Nahvi

joined 2 years ago
[–] Nahvi -2 points 1 year ago

this place being crazy crazy overwhelmingly progressive (not shade) is going to push people away.

This is a serious concern. As a moderate, I usually get fed-up with how lop-sided it is here pretty quickly.

When I first joined Lemmy, I was optimistic that there would be a good exchange of ideas and open discussions from differing viewpoints. Unfortunately, that only lasted until I found the Agora. At which point I realized I had just joined Survivor Lemmy, and was always wondering which instance was going to get voted off the island this week. I pretty much dropped my sh.itjust.works account after that.

It is amazing how toxic the environment can be towards people with differing political views. I can't remember the last time I was here and didn't see someone calling conservatives fascists or saying they should die. Also, it is pretty rare day when I see someone use the word communist here instead of the pejorative "tankie". Definitely not the kind of environment to foster inclusion.

If there wasn't such an emphasis on civility, anti-racism, anti-bigotry, and non-toxicity here then I wouldn't expect anything and probably wouldn't even notice, but with that emphasis it seems to stand out even more.

[–] Nahvi 2 points 1 year ago

As I understand it, seeing the same post multiple times when it is cross-posted is an app issue. The default desktop UI combines them all into one post with links near the top showing the other communities it was cross-posted to.

I never see the multiple post thing you are talking about.

[–] Nahvi 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Expanding the courts because we aren't happy with the current lineup would set an extremely dangerous precedent. Assuming that the Republicans in the Senate would let any of Biden's nominations through, what would stop the next Republican president from expanding SCOTUS again to make sure they are back in the majority?

Edit: Questions get question marks.

[–] Nahvi 4 points 1 year ago

Probably, though the scene that came to mind for me was from the DS9 episode where Worf, Kor, and Dax find the sword of Kahless.

[–] Nahvi 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is definitely the better solution. We don't need the court experiencing major political swings during nearly every presidency.

Edit: Also, the chief justice should either be chosen amongst themselves or be the longest serving member, not randomly chosen when that spot opens.

While I am thinking about it. if we really want to depoliticize the position, as much as possible, we should consider making them lifetime public citizens after they join the court. By public citizen, I mean they become wards of the nation and can no longer make or posses money or assets. They must divest all assets to family and will be provided food, lodging, and stipends for travel or leisure for the rest of their lives. After they retire they will become Justices Emeriti who should guest lecture at various law schools and may be called in to advise or assist the sitting court when particularly complex issues arise. Any money made by a Justice Emeritus should be funneled into the cost of providing for all the Justice Emeritus.

[–] Nahvi 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Like you guessed it is a cultural icon. The emperor that united their home world used it.

In Star Trek lore, the Klingon Kahless created the bat'leth around CE 625. According to Klingon mythology, he formed the blade by dropping a length of his hair into some lava from inside the Kri'stak Volcano, then cooling, shaping, and hardening it in the lake of Lursor.[5] He then united Qo'noS, the Klingon homeworld, by killing a tyrant named Molor with the weapon, which became known as the Sword of Kahless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat%27leth#Use_in_Star_Trek

[–] Nahvi 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I had to re-read it a few times, but I think they are trying to say if the other 97% is divided into 30 categories they will all be about 3% also. The implication being that every percent counts.

[–] Nahvi 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

While it might feel good to judge religious people because you feel they are less generous to the poor in the way they vote, it is worth considering three things:

First, the religious easily out donate the rest of us both in percentage of donators and amount donated, whether it is to religious or secular causes.

Second, it is a lot easier to give away someone else's money than our own.

Third, most of them see a difference between donating, out of their excess, to a local organization that handles the money in a way they agree with, versus having their money taken by force, even if money is tight, by an organization (government) that handles the money in a way they don't agree with.

If someone likes donating to the Salvation Army and finds out that they are using 80% of their funds to pay for staff, then maybe they will stop supporting them and support Habitat For Humanity or a local food pantry instead. Whereas when the government takes their money and does what they want with it, they have little recourse when it is mismanaged.

[–] Nahvi 2 points 2 years ago

Interesting. I can't find anything like her either. I did find some pictures of RIR crossed with SL Wyandotte, but that isn't what they look like. I wonder if you got something new that Meyer is working on.

[–] Nahvi 1 points 2 years ago

Your parents signed you up for it.

[–] Nahvi 3 points 2 years ago

For that matter Zuckerberg and the exec from Tik Tok are both walking free.

view more: ‹ prev next ›