

I have what is probably an overly sensitive nose, to the extent that over my career I've avoided certain coworkers because they have slightly substandard hygiene, people others were fine with.

Foxes usually smell pretty terrible.

I have a certain love of foxes (I have never cared for one or been all that close to them). Love the way they look, love the way they move. Although I do *not* love the way they smell.

I am not one of those who thinks suicide is always selfish, to always be avoided. I often trust people in the biggest decisions of their life, that it was right for them. But I recognise the pain that others need to deal with in any death of someone close to them.

Slowly easing myself back into watching a Youtube channel for a fox sanctuary - mentally I couldn't deal with, for awhile, that the founder suicided; it was just too weird to watch content there for awhile.

Still feel very sad for the other parts of the family running it.

It would be very surprising and damage credibility of any court that would think that POTUS can simply decide to override the Constitution on this.