lmmarsano
@lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
- Comment on We'll have plenty of camps to have them sent to by then. 5 days ago:
Even if it successfully shielded them from 100% of civil rights cases (which it objectively has not)
Objectively, the planets sometimes align, too: the odds are highly against it.
it provides no protection from criminal charges
Also exceedingly rare: we’ve only seen any decent prosecution recently. It’s likely to fail.
While that fight should continue, society has more mundane tools to ostracize & make people’s lives hell.
- Comment on We'll have plenty of camps to have them sent to by then. 5 days ago:
I’m exceptionally doubtful that clearly established constitutional rights aren’t being violated
Anyone who’s hasn’t lived under a rock the past decade knows clearly established means practical impunity.
Some courts have required an extraordinarily precise match between the misconduct alleged in one case and in a prior one in order to find a violation of someone’s constitutional rights.
[…]
When Baxter sued, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out his case. It held that while it was well established that a police dog couldn’t be unleashed on a suspect who was lying down, there was no case addressing someone sitting down with their hands up, as Baxter said he was doing.
From Reason
“I have previously expressed my doubts about our qualified immunity jurisprudence,” writes Thomas. “Because our §1983 qualified immunity doctrine appears to stray from the statutory text, I would grant this petition.”
The judge spoke to a point that qualified immunity critics have been making for some time: The framework was concocted by the Supreme Court in spite of court precedent. It’s a perfect example of legislating from the bench—something conservatives typically oppose.
The Civil Rights Act of 1871, otherwise known as Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, explicitly grants you the ability to sue public officials who trample on your constitutional rights. The high court tinkered with that idea in Pierson v. Ray (1967), carving out an exemption for officials who violated your rights in “good faith.” Thus, qualified immunity was born.
That doctrine ballooned to something much larger in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), when the Supreme Court scrubbed the “good faith” exception in favor of the “clearly established” standard, a rule that has become almost impossible to satisfy. Now, public officials cannot be held liable for bad behavior if a near-identical situation has not been outlined and condemned in previous case law.
Though the original idea was to protect public servants from vacuous lawsuits, the practical effects have been alarming. As I wrote last week:
In Howse v. Hodous (2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit gave qualified immunity to two officers who allegedly assaulted and arrested a man on bogus charges for the crime of standing outside of his own house. There was also the sheriff’s deputy in Coffee County, Georgia, who shot a 10-year-old boy while aiming at a non-threatening dog; the cop in Los Angeles who shot a 15-year-old boy on his way to school because the child’s friend had a plastic gun; and two cops in Fresno, California, who allegedly stole $225,000 while executing a search warrant.
In other words, cops need the judiciary to tell them explicitly that stealing is wrong. The aforementioned police officers were thus shielded from legal accountability, leaving the plaintiffs with no recourse to seek damages for medical bills or stolen assets.
Court standards are so strict, nearly any meaningless, incidental difference suffices to grant officials cover of qualified immunity: literally the difference between lying down & sitting is all it takes to violate rights with impunity.
- Comment on Want happier employees? Start with a 32-hour workweek – and 4 weeks vacation. 1 week ago:
That goal is too modest. We shouldn’t settle until Keynes prediction of a 15-hour workweek is fulfilled.
- Comment on Saint > Pope 1 week ago:
Which is why I think it was all on purpose.
Occam/Hanlon’s razor: it’s stupidity with opportunistic grift.
Project 2025 had pro- & anti-tariff proposals (they were split on the issue of fair vs free trade & argued both). This administration is running wild with the pro-tariff proposal, which ties tariff imbalances to trade deficits (seen this theme before?).
While the fair trade camp argued higher tariffs would somehow create jobs, the free trade camp called for realism & skepticism
trade policy has limited capabilities and is vulnerable to mission creep and regulatory capture
will fail for the same reason that a hammer cannot turn a screw: It is the wrong tool for the job. Conservatives should be similarly skeptical of recent attempts on the Right to use progressive trade policy to punish political opponents, remake manufacturing, or accomplish other objectives for which it is not suited. The next Administration needs to end the mission creep that has all but taken over trade policy in recent years.
countered that no trade policy (fair or free) creates jobs
Neither free trade nor protectionism will create jobs. Trade affects the types of jobs people have, but it has no long-run effect on the number of jobs. Labor force size is tied to population size more than anything else.
and argues more inline with textbook economics about trade, comparative advantage, specialization.
Interestingly, the free trade camp gave a brief history lesson about the interconnectedness of the economy from its agrarian beginnings
In 1776, nearly 90 percent of Americans were farmers. For 10 people to eat, nine had to farm. That meant fewer people could be factory workers, doctors, or teachers, or even live in cities, because they were needed on the farm. Accordingly, life expectancy was around 40 years, and literacy was 13 percent.
through the loss of jobs from agriculture to industry increasing the output of both
Many displaced farm laborers got jobs making the very farm equipment that made intensive agricultural growth possible, from railroad networks to cotton gins. Each fed the other. Agriculture and industry are not separate; they are as interconnected as everything else in the economy. None of this could have happened had the government enacted policies to preserve full agricultural employment.
to argue that jobs in a particular sector are the wrong measure of value
economic policy should treat value as value, whether it is created on a farm, in a factory, or in an office. A dollar of value created in manufacturing is neither more nor less valuable than a dollar of value created in agriculture or services.
growth increased as service sector surpassed manufacturing
Farmers’ share of the population continued to decline through this entire period, yet employment remained high, and the economy continued to grow. Factories were not the only beneficiaries of agriculture’s productivity boom and the labor it freed; services also grew. In fact, service-sector employment surpassed manufacturing employment around 1890—far earlier than most people realize.
economic decline based on manufacturing is a myth that disregards the big picture
In trade, as in most other areas, few people ever zoom out to see the big picture, which is one reason why so many people mistakenly believe that U.S. manufacturing and the U.S. economy are in decline.
trade leads to specialization that affects the types of jobs, not long-term employment level
The data do not show American economic carnage. They show more than two centuries of intensive growth, made possible by a growing internal market throughout the 19th century and a growing international market in the post–World War II era. The transition from farm to factory did not shrink the labor force or farm output. Later, the transition from factories to services did not shrink the labor force, factory output, or farm output. Both transitions affected the types of jobs, not the number of jobs.
declining tariffs in the post-war era made this continued prosperity possible
population growth, the U.S.-led rules-based international trading system, and the steady 75-year decline in tariffs after World War II have made possible decades of continued prosperity
That position was too nuanced for this administration.
- Comment on It really is just reddit <3 2 weeks ago:
screenshot of text
no link or alt textDude, charge your battery.
- Comment on Getting mixed signals from Reddit. Furthermore I shall henceforth be on Lemmy full time. 2 weeks ago:
you can get banned here
It takes special effort here, though.
And like it was always going to be like that anyways.
It’s not inevitable: some places are very laissez-faire.
- Comment on Philosophy moment 2 weeks ago:
Link to source, because screenshots of screenshots are inaccessible trash.
- Comment on A bit of salt makes it taste more savory 4 weeks ago:
Horseshoe theory
the far-left and the far-right are closer to each other than either is to the political center
are both fascists
Are closer doesn’t mean are the same: horseshoe theory doesn’t support your claim.
They’re both authoritarians that repress human rights. They’re as bad as fascists. Identifying those elements that make them as bad—authoritarianism & repression of human rights—clarifies discussion.
When we articulate problems accurately, we can criticize them in all guises.
- Comment on A bit of salt makes it taste more savory 4 weeks ago:
What did OP directly say or do in their post to direct a response to them rather than the image? All we have is their image in no particular context, an interpretation of the image, & a hypothetical statement I wrote?
- Comment on A bit of salt makes it taste more savory 4 weeks ago:
randomly criticize someone else over a meme
Someone else or the meme? Are we getting worked up over generic you?
The observation that perceived denunciation for “fighting fascists” around here may more often be someone deluding themselves, so the image rings false with self-delusion is a critique of the meme.
- Comment on A bit of salt makes it taste more savory 4 weeks ago:
Semantics is literal meaning, though. Words mean things.
I’m sure there are many words for left-wing authoritarians: fascist isn’t it. Instead of making fascism meaningless, can we pick a correct word?
- Comment on A bit of salt makes it taste more savory 4 weeks ago:
No problem: sometimes we all need a reality check when we go tilting at windmills as is custom around here.
- Comment on A bit of salt makes it taste more savory 4 weeks ago:
Self-satisfaction at stretching the definition of fascist.
If you’re getting downvoted here where anti-fascism thrives, and you think it’s for criticizing fascism, then there’s probably something else going on (and you’re probably being an idiot).
- Comment on A bit of salt makes it taste more savory 4 weeks ago:
tankie troika
Gotta admit that is way better.
- Comment on A bit of salt makes it taste more savory 4 weeks ago:
Tankie Triad
Are tankies the pro- or anti-fascist crowd? I thought they were far left. It’s hard to keep track of all these vying affiliations.
- Comment on Elevated 4 weeks ago:
Doesn’t a little fecal matter elevate everything? 😄
- Comment on You cannot learn without failing. 4 weeks ago:
No True Scotsman? That could be true if the image is merely descriptive of our messy reality.
I see the image as including a prescriptive message that states an ethical ideal: a real scientist should welcome their findings challenged, even refuted. Science excels by dispelling falsehoods. That seems right.
in b4 “if by whiskey” 😄
- Comment on Nice try 5 weeks ago:
Vegetables on the other hand
A dietician once explained to me that children are extra-sensitive to bitter flavors like those of vegetables, and this sensitivity grows milder with age, so their special aversion is only natural. I recall feeling extremely hostile to vegetables then at some age feeling shocked that it just vanished & I could appreciate them more.
- Comment on Petty pedantry 1 month ago:
After a while, thus achieving another mild infuriation. 💯
- Comment on Petty pedantry 1 month ago:
not how colons work
You had me scanning the image (of text without alt text: bad, OP! BAD!) for a
:pretty hard until I settled on The New York Times messageBreaking News: Susan[…]
for a while. Had me wondering how else The New York Times is supposed to write that, because it looks correct.
This is why quoting exists.
- Comment on "Meritocracy" 1 month ago:
image of text
no alt text
users with accessibility needs can’t read this
🤦
- Comment on "Meritocracy" 1 month ago:
image of text
no alt text
users with accessibility needs can’t read this
Thanks.
- Comment on Anon uses Discord 1 month ago:
Nah, a password authentication or anything that transmits the full secret is beyond primitive. Passkeys, client certificates, OTP never transmit the secret key. With passkeys & client certificates, the server never has the secret key, so it can’t expose it.
Problems due to phone loss indicate bad practices. Any decent password manager or vault service can manage cryptographic credentials of any kind.
- Comment on This fucking bot is still out there messaging 2 months ago:
Not Nigerian enough.
- Comment on I want to know. 2 months ago:
I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.
Source unclear, often attributed to Richard Feynman.
- Comment on How does this pic show that Elon Musk doesnt know SQL? 2 months ago:
Nah, you’re ignoring context. Context matters. I’ll show.
He’s not saying “This retard thinks the SSA uses SQL”.
Can SSA not be called “the government”?
He is saying “the government” which means all of it.
Which government? The Brazilian government? Your state government? Your local government? No? How do you know? That’s right: context.
By why stop there? There’s more context: a Social Security database was specifically mentioned.
Does “the government” always mean all of it? When a federal agent knocks someone’s door & someone gripes “The goddamn government is after me!” do they literally mean the entire government? I know from context I or anyone else can informally refer to any part of the government at any level as “the government”. I think you know this.
Likewise, when people refer to the ocean or the sky or the people, they don’t necessarily mean all of it or all of them.
Another way to check meaning is to test whether a proposition still makes sense when something obvious unstated is explicitly written out.
This retard thinks the government uses SQL. Why assume they use SQL here?
Still make sense? Yes. Could that be understood from context without explicitly writing it out? Yes.
To refrain:
Use context.
- Comment on How does this pic show that Elon Musk doesnt know SQL? 2 months ago:
Were those his exact words? When words are ambiguous, are we selecting interpretations that serve best in the contention? Does the context suggest something obvious was left unstated? Yours seems like a forced interpretation.
- He complains about 1 specific database.
- Some rando assumes it’s SQL & retorts he doesn’t know it.
- He literally writes “This retard thinks the government uses SQL.”
Always, sometimes, here? In typical Twitter fashion, it’s brief and leaves room for interpretation.
In context, always or here makes the most sense as in “This dumbass thinks the government always uses SQL.” or “This dumbass thinks the government uses SQL here.” Does it matter some other database is SQL if this one isn’t? No. With your interpretation, he pointlessly claims that it does matter for no better reason than to discredit himself. With narrower interpretations, he doesn’t. In a contention, people don’t typically make pointless claims to discredit themselves. Therefore, narrower interpretations make more sense. Use context.
All I did here was apply textbook guidelines for analyzing arguments & strawman fallacies as explained in The Power of Logic. I welcome everyone to do the same.
The fact is there’s very little information here. We don’t know which database he’s referring to exactly. We don’t know its technology. Some of us have worked enough with local government & legacy enterprise systems to know that following any sort of common industry standards is an unsafe assumption. No one here has introduced concrete information on any of that to draw clear conclusions, though there’s an awful lot of conjecture & overreading.
He seemed to use the word de-duplicated incorrectly. However, he also explained exactly what he meant by that, so the word hardly matters. Is there a good chance he’s wrong that multiple records with the same SSN indicate fraud? Without a clear explanation of the data architecture, I think so.
I despise idiocy. Therefore, I despise what Musk is doing to the government. Therefore, I despise it when everyone else does it.
Seeing this post keep popping up in the lemmy feed is annoying when it’s clear from context that there’s nothing there but weak reasoning.
We don’t have to become idiots to denounce idiocy.
- Comment on How does this pic show that Elon Musk doesnt know SQL? 2 months ago:
Some may be so old that they predate RDBMS/SQL.
I don’t follow. Wouldn’t that lend credence to his assertion that it’s incorrect to assume that everything in government is SQL?
- Comment on Does the US really have no instruments in case a newly elected president immediatelly and openly exposes he's a nazi? 3 months ago:
I mostly pointed out the different definitions one might use so that people wouldn’t read my examples of rights violations and think “what’s that got to do with democracy?”.
Yet you wrote
That’s not even true in a very minimal definition of democracy
Are you contradicting yourself later by conceding (flawed as it may be) it fit “a very minimal definition of democracy”?
Other common restrictions in ancient Greek democracies were being a male citizen (who was born to 2 citizens), a minimum age, completed military service. Still, rule wasn’t restricted to oligarchs or monarchs. I think we’d still call that a democracy in contrast to everything else.
Your writing seems inconsistent.
If it existed today it would probably not even be called a democracy by western standards.
Do good, objective definitions vary by time & culture? Seems problematic.
Seems you’re claiming something doesn’t fit a minimal definition of democracy while using a non-minimal definition of democracy. Sure, it’s a flawed democracy, but we can repudiate it on those considerations it fails and clarify them without overgeneralizing.
- Comment on Does the US really have no instruments in case a newly elected president immediatelly and openly exposes he's a nazi? 3 months ago:
So if you mean democracy in a very literal and minimal sense[…]
If you mean in it a more general sense[…]
Where would ancient Greek democracy fall in this spectrum?
