clairity

31 ms·

391.
by clairity 4y ago
here's another point i forgot to bring up earlier that i'm just gonna hang off of here... getting caught up in a side means you can't pick and choose from the whole menu of ideas out in the world. it means that if you're
392.
by clairity 4y ago
ok, so you've criticized the constitution for the acts of unspecified people who later misappropriated it. can we only misappropriate the constitution, or perhaps, some people can take the same document, flawed or not, and derive a r
393.
by clairity 4y ago
do you really think that two selected quotes represent the totality of a person's thinking, and how they lived their complete lives? provocative writing is a rhetorical device to bring attention to a grave issue. it's like cursing
394.
by clairity 4y ago
that's a strawman. we're talking about how to have dialogue with people who hold cognitively dissonant viewpoints (to you), and sometimes that means the dialogue is context- and time- dependent. if one person is literally attackin
395.
by clairity 4y ago
frederick douglass espoused exactly the type of cross-racial and cross-ideological dialogue i'm bringing up here. if he can do it, being the subject of real subjugation and hatred, we can do it too sitting alone together in front of ou
396.
by clairity 4y ago
no, it absolutely is not, for a democratic republic like the US. the US is designed to have a minimal federal government that doesn't interfere in the individual life and liberty of its residents. this is very unlike governments that c
397.
by clairity 4y ago
because it doesn't help in the long run, even if it soothes the feathers in the short.
398.
by clairity 4y ago
this is true, but that's even moreso why we need to have such conversations openly, especially with people different from us, to elucidate our blind spots. and that's the crux of why diversity can be powerful. it's not about
399.
by clairity 4y ago
i mean, do you really believe that today, women are not considered equal, even if it's not perfectly spelled out by the constitution? more importantly, does that matter for using the constitution as a starting point? it doesn't
400.
by clairity 4y ago
that's a false dichotomy for the rhetoricians. it's both, and more, and more complicated than that. we spend the first 18 years or so of our lives empirically deriving those first principles together, along with the derivations of
401.
by clairity 4y ago
it takes some mental fortitude to maintain this position, but you have to understand that 99.99% of the time, those other people think of themselves as good and reasonable too. and the feeling of violence is a direct result of identifying w
402.
by clairity 4y ago
while it's certainly biased by the thinking of the time, that stuff isn't enshrined in the constitution, not to that degree. the wealthy white dude framers knew they weren't perfect, so they allowed for changes by providing a
403.
by clairity 4y ago
there's a whole body of political science literature that would heartily debate that stance. at most, political discourse and religious discourse grew up together and influenced each other, but to say one is based on the other is a rhe
404.
by clairity 4y ago
no, why should it? i want those things for disadvantaged groups as well. that doesn't mean that i've chosen a side and will defend it to the death against the bad ol' "others". everyone can be part of the same tribe
405.
by clairity 4y ago
no, you don't have to think in sides. you can have a position and discuss your position with others. you don't have to think of them as your enemy, but rather your conversation partner, someone who can help you expand your perspec
406.
by clairity 4y ago
remember that the abortion issue, as a matter of law, is about the state's interests in the body. it does not litigate religious or social mores, but most of the "debate" is of this latter type. i personally agree with the re
407.
by clairity 4y ago
no, stop thinking of sides at all, and especially don't start with a side first. start with reasoned first principles (the constitution is a good start) and continue to reason your way to a position on any given issue that is consisten
408.
by clairity 4y ago
the very point is that climate change and CO₂ are mediopolitical distractions, and your 'simpler' isn't better but rather materially worse. pollution is a consensus problem. we should directly tackle that problem, not the ind
409.
by clairity 4y ago
no, because the amount of carbon in each energy input doesn't directly correlate with the amount of pollution and harm, and it's a courser measure than taxing the polluting components relative to their externalized impact on healt
410.
by clairity 4y ago
or even simpler, stop being on a side, then you don't have to do mental tricks like "reversing the polarity". you can just see things for the way they are, without personal identity invested in the situation. this is exactly
411.
by clairity 4y ago
climate change has become a culture war meme topic, which is why it's time to change the perspective and leave that inanity behind, so that we can make meaningful change in our lifetimes (lest our lifetimes and those coming behind us b
412.
by clairity 4y ago
carbon taxes are the exact kind of roundabout measure that creates distortions and unintended consequences[0] rather than directly tackling the core issue. we need to tax pollution directly, as happened with CFCs in the 80s, because what we
413.
by clairity 4y ago
i'm with you that a tariff scheme is better than giving money to large corps, which always puts money in the pockets of the already rich rather than into creating customer surplus and driving innovation. there is a (mostly front-loaded
414.
by clairity 4y ago
also note that CSR (corporate social responsibility) is public relations, not a moral or ethical position, part and parcel to the term 'greenwashing'. in the same vein as the article, we should stop talking about climate change in
415.
Solving “The Dangler” Conundrum with Container Queries and:Has()(daverupert.com)
1 points by clairity 4y ago|0 comments
416.
by clairity 4y ago
nesting will be nice when it lands, but i'm most excited by far for :has() support. i know chrome and safari have initial implementations in place and firefox just recently started. :has() will be the biggest advancement in css since g
417.
by clairity 4y ago
yah, i have a strong preference for the first option, and don't mind that it requires using an & token relative to scss that requires none. the @nest always option seems overly verbose, and adding more brackets visually overloads t
418.
by clairity 4y ago
what's also silly is using qualtrics for a single-question survey that has 5 screens, including the google captcha surveillance tracking injection.
419.
by clairity 4y ago
i mean, the era of reagan was also the era of trickle down economics. it was all sorts of stupid--full of greedy, motivated reasoning, not reasonable, rational, or coherent thought. as an independent, party affliation is a sure sign of vacu
420.
by clairity 4y ago
spirited away is amazing because of the chihiro's journey through the fantastical world of the kami, where she has to contend with not only her own present but generations past and all their virtue and vice. it's about the ever-

More ›