Someone buy this and cross reference it with publicly available information about Republican lawmakers. I'm certain you'll find more than a few pings.
Do you not see there are now people with complete, diametrically opposed views on morality in your country?
The exact same thing, one person will look at it and see murder and another see nothing wrong. One will see transexuals in kindergarten and say “how brave” other will see a nightmare horror. One looks at your very government and sees either the far left or the far right.
Do you not see there is no such thing as the american people now?
Why do you keep pretending you are a country when you are clearly not. Why do you want to live with the other in the same country? Why do you want to force them to live with you?
I'm unsure what else the nation could do with these people. Ship them somewhere else? One side is waiting for the other side to attrition out (Pew Research Voter Demographics corpus). What other options are available? Who else would want them?
The people who don't believe in the peaceful transfer of power and believe in subjugating the rights of others due to their own belief systems don't want to negotiate or compromise. How do you work with opposition who doesn't want progress, but only to make someone suffer? You cannot, so you lean into whatever will work.
“He’s not hurting the people he needs to be."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/tr...
McConnell says he's '100 percent' focused on 'stopping' Biden's administration
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/mcconnell-says-he...
"The GOP's no-compromise pledge"
https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromis...
"4 In 10 Republicans Say Political Violence May Be Necessary"
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/11/966498544/a-scary-survey-find...
This started with Newt Gingrich decades ago: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gi... This was built by design.
> “One of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty,” he told the group. “We encourage you to be neat, obedient, and loyal, and faithful, and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around the campfire but are lousy in politics.”
What matters is it’s a vox article. Sending a vox article is like quoting a bible verse. I’m sure it is very meaningful to you. But to many other americans, it simply is not.
On the other side, if someone posted some right wing newspaper, it would be like them quoting the quoran at you. Surely it’s deeply meaningful to them, but, how can the quoran be true? The bible is true! They are stupid and their heads are filled with lies!
And they think exactly the same about you. You are the stupid one with the head filled with lies.
I’m sure you are convinced you are actually in fact right. You have “science” or “statistics” or “reputable journalists” on your side.
There are a million ways to convince one’s self of something. They are just as convinced as you.
As for your question
> What else would you have us do with them?
Work towards a peaceful breakup of the united states, based not on geography but on moral outlook.
It won’t happen though. So, I guess the tit for tat will continue and escalate until it gets to guns and worse.
—-
PS: When I wrote that I’m sure you are convinced you are right, the article spam was precisely the kind of thing I was trying to preempt. I’m sure all those articles support your point of view. I have no doubt. “The others” articles, they support their point of view.
Let me propose an experiment. For a whole week, do not consume your regular media diet and instead consume “the others”. Walk a mile in their mocassins as it were. Take it as an exercise in empathy.
Here are the results of such an experiement.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/apr/11/fox-news-viewe...
> In an unusual, and labor intensive, project, two political scientists paid a group of regular Fox News viewers to instead watch CNN for a month. At the end of the period, the researchers found surprising results; some of the Fox News watchers had changed their minds on a range of key issues, including the US response to coronavirus and Democrats’ attitude to police. Polls have previously shown that viewers of Fox News, the most-watched cable news channel in the US, are far more likely to believe the false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen than the average American, and are more likely to believe falsehoods about Covid-19. By the end of September, the CNN watchers were less likely to agree that: “It is an overreaction to go out and protest in response to the police shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin” and less likely to believe that: “If Joe Biden is elected President, we’ll see many police get shot by Black Lives Matter activists”, when compared with their peers who continued watching Fox News. The CNN switchers were also, as Bloomberg’s Matthew Yglesias reported, 10 points less likely to believe that Joe Biden supporters were happy when police officers get shot, and 11 points less likely to believe that it is “more important for the President to focus on violent protests than the coronavirus pandemic”. In addition the CNN viewers were 13 points less likely than the Fox News viewers to agree that: “If Joe Biden is elected President, we’ll see many more police get shot by Black Lives Matter activists.”
> The people in the experiment, Kalla said, were “overwhelmingly pro-Trump Republicans”. Given Trump had spent much of his presidency bashing CNN – a regular chant at his rallies was “CNN sucks!” – the results are particularly surprising. “A lot of people might expect this audience to completely resist what CNN had to say, but we see people learning what CNN was reporting and changing their attitudes, too. It is therefore surprising that watching CNN had any impact at all in this experiment,” Kalla said.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/jrw26 (The manifold effects of partisan media on viewers’ beliefs and attitudes: A field experiment with Fox News viewers)
> Let me propose an experiment. For a whole week, do not consume your regular media diet and instead consume “the others”. Walk a mile in their mocassins as it were. Take it as an exercise in empathy.
You're aware you wrote these two paragraphs in the same post, yes?
Some people have so little empathy that they can't identify with a situation until it happens to them. It's about showing them why this shit is a bad idea in literally the only way possible.
This thread is about whether there is hypocrisy among the lawmakers and whether law should allow such sensitive data to be available for purchase. Data of this sensitive nature are fairly costly to violate for people governed by HIPAA, but few or no penalties for others.
I’m curious if any existing blackmail or cyberstalking statutes could cover the likely uses of these data.
Consider an iterated dyadic game, but with a different weighting matrix for each participant, or a single matrix defining percentage rather than fixed payoffs. Chaotic factors aside, differentials will compound with iteration. It's NP-hard to say when (like predicting when or how a poker or a baseball game will terminate) but the fact that it will terminate is a very safe bet.
You are right that it might well end in war, but wars themselves are eventually won or lost (even if they have sequels). If avoiding war is your overarching goal, you need to minimize the fraction of the population experiencing life-and-death issues. If their self-assessment of their lives' net present value falls too low, they're incentivized to bet on reducing that of their opponents.
Of course conflicts will end but the condition of victory tends to deviate from the original position.
Downvote away, it’s unambiguously true.
Another correct observation would be this. Aimed at the people saying this is breaking with precedent and it’s settled law that shouldn’t be changed.
The prohibition, which was written into the constitution, was repealed.
Nothing is set in stone.
You say that as if it was some law written in stone, whereas it's nothing more than a thought experiment by an influential philosopher (which, in itself, is far from an absolute authority wrt how humans should behave).
Plus, this particular philosopher would very likely display a lot of intolerance against those proposing its usage so generously. And he would bite himself in the arse for even stating it because of course people misunderstand the meaning.
That law was a response to Robert Bork's video rental history being published during his confirmation hearings.
For the issue at hand, I'm well in favor of subjecting our lawmakers to the privacy breaches we all should be protected from. No better way to get them to act.
If you believe that, using it on lawmakers is probably the absolute fastest, most effective, and best targeted way to limit the damage that can be done.
In this case, this is planned parenthood attendance, but it could very well have been a political rally for your political opponents, that you could then use to get them fired.