The Thread about [Twitter] where we aren’t calling this shit goddamn “X”

Knight_

incredible oh my god he admit it energy from that california court

Lanz

minor incident wrote: »

Exactly who are these “social conservatives” that are out there clamoring to regulate financial markets and increase the minimum wage, you stupid fuck?

It feels like a twisted perversion of the leftist argument that you can win votes among the working class by, shock, pushing for policies that uplift them and protect their economic wellbeing instead of throwing them into an capitalist hellscape that uses them as fuel and expends them just as readily.

Except instead of going “What if you offered policies like a higher national standard for the minimum wage, nationalized medicine that’s free at point of service, vacation requirements on par with other peer nations, etc.” Chris Murphy goes “What if we catered to and pandered to bigots who are grossed out by trans people”

BronzeKoopa

Lanz wrote: »

https://twitter.com/nateb_panic/status/1677663797341745154?s=46

A California man caught covid at work. He infected his wife who ended up in ICU. So he sued his bosses. The largest lobbying group in the US got involved. The court ruled against the man because a victory would mean “dire financial consequences for employers.” Is it clear yet?🧵

In 2020, Robert Kuciemba, a woodworker in San Francisco was infected by a co-worker after his Nevada-based Victory Woodworks transferred a number of sick workers to the San Francisco site for a few months

Victory Woodworks knew some employees might be sick but they transferred them anyway and ignored a San Francisco ordinance in place at the time to quarantine suspected covid cases

Kuciemba was subsequently infected and he then infected his wife, who ended up in ICU on a ventilator. There's a few stunning details to this case:

First, the court agreed that there is no doubt the company ignored the San Francisco health ordinance. In other words, they accepted the company had broken the law but still...

Second, the US Chamber of Commerce, the largest business lobbying organisation got involved and helped the company with its defence. This is a tiny company in a niche industry. Their involvement tells us a lot about the importance of the principle they knew was at stake.

Third, the defence of the company is very telling. “There is simply no limit to how wide the net will be cast: the wife who claims her husband caught COVID-19 from the supermarket checker, the husband who claims his wife caught it while visiting an elder care home." Well, exactly

The California Supreme Court ruled against Kuciemba on the basis that a victory, while, in the court's words, "morally" the right thing to do, would create "dire financial consequences for employers" and cause a "dramatic expansion of liability" to stop the spread of covid.

This case reveals what many of us suspected but haven't seen confirmed in so many words: the public health imperative of controlling a pandemic by making employers liable for some of that control is, and always must be, secondary to capitalist profit

https://ko-fi.com/post/On-covid-Californias-supreme-court-just-said-the-V7V6N0GIS

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S274191.PDF

SCOCA wrote:

In sum, while the foreseeability factors and the policy factor of moral blame largely tilt in favor of finding a duty of care, the policy factors of preventing future harm and the anticipated burdens on defendants and the community weigh against imposing such a duty. “In assessing duty, however, we do not merely count up the factors on either side.” (Vasilenko, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 1092.) Some factors may be so weighty as to tip the balance one way or the other. Here, the significant and unpredictable burden that recognizing a duty of care would impose on California businesses, the court system, and the community at large counsels in favor of an exception to the general rule of Civil Code section 1714. Imposing on employers a tort duty to each employee’s household members to prevent the spread of this highly transmissible virus would throw open the courthouse doors to a deluge of lawsuits that would be both hard to prove and difficult to cull early in the proceedings. Although it is foreseeable that employees infected at work will carry the virus home and infect their loved ones, the dramatic expansion of liability plaintiffs’ suit envisions has the potential to destroy businesses and curtail, if not outright end, the provision of essential public services. These are the type of “policy considerations [that] dictate a cause of action should not be sanctioned no matter how foreseeable the risk.” (Elden v. Sheldon (1988) 46 Cal.3d 267, 274.) In some cases, “the consequences of a negligent act must be limited in order to avoid an intolerable burden on society.” (Ibid.) This is such a case.

I increasingly cannot escape two conclusions about the present state of society:

1) The Law does not exist to protect the public at any meaningful level

2) people are justified in burning things

never die

Lanz wrote: »

https://twitter.com/nateb_panic/status/1677663797341745154?s=46

A California man caught covid at work. He infected his wife who ended up in ICU. So he sued his bosses. The largest lobbying group in the US got involved. The court ruled against the man because a victory would mean “dire financial consequences for employers.” Is it clear yet?🧵

In 2020, Robert Kuciemba, a woodworker in San Francisco was infected by a co-worker after his Nevada-based Victory Woodworks transferred a number of sick workers to the San Francisco site for a few months

Victory Woodworks knew some employees might be sick but they transferred them anyway and ignored a San Francisco ordinance in place at the time to quarantine suspected covid cases

Kuciemba was subsequently infected and he then infected his wife, who ended up in ICU on a ventilator. There's a few stunning details to this case:

First, the court agreed that there is no doubt the company ignored the San Francisco health ordinance. In other words, they accepted the company had broken the law but still...

Second, the US Chamber of Commerce, the largest business lobbying organisation got involved and helped the company with its defence. This is a tiny company in a niche industry. Their involvement tells us a lot about the importance of the principle they knew was at stake.

Third, the defence of the company is very telling. “There is simply no limit to how wide the net will be cast: the wife who claims her husband caught COVID-19 from the supermarket checker, the husband who claims his wife caught it while visiting an elder care home." Well, exactly

The California Supreme Court ruled against Kuciemba on the basis that a victory, while, in the court's words, "morally" the right thing to do, would create "dire financial consequences for employers" and cause a "dramatic expansion of liability" to stop the spread of covid.

This case reveals what many of us suspected but haven't seen confirmed in so many words: the public health imperative of controlling a pandemic by making employers liable for some of that control is, and always must be, secondary to capitalist profit

https://ko-fi.com/post/On-covid-Californias-supreme-court-just-said-the-V7V6N0GIS

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S274191.PDF

SCOCA wrote:

In sum, while the foreseeability factors and the policy factor of moral blame largely tilt in favor of finding a duty of care, the policy factors of preventing future harm and the anticipated burdens on defendants and the community weigh against imposing such a duty. “In assessing duty, however, we do not merely count up the factors on either side.” (Vasilenko, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 1092.) Some factors may be so weighty as to tip the balance one way or the other. Here, the significant and unpredictable burden that recognizing a duty of care would impose on California businesses, the court system, and the community at large counsels in favor of an exception to the general rule of Civil Code section 1714. Imposing on employers a tort duty to each employee’s household members to prevent the spread of this highly transmissible virus would throw open the courthouse doors to a deluge of lawsuits that would be both hard to prove and difficult to cull early in the proceedings. Although it is foreseeable that employees infected at work will carry the virus home and infect their loved ones, the dramatic expansion of liability plaintiffs’ suit envisions has the potential to destroy businesses and curtail, if not outright end, the provision of essential public services. These are the type of “policy considerations [that] dictate a cause of action should not be sanctioned no matter how foreseeable the risk.” (Elden v. Sheldon (1988) 46 Cal.3d 267, 274.) In some cases, “the consequences of a negligent act must be limited in order to avoid an intolerable burden on society.” (Ibid.) This is such a case.

I increasingly cannot escape two conclusions about the present state of society:

1) The Law does not exist to protect the public at any meaningful level

2) people are justified in burning things

I don’t, in any real capacity, see how that ruling makes any fucking sense with a rule of law.

“We found them guilty of doing the thing, but other companies could be found liable for doing the thing, so we aren’t enforcing consequences” is stating the law doesn’t have any value for this.

They broke the rules. They knowingly moved ill people in defiance of the law to an area and got a person sick.

That’s the end of the story.

This is absurd.

From our most liberal state.

Jesus fucking Christ.

Hacksaw

Oghulk wrote: »

Ah yes, the Democrats have looked at that bigot dial and started to turn it up in the hope of getting applause

They've tried nothing else, and they're all out of ideas. Surely this will let them form a governing coalition of effectahAHAHAHAhaha who the FUCK am I kidding here

Hacksaw

never die wrote: »

Lanz wrote: »

https://twitter.com/nateb_panic/status/1677663797341745154?s=46

A California man caught covid at work. He infected his wife who ended up in ICU. So he sued his bosses. The largest lobbying group in the US got involved. The court ruled against the man because a victory would mean “dire financial consequences for employers.” Is it clear yet?🧵

In 2020, Robert Kuciemba, a woodworker in San Francisco was infected by a co-worker after his Nevada-based Victory Woodworks transferred a number of sick workers to the San Francisco site for a few months

Victory Woodworks knew some employees might be sick but they transferred them anyway and ignored a San Francisco ordinance in place at the time to quarantine suspected covid cases

Kuciemba was subsequently infected and he then infected his wife, who ended up in ICU on a ventilator. There's a few stunning details to this case:

First, the court agreed that there is no doubt the company ignored the San Francisco health ordinance. In other words, they accepted the company had broken the law but still...

Second, the US Chamber of Commerce, the largest business lobbying organisation got involved and helped the company with its defence. This is a tiny company in a niche industry. Their involvement tells us a lot about the importance of the principle they knew was at stake.

Third, the defence of the company is very telling. “There is simply no limit to how wide the net will be cast: the wife who claims her husband caught COVID-19 from the supermarket checker, the husband who claims his wife caught it while visiting an elder care home." Well, exactly

The California Supreme Court ruled against Kuciemba on the basis that a victory, while, in the court's words, "morally" the right thing to do, would create "dire financial consequences for employers" and cause a "dramatic expansion of liability" to stop the spread of covid.

This case reveals what many of us suspected but haven't seen confirmed in so many words: the public health imperative of controlling a pandemic by making employers liable for some of that control is, and always must be, secondary to capitalist profit

https://ko-fi.com/post/On-covid-Californias-supreme-court-just-said-the-V7V6N0GIS

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S274191.PDF

SCOCA wrote:

In sum, while the foreseeability factors and the policy factor of moral blame largely tilt in favor of finding a duty of care, the policy factors of preventing future harm and the anticipated burdens on defendants and the community weigh against imposing such a duty. “In assessing duty, however, we do not merely count up the factors on either side.” (Vasilenko, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 1092.) Some factors may be so weighty as to tip the balance one way or the other. Here, the significant and unpredictable burden that recognizing a duty of care would impose on California businesses, the court system, and the community at large counsels in favor of an exception to the general rule of Civil Code section 1714. Imposing on employers a tort duty to each employee’s household members to prevent the spread of this highly transmissible virus would throw open the courthouse doors to a deluge of lawsuits that would be both hard to prove and difficult to cull early in the proceedings. Although it is foreseeable that employees infected at work will carry the virus home and infect their loved ones, the dramatic expansion of liability plaintiffs’ suit envisions has the potential to destroy businesses and curtail, if not outright end, the provision of essential public services. These are the type of “policy considerations [that] dictate a cause of action should not be sanctioned no matter how foreseeable the risk.” (Elden v. Sheldon (1988) 46 Cal.3d 267, 274.) In some cases, “the consequences of a negligent act must be limited in order to avoid an intolerable burden on society.” (Ibid.) This is such a case.

I increasingly cannot escape two conclusions about the present state of society:

1) The Law does not exist to protect the public at any meaningful level

2) people are justified in burning things

I don’t, in any real capacity, see how that ruling makes any fucking sense with a rule of law.

“We found them guilty of doing the thing, but other companies could be found liable for doing the thing, so we aren’t enforcing consequences” is stating the law doesn’t have any value for this.

They broke the rules. They knowingly moved ill people in defiance of the law to an area and got a person sick.

That’s the end of the story.

This is absurd.

From our most liberal state.

Jesus fucking Christ.

Yeah there's no reforming this.

We have a saying in my industry: work now, greive later. I am no longer of the opinion that this is a wise course of action, if you are a worker. We must put our overlords to consequence ourselves if the so-called legitimate systems of redress are no longer willing to do the job. I, for one, will be spreading this sentiment among my union comrades at every opportunity.

DarkPrimus

Targeting boats is fine and well, but perhaps th

Lanz wrote: »

Also Murphy picked up his idiot-spiel back up yesterday:

https://twitter.com/chrismurphyct/status/1677377866210902016?s=61

My sense is this poll raised some questions. Here's where I'm coming from:

1/ I'm not suggesting any of who believe in choice or LGBTQ rights etc. should compromise in these fights. These are existential struggles. We need to fight to win.

2/ But if socially conservative constituencies want to work with progressives on increasing the minimum wage or regulating financial markets to promote the common good, shouldn't we be part of those coalitions?

3/ And what if those same constituencies want to join the Democratic Party, because they prioritize agreement with us on economic issues over disagreement on social issues? Should we keep our doors closed

4/ If we open our doors, maybe we have a better chance to change their minds, or dilute the organizing power of our opponents on cultural issues.

I'm open to counterargument, but that's all I'm saying. Not that we compromise our values or deprioritize fights on social issues.

Motherfucker you can’t get politicians in your own party on board for this shit; You don’t offer the policies to begin with! Why the fuck do you think the thing holding back socially conservative, economically progressive people from voting for democrats is that the democrats are too closely associated (despite the jack-all you do for the cause) with social progressivism?

The policies aren’t there! You crush them at nearly every turn or at best offer a quarter-measure like a carrot on a stick you just keep dangling but never let any of us take a nibble of

What the fuck is this shit other than you trying to cape for the fact that queer people make you feel icky you bastard fuck?

Remember how our on-paper majority in the Senate is completely useless because a rotating cast of Democrats have issues with legislation that the public wants to get passed?

What if we added even more "Democrats" who would oppose passing that stuff?

Surely that will resolve things.

Sweeney Tom

I think I may have actually been less depressed with the irreparable climate death stuff

Lanz

Johnny Chopsocky wrote: »

PwnanObrien wrote: »

Still can't believe Shinzo Abe wanted to bring back Imperial Japan and got got by a guy with a potato gun.

RIP bozo.

Still blows my mind that he blasted the former Prime Minister of Japan with a Mad Max-style lead-thrower doohickey and a sizable portion of the Japanese populace, upon hearing his motive, seems to have responded with "Huh. Yeah that tracks. We understand, guy."

My general understanding is the Japanese mainstream is actually well to the left of the LDP but because of basically being The Party We Backed during the post-war period* (their major competition were the socialists and the Japanese Communist Party) they have such institutional power and supports that it’s near impossible to dislodge them from their position in the Diet and has only happened a couple of times throughout the post-war history, despite increasing division between the party and the public politically.


*

In a major covert operation of the cold war, the Central Intelligence Agency spent millions of dollars to support the conservative party that dominated Japan's politics for a generation.

The C.I.A. gave money to the Liberal Democratic Party and its members in the 1950's and the 1960's, to gather intelligence on Japan, make the country a bulwark against Communism in Asia and undermine the Japanese left, said retired intelligence officials and former diplomats. Since then, the C.I.A. has dropped its covert financial aid and focused instead on gathering inside information on Japan's party politics and positions in trade and treaty talks, retired intelligence officers said.

The Liberal Democrats' 38 years of one-party governance ended last year when they fell from power after a series of corruption cases -- many involving secret cash contributions. Still the largest party in Japan's parliament, they formed an awkward coalition in June with their old cold war enemies, the Socialists -- the party that the C.I.A.'s aid aimed in part to undermine.

Though the C.I.A.'s financial role in Japanese politics has long been suspected by historians and journalists, the Liberal Democrats have always denied it existed, and the breadth and depth of the support has never been detailed publicly. Disclosure of the covert aid could open old wounds and harm the Liberal Democrats' credibility as an independent voice for Japanese interests. The subject of spying between allies has always been sensitive.

The C.I.A. did not respond to an inquiry. In Tokyo, Katsuya Muraguchi, director of the Liberal Democratic Party's management bureau, said he had never heard of any payments.

"This story reveals the intimate role that Americans at official and private levels played in promoting structured corruption and one-party conservative democracy in post-war Japan, and that's new," said John Dower, a leading Japan scholar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "We look at the L.D.P. and say it's corrupt and it's unfortunate to have a one-party democracy. But we have played a role in creating that misshapen structure."

…

The C.I.A.'s help for Japanese conservatives resembled other cold war operations, like secret support for Italy's Christian Democrats. But it remained secret -- in part, because it succeeded. The Liberal Democrats thwarted their Socialist opponents, maintained their one-party rule, forged close ties with Washington and fought off public opposition to the United States' maintaining military bases throughout Japan.

One retired C.I.A. official involved in the payments said, "That is the heart of darkness and I'm not comfortable talking about it, because it worked." Others confirmed the covert support.

"We financed them," said Alfred C. Ulmer Jr., who ran the C.I.A.'s Far East operations from 1955 to 1958. "We depended on the L.D.P. for information." He said the C.I.A. had used the payments both to support the party and to recruit informers within it from its earliest days.

By the early 1960's, the payments to the party and its politicians were "so established and so routine" that they were a fundamental, if highly secret, part of American foreign policy toward Japan, said Roger Hilsman, head of the State Department's intelligence bureau in the Kennedy Administration.

"The principle was certainly acceptable to me," said U. Alexis Johnson, United States Ambassador to Japan from 1966 to 1969. "We were financing a party on our side." He said the payments continued after he left Japan in 1969 to become a senior State Department official.
The C.I.A. supported the party and established relations with many promising young men in the Japanese Government in the 1950's and 1960's. Some are today among the elder statesmen of Japanese politics.

Masaru Gotoda, a respected Liberal Democratic Party leader who entered parliament in the 1970's and who recently served as Justice Minister, acknowledged these contacts.

"I had a deep relationship with the C.I.A.," he said in an interview, referring to his years as a senior official in intelligence activities in the 1950's and 1960's. "I went to their headquarters. But there was nobody in an authentic Government organization who received financial aid." He would not be more explicit.

"Those C.I.A. people who were stationed in the embassy with legitimate status were fine," he said. "But there were also covert people. We did not really know all the activities they were conducting. Because they were from a friendly nation, we did not investigate deeply." Recruitment Was 'Sophisticated'

The recruitment of Japanese conservatives in the 1950's and 1960's was "a pretty sophisticated business," said one C.I.A. officer. "Quite a number of our officers were in touch with the L.D.P. This was done on a seat-by-seat basis" in the Japanese parliament. A second C.I.A. officer said the agency's contacts had included members of the Japanese cabinet.

As the C.I.A. supported the Liberal Democrats, it undermined their opponents. It infiltrated the Japan Socialist Party, which it suspected was receiving secret financial support from Moscow, and placed agents in youth groups, student groups and labor groups, former C.I.A. officers said.

Obstructing the Japanese opposition "was the most important thing we could do," one said.

The covert aid apparently ended in the early 1970's, when growing frictions over trade began to strain relations between the United States and Japan, and the growing wealth of Japan made the agency question the point of supporting politicians.

"By that time, they were self-financing," a former senior intelligence official said. But the agency used its longstanding relationships to establish a more traditional espionage operation in Japan.

"We had penetrations of all the cabinet agencies," said a C.I.A. officer based in Tokyo in the late 1970's and early 1980's. He said the agency also recruited a close aide to a prime minister and had such good contacts in the agriculture ministry that it knew beforehand what Japan would say in trade talks. "We knew the fallback positions" in talks over beef and citrus imports, he said. "We knew when the Japanese delegation would walk out."

…

The support for the Liberal Democrats had its origins in what some historians call "the reverse course" of American policy toward Japan after World War II.

From 1945 to 1948, the American forces who occupied Japan purged the Government of the right-wing militarists who had led Japan into war. But by 1949, things had changed. China went Communist. The Soviet Union exploded its first atomic bomb. Washington was fighting Communism, not ferreting out rightists.

The American occupation forces freed accused war criminals like Nobusuke Kishi, later Japan's Prime Minister. Some of the rehabilitated politicians had close contacts with organized crime groups, known as yakuza. So did Yoshio Kodama, a political fixer and later a major C.I.A. contact in Japan who worked behind the scenes to finance the conservatives.

…

Then a retired C.I.A. officer living in Hawaii phoned in a startling tip.

"It's much, much deeper than just Lockheed," Jerome Levinson, the panel's staff director, recalls the C.I.A. man saying. "If you really want to understand Japan, you have to go back to the formation of the L.D.P. and our involvement in it."

Mr. Levinson said in an interview that his superiors rejected his request to pursue the matter.

"This was one of the most profound secrets of our foreign policy," he said. "This was the one aspect of our investigation that was put on hold. We got to Japan, and it really all just shut down."

You may remember Kishi as both being Shinzo Abe’s grandfather, former prime minister of japan in the 50s, and the governor of the Japanese imperial puppet state in Manchuria, “Manchukuo,” where he basically lived his days drinking and fucking all the time because he was a colonial governor and no one in the imperial government was going to stop what their boy was getting up to in China as long as he kept the colony running smoothly enough.

EDIT: Technically, his official title was “Deputy Minister of Industrial Development,” but still, he was the one in charge of keeping it a “productive” colonial endeavor by the Imperial military

durandal4532

It’s very weird when people act like there’s a bouncer at the door of political parties. People can vote for whomever, you aren’t going to be like oh hell we forgot to allow a bunch of folks to vote for us, let’s try that.

100% Murphy just knows it sounds too ghoulish to say he wants to trade X number of vulnerable people for some theoretical number of conservative votes.

Maddoc

Democrats assume that every left of center vote should automatically be theirs by right, so the only strategy they understand is to try and capture more conservative voters

Lanz

https://twitter.com/radicalseabies/status/1677583548314980354?s=46

me looking at my tl the last couple days

Madican

never die wrote: »

Lanz wrote: »

https://twitter.com/nateb_panic/status/1677663797341745154?s=46

A California man caught covid at work. He infected his wife who ended up in ICU. So he sued his bosses. The largest lobbying group in the US got involved. The court ruled against the man because a victory would mean “dire financial consequences for employers.” Is it clear yet?🧵

In 2020, Robert Kuciemba, a woodworker in San Francisco was infected by a co-worker after his Nevada-based Victory Woodworks transferred a number of sick workers to the San Francisco site for a few months

Victory Woodworks knew some employees might be sick but they transferred them anyway and ignored a San Francisco ordinance in place at the time to quarantine suspected covid cases

Kuciemba was subsequently infected and he then infected his wife, who ended up in ICU on a ventilator. There's a few stunning details to this case:

First, the court agreed that there is no doubt the company ignored the San Francisco health ordinance. In other words, they accepted the company had broken the law but still...

Second, the US Chamber of Commerce, the largest business lobbying organisation got involved and helped the company with its defence. This is a tiny company in a niche industry. Their involvement tells us a lot about the importance of the principle they knew was at stake.

Third, the defence of the company is very telling. “There is simply no limit to how wide the net will be cast: the wife who claims her husband caught COVID-19 from the supermarket checker, the husband who claims his wife caught it while visiting an elder care home." Well, exactly

The California Supreme Court ruled against Kuciemba on the basis that a victory, while, in the court's words, "morally" the right thing to do, would create "dire financial consequences for employers" and cause a "dramatic expansion of liability" to stop the spread of covid.

This case reveals what many of us suspected but haven't seen confirmed in so many words: the public health imperative of controlling a pandemic by making employers liable for some of that control is, and always must be, secondary to capitalist profit

https://ko-fi.com/post/On-covid-Californias-supreme-court-just-said-the-V7V6N0GIS

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S274191.PDF

SCOCA wrote:

In sum, while the foreseeability factors and the policy factor of moral blame largely tilt in favor of finding a duty of care, the policy factors of preventing future harm and the anticipated burdens on defendants and the community weigh against imposing such a duty. “In assessing duty, however, we do not merely count up the factors on either side.” (Vasilenko, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 1092.) Some factors may be so weighty as to tip the balance one way or the other. Here, the significant and unpredictable burden that recognizing a duty of care would impose on California businesses, the court system, and the community at large counsels in favor of an exception to the general rule of Civil Code section 1714. Imposing on employers a tort duty to each employee’s household members to prevent the spread of this highly transmissible virus would throw open the courthouse doors to a deluge of lawsuits that would be both hard to prove and difficult to cull early in the proceedings. Although it is foreseeable that employees infected at work will carry the virus home and infect their loved ones, the dramatic expansion of liability plaintiffs’ suit envisions has the potential to destroy businesses and curtail, if not outright end, the provision of essential public services. These are the type of “policy considerations [that] dictate a cause of action should not be sanctioned no matter how foreseeable the risk.” (Elden v. Sheldon (1988) 46 Cal.3d 267, 274.) In some cases, “the consequences of a negligent act must be limited in order to avoid an intolerable burden on society.” (Ibid.) This is such a case.

I increasingly cannot escape two conclusions about the present state of society:

1) The Law does not exist to protect the public at any meaningful level

2) people are justified in burning things

I don’t, in any real capacity, see how that ruling makes any fucking sense with a rule of law.

“We found them guilty of doing the thing, but other companies could be found liable for doing the thing, so we aren’t enforcing consequences” is stating the law doesn’t have any value for this.

They broke the rules. They knowingly moved ill people in defiance of the law to an area and got a person sick.

That’s the end of the story.

This is absurd.

From our most liberal state.

Jesus fucking Christ.

I work for the State of California. Our union is currently in negotiations with the State for a new contract. One of the sticking points is pay increases to address inflation. The State's only offer is 6% over three years, 2% per year. They refuse to even entertain the idea of negotiating about it. They're also fighting against expanding Covid bonuses for those who still had to work during the pandemic to everyone who had to work during it, rather than just healthcare and cops.

Speaking of cops, state doesn't fight them on anything and they even have this little clause in their own contract that makes it so if the other unions get anything better in their contracts the cops can choose to get it too, literally piggybacking without spending the resources or political capital to get it.

Yes, this is the most liberal state. It doesn't matter when it comes to business and cops, they'll grind us into paste like the reddest of red.

Centipede Damascus

I'm not sure California is really the most liberal state so much as it is the biggest liberal state. They've definitely elected a Republican governor much more recently than Oregon or Washington have, for one thing.

BahamutZERO

We merely look better by comparison to some other states. Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi are our fault.

Madican

Centipede Damascus wrote: »

I'm not sure California is really the most liberal state so much as it is the biggest liberal state. They've definitely elected a Republican governor much more recently than Oregon or Washington have, for one thing.

To be fair that governor was Arnold Schwarzenegger and people here are more prone to being star-struck idiots than other states. See also Ronald Reagan.

The Legislature has never been anything but Democratic-controlled since 1975. Supermajority in both Assembly and Senate. That's not likely to ever change either, making governor more figurehead than they may seem.

Paladin

It's hard to tell what qualifies as a very liberal state since everyone has the same voting power but that's the only arena where power is the same. It would be interesting to see state distributions of voter demographic by relative income, education, and some measure of influence.

Madican

Also who the fuck cares about if it's the most liberal or least liberal, that's not what the content of the post is about so quit picking at a single unimportant word and ignoring everything else.

Captain Inertia

Hawaii tho

Paladin

Madican wrote: »

Also who the fuck cares about if it's the most liberal or least liberal, that's not what the content of the post is about so quit picking at a single unimportant word and ignoring everything else.

Some people may think that surely there are havens in the US where these institutional issues are fixed or minimized instead of this being a problem slathered heavily across the country and beyond with no dry ports

Shadowfire

Oh hey, Elonjet is active on Threads. I hope that's bringing Elon at least some discomfort.

nightmarenny

Centipede Damascus wrote: »

I'm not sure California is really the most liberal state so much as it is the biggest liberal state. They've definitely elected a Republican governor much more recently than Oregon or Washington have, for one thing.

As someone who lives in the state it is conservative in many remarkable ways.

Lanz

The problem is Liberalism, particularly in America, still fundamentally Neoliberal in nature and utterly subservient to the private interests of capitalists. It interests are in making sure “free” private markets run smoothly and efficiently and make profits, not to benefit the public good and interest

Mortal Sky

nightmarenny wrote: »

Centipede Damascus wrote: »

I'm not sure California is really the most liberal state so much as it is the biggest liberal state. They've definitely elected a Republican governor much more recently than Oregon or Washington have, for one thing.

As someone who lives in the state it is conservative in many remarkable ways.

Especially once you get much more than an hour inland, stuff starts feeling absolutely Bat Country real quick

the Inland Empire or Orange County are a very different flavor of conservative from say, the deep South or rural New England, but hoo boy are those areas wildly conservative in their own ways (and often even more violently so, just look at the LA County Sheriff's Department)

nightmarenny

Mortal Sky wrote: »

nightmarenny wrote: »

Centipede Damascus wrote: »

I'm not sure California is really the most liberal state so much as it is the biggest liberal state. They've definitely elected a Republican governor much more recently than Oregon or Washington have, for one thing.

As someone who lives in the state it is conservative in many remarkable ways.

Especially once you get much more than an hour inland, stuff starts feeling absolutely Bat Country real quick

the Inland Empire or Orange County are a very different flavor of conservative from say, the deep South or rural New England, but hoo boy are those areas wildly conservative in their own ways (and often even more violently so, just look at the LA County Sheriff's Department)

While that is true it's not what I'm talking about about. Oh sure northern California is as red as they come but even LA and San Fran are complicated. The people making laws there are less homophobic and racist perhaps but they are also mostly landlords and technocrats and they craft exactly the kind of legislation you would think they would.

There is a reason Dianne Feinstein had a critical song about landlords written about her in the 80s.

facetious

shinzo abe got got with mf doohickey

PwnanObrien

Not entirely Twitter related but related to the erosion of internet usability in general...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8-wrcLNAfc

Alistair Hutton

Nate Silver just needs to hurry up his journey now and announce he's registered as a Republican. Bored of this long form story telling where nothing happens.

Lanz

And now something uplifting: Colm Meaney is awesome

https://twitter.com/shanebeattynews/status/1677635001272205314?s=61

“How could we build houses then and can’t build them now?... It’s f**king Thatcherism, Reaganism, the neoliberals and the trickle-down economy that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael both bought into, [the idea] that the market will sort everything out. B***ocks.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/stage/2023/07/08/weve-got-to-get-these-fkers-out-colm-meaney-and-the-art-of-the-political/

We talk some more about politics. He reads the Irish papers online every day and is appalled by the housing crisis. “The house I grew up in was built by the Dublin Corporation,” Meaney says. “How could we build houses then and can’t build them now?... It’s f**king Thatcherism, Reaganism, the neoliberals and the trickle-down economy that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael both bought into, [the idea] that the market will sort everything out. B***ocks.”

Meaney is very much on the left. He hosted Martin McGuinness’s presidential rally in the Mansion House in 2011 and played McGuinness in the film The Journey in 2016. When Sinn Féin split in 1970, he sided with Official Sinn Féin (later the Workers Party) who took a more mainstream political path.

“I didn’t come around to supporting what is now Sinn Féin until the late ‘90s, until the peace process…. They’re not left enough for me, but they are of the left, at least,” he says.

“And their position on climate change worries me. But these are things we can work out. We’ve got to get these f**kers out – Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. A hundred years they’ve been at it between the pair of them.”

[Expletive deleted]

Maddoc wrote: »

Democrats assume that every left of center vote should automatically be theirs by right, so the only strategy they understand is to try and capture more conservative voters

By a simplistic application of game theory they're right. You, the voter, have three choices in a two-party system: leftmost party, rightmost party, or no vote.

If you are leftist, your game-theory optimal choice is to vote for the leftmost party, no matter how little to the left they are, as that gives better results for you than the other choices, although perhaps not by very much.

What they're forgetting, of course, is that the abstraction of naive game theory is too simplistic to model human behavior (more advanced version are better at this, but the simple answers are nice and simple and wrong). At some point, the voters will be too disgusted and stay at home.

WotanAnubis

Lanz wrote: »

And now something uplifting: Colm Meaney is awesome

https://twitter.com/shanebeattynews/status/1677635001272205314?s=61

“How could we build houses then and can’t build them now?... It’s f**king Thatcherism, Reaganism, the neoliberals and the trickle-down economy that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael both bought into, [the idea] that the market will sort everything out. B***ocks.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/stage/2023/07/08/weve-got-to-get-these-fkers-out-colm-meaney-and-the-art-of-the-political/

We talk some more about politics. He reads the Irish papers online every day and is appalled by the housing crisis. “The house I grew up in was built by the Dublin Corporation,” Meaney says. “How could we build houses then and can’t build them now?... It’s f**king Thatcherism, Reaganism, the neoliberals and the trickle-down economy that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael both bought into, [the idea] that the market will sort everything out. B***ocks.”

Meaney is very much on the left. He hosted Martin McGuinness’s presidential rally in the Mansion House in 2011 and played McGuinness in the film The Journey in 2016. When Sinn Féin split in 1970, he sided with Official Sinn Féin (later the Workers Party) who took a more mainstream political path.

“I didn’t come around to supporting what is now Sinn Féin until the late ‘90s, until the peace process…. They’re not left enough for me, but they are of the left, at least,” he says.

“And their position on climate change worries me. But these are things we can work out. We’ve got to get these f**kers out – Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. A hundred years they’ve been at it between the pair of them.”

Obligatory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4BRe0ZKTAc

Maddoc

[Expletive deleted] wrote: »

Maddoc wrote: »

Democrats assume that every left of center vote should automatically be theirs by right, so the only strategy they understand is to try and capture more conservative voters

By a simplistic application of game theory they're right. You, the voter, have three choices in a two-party system: leftmost party, rightmost party, or no vote.

If you are leftist, your game-theory optimal choice is to vote for the leftmost party, no matter how little to the left they are, as that gives better results for you than the other choices, although perhaps not by very much.

What they're forgetting, of course, is that the abstraction of naive game theory is too simplistic to model human behavior (more advanced version are better at this, but the simple answers are nice and simple and wrong). At some point, the voters will be too disgusted and stay at home.

Anecdotally I know at least a handful of people who voted third party instead of voting for a racist conservative rapist (either of them)

KalTorak

yeah it would be much better for everyone if they forgot about luring conservative voters (basically impossible at this point) and concentrated on encouraging nonvoters and dismantling voter suppression.

Lanz

So I’m not the most knowledgeable person on British Politics but Labor seems kind of fucked right now by what seems to be Starmer being a complete fucking moron:

https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1677950451260567553?s=46

These people are dangerous freaks

https://twitter.com/headfallsoff/status/1678030577486708739?s=46

the moderate position on climate change is the immediate state seizure of energy production and international dissolution of all energy companies, with executives tried for crimes against humanity. you dont want to know what the actual left leaning position on climate change is.

positions like this should be spoken plainly for what they are: genocidal. we know how many deaths climate change will cause. we know the scale of the threat. to deny it is to support it

also and this is neither here nor there really but imagine feeling threatened by hardened leftist eco warrior ed miliband of all people lmao

Though knowing our own dipshits in the beltway, I assume Starmer has plenty of company here who feel exactly the same

Lanz

https://twitter.com/flamesubs_ftjd/status/1677999321634177026?s=46

A manga adaption about former japanese prime minister Shinzou Abe will be released on Oct 1, 2023 in Japan.

Title: "Abe Shinzou Monogatari" created by TEAM ABE

The 67 years of Abe Shinzou's life

Image © Asukashinsha, TEAM ABE

they do know this manga will inevitably end with him being blasted to kingdom come with some guy's arts and craft project right lmao

1) oh Christ of course they want to propagandize Abe’s life in a biocomic
2) it’s going to be fucking hilarious to see how they ignore his assassination and try to end it with, presumably, the end of his term as PM (I guess we get to see how hard you can milk and old bastard’s colitis for poignant political drama)
3) oh look, they remembered to put Kishi in the promo image. Look, the war criminal is so happy! Happy War Crimes Grampa who fucked and drank his cares into a stupor while enslaving the people of Manchuria!

Solar

I think it's definitely the case that people care more about the economy than the environment in the UK right now, by and large.

I thought the nationally owned green energy and technology company that Labour have as a key policy was a good idea and I doubt that's going anywhere.

Really they should try to tie green energy initiatives into getting the cost of energy bills down

DarkPrimus

What's the odds that this adaptation is being at least partially financially backed by the Unification Church shell holding?

Lanz

DarkPrimus wrote: »

What's the odds that this adaptation is being at least partially financially backed by the Unification Church shell holding?

Not sure, but the publisher, Asuka Shinsa, is known as a right wing publisher

Also the promo image is apparently traced from an old family photo:

https://twitter.com/mrjeffu/status/1677501874671620096?s=20

The preview image is strikingly similar to a 1957 photo of the family visiting Hakone. So similar that I checked in photoshop to see if the creator traced the photograph. The lines match up perfectly. I wonder how much of the manga will just be tracings of photographs?

PiptheFair

Lanz wrote: »

https://twitter.com/flamesubs_ftjd/status/1677999321634177026?s=46

A manga adaption about former japanese prime minister Shinzou Abe will be released on Oct 1, 2023 in Japan.

Title: "Abe Shinzou Monogatari" created by TEAM ABE

The 67 years of Abe Shinzou's life

Image © Asukashinsha, TEAM ABE

they do know this manga will inevitably end with him being blasted to kingdom come with some guy's arts and craft project right lmao

1) oh Christ of course they want to propagandize Abe’s life in a biocomic
2) it’s going to be fucking hilarious to see how they ignore his assassination and try to end it with, presumably, the end of his term as PM (I guess we get to see how hard you can milk and old bastard’s colitis for poignant political drama)
3) oh look, they remembered to put Kishi in the promo image. Look, the war criminal is so happy! Happy War Crimes Grampa who fucked and drank his cares into a stupor while enslaving the people of Manchuria!

did you know that kishi used to console grieving mothers? google 'kishi comfort women' for more info!

Lanz

https://twitter.com/clownworld_/status/1677755359849754624?s=46

Why’s it take seven to eight NYPD cops to arrest a single guy for smoking outside of a park

Why’s a guy getting arrested for smoking outside of a park.

[because the NYPD is a gang]