Sounds like the moms are to blame. Moms need to be less forgiving of their sons, to better prepare them for their future relationships.

Do you mean the Democrats? If so, yeah, the Democrats do seem willing to accept anti-Trump conservatives into their party.

The Democrats really want to be a big tent party. They’ll take just about anyone within a certain ideological range, centered around the American political middle. This definitely includes many conservatives.

I question the effectiveness of this strategy, though, as when you include too many opposing ideologies in a single party, it can be difficult for the party to choose a clear path to take. It’s often the case that when you try to appeal to as many different people as possible, you end up not appealing to very many people at all.

This really isn’t that surprising. The Republican party has become a cult of personality around Trump, putting it at odds with actual, ideological conservatives.

I don’t know what Trump’s ideology is, or if he even has one. He seems to only believe in his own ambition, for wealth, power, and control.

However, conservativism does lend itself to people like Trump rising to power, because it promotes a central authority and/or aristocracy that preserves tradition, culture, and the established social order. Conservatism doesn’t just tolerate social hierarchies, like class, it promotes them, and, in fact conservatism believes that such hierarchies are not only necessary, but natural and essential. It makes sense that malignant narcissists would take advantage of such a system to try and take their “rightful place” at the top of the hierarchies, because they believe that they are inherently superior to everyone else.

Over the past few years, about 4 in 10 young women between the ages of 18 and 29 have described their political views as liberal

I wonder how the other 6 in 10 young women would describe their political views. While 40% isn’t a majority, I would think liberals are a plurality. Still, it’s a little disheartening that there isn’t a clear majority in the US. It would be nice if a majority of Americans could reach a consensus.

Of course parents not taking appropriate precautions doesn’t absolve the companies of responsibility. Unethical behavior is unethical behavior, even if there are things consumers can do to protect themselves from it. After all, the precautions wouldn’t be necessary if the companies didn’t engage in this behavior in the first place, so these precautions aren’t really solutions only mitigations.

I don’t truly understand why the option is between someone who might be reasonable, and a convicted predator con artist who, at every turn, keeps demonstrating how they’re more racist and incoherent than your great grandpa

I think our system of politics as day time talk show style entertainment is part of the reason why the convicted predator continues to be a seemingly viable candidate.

In a system where a single person gets full executive authority,

Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it. No single person should have that much authority. But, regardless, does this debate platform really tell us all that much about how a person is likely to perform as chief executive? I’m not so sure. I think a person can do relatively well in a debate performance and still end up being a poor president.

I can’t vote for policies.

But you can vote for a representative (two, actually) who can vote for policies. That’s where our focus should be, I think. I’m not really sure why we need a president, to be honest. A single individual with that much power, who isn’t even elected by popular vote, seems undemocratic to me.

I used to advocate for Linux, because I wanted more people to use it, so that more software devs would support it. I care a lot less about that since proton came to prominence. Linux still doesn’t get all the support from devs that I want, but there’s so much great software available now, both open source and proprietary, that I don’t really worry about non Linux users anymore.

So use whatever OS you want, folks. I don’t really care.

Politics shouldn’t be a sport. Critical thinking and data driven analysis are much better methods for determining the best policies than an arbitrary contest of who had the best quips or who totally owned their opponent more. Our future as a country shouldn’t be determined by the political equivalent of a rap battle.

RIP Lt. Zogg

The irony is, something like this probably would have been a lot less expensive to make, while also appealing more to fans. It’s funny how so many people in the movie business are not very good at, you know, the movie business.

When people are told that depression is an aberration, we are telling them that they are not part of the tribe. They are not right, they don’t belong. That’s when their shame deepens and they avoid social connection.

And that’s not the only reason people are made to feel they’re not part of the tribe, that they don’t belong. There are many things in this modern (post modern?) world that cause us to become alienated from other people, even and especially those in our own community. The nature of community itself has changed. Many relationships and social institutions feel more tenuous or impermanent.

It’s a vicious cycle: people feel alienated from others, it causes them stress, the stress causes anxiety, that leads to the immobilization response and depression, the effects of the anxiety and depression cause people to become further alienated from others, and the process accelerates and perpetuates.

Sorry, you’re all getting techno-feudalism.

Revolution is a process, not necessarily an event. A lot of people seem to think of revolutions as single events, usually wars, but those revolutionary wars are only parts of a much larger revolutionary process. The industrial revolution, for example, took place over about a century, and then the second industrial revolution occurred over multiple decades. These industrial revolutions coincided with the rise of capitalism. It’s likely we couldn’t have had one without the other. In that regard, capitalism didn’t emerge as a result of a single, revolutionary event, it emerged gradually, organically over decades, generations, and even centuries. The revolutionary process that led to the emergence of capitalism involved many reforms. There’s no reason to think socialism would be any different. Any revolutionary process is likely to involve, or even necessitate, many reforms. I don’t think there is a strict dichotomy between reform and revolution, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I think people just get impatient. They see reforms as too slow, they want the end of capitalism, and the transition to socialism, now. These people think that if they just have enough guns and soldiers they can force the end of capitalism, but this is simply wrong. No one can force the end of capitalism, it must come about organically. The only thing that can end capitalism, is capitalism. It must be allowed to run its course. Socialism will arise as we look for solutions to the problems caused by the internal contradictions inherent to capitalism. I think where direct revolutionary action will be most necessary is to counter reactionaries.

All I’m saying is that people absolutely know why they want their own house. Pretending otherwise is a little ridiculous.

All I’m saying is I think people’s preferences are influenced by the prevailing culture, which certainly impresses on people that owning a home should be the ideal. We’re all influenced by culture, and we’re not necessarily always consciously aware of it.

If people want to live in an apartment that’s great, but it should be a choice.

It should be, I agree. And that’s a big part of the problem: in many cities, a large percentage, or even a majority of the land is zoned exclusively for single family development. There is no choice to build anything else. If the zoning was changed to allow any and all forms of housing to be built, I’m sure neighborhoods of detached, single family homes would still exist, but there would likely be far fewer of them, and/or they would be further from the city center.

I don’t think people should have to live in sardine cans, I think people should have the opportunity to live in apartments or condos that meet their needs.

I understand. I don’t necessarily have a problem with relatively restrictive zoning in rural areas. But, I do think restrictive zoning becomes a significant problem, the closer you get to population centers, or the centers of towns and cities. Limiting higher density housing in city and town centers kind of necessitates people moving into suburbs and even, eventually, rural areas. If there isn’t enough suitable, affordable, relatively dense housing where the jobs and schools and shops are, the suburbs will grow and spread. So, if you want to keep your area as rural as possible, you need to make sure people have plenty of housing options in the city and town centers. Unfortunately, much of the land in many city and town centers is currently zoned exclusively for single family homes. That has to change or sprawl will continue.

Certainly some suburbs are better than others. I’m glad that your suburb does not negatively impact your mental and physical wellbeing. Indeed, I am generalizing. However, I would argue that even the best suburbs are still more expensive and worse for the environment than the best urban areas. The more concentrated human population centers are, the more wild land there can be, and that’s better for the planet.

That being said, I don’t necessarily want to outlaw detached, single family homes, or force people to leave their suburb and move into densely populated urban areas. If your suburb works for you, you should be able to stay there. I do think any tax policies that result in urban areas subsidizing the costs of suburban areas should be eliminated, though.

It’s such a complex problem, it’s going to take a long time to fix. Part of the problem is people don’t really understand what the real problem is. They think the problem is that there aren’t enough detached, single family homes being built. I get why people would focus on single family homes because that’s what Americans want. The “American Dream” is to own your own home in the suburbs, and if you think that everyone who wants a single family home should be able to buy one, then, yeah, you’re going to see the problem as one of not enough single family homes being built. However, I would argue that the American dream itself is the problem.

Suburbs are expensive, and inefficient, bad for the environment, and bad for our physical and mental health. Suburbs necessitate car dependence, and cars themselves require a lot of expensive infrastructure. I know a lot of Americans don’t like to hear it, but we really do need to be living in higher density urban areas. Higher density, mixed use urban areas allow people to walk and bike more, which is better for our health. It’s also less expensive. The farther apart everything is, the more you’ll need to drive, and that means owning your own car, which is expensive.

I don’t think people even necessarily know why they want a single family home. I think Americans want single family homes because we’re told from day one that is what we should want. It’s our culture. You grow up, get married, buy a home in the suburbs, and start a family. You own at least two cars, you drive everywhere, that’s the American dream. I think we need to start questioning if this is really what’s best, and if we should really want it. I know I have, and I’ve decided it isn’t best. I think I would be happier and healthier living in a mixed use urban area, where I could walk or bike to a lot of places, or take public transportation, and if I needed to drive somewhere, maybe I’d take a taxi or rent a car or use some car sharing service.

Very few places like these exist in the US, and that’s because too many people still want to live in a single family home in the suburbs, and many of those people, also have most of their personal wealth in their home, so they push for restrictive zoning laws and other regulations, limiting how much higher density housing and mixed development can be built, thus making such areas relatively rare and thus expensive. There’s a battle going on between people who want single family homes and people who want higher density, mixed use areas.

I know people don’t want to talk about that, because they don’t want to make it an us vs them thing, but it just is. Our desires are mutually exclusive, due to the finite nature of land. A given piece of land cannot be both a low density, single family suburb and a higher density, mixed use area, simultaneously. It must be one or the other. How we “fix” the housing crisis depends on which we choose to prioritize. We either find ways to build more and more suburbs, or we eliminate single family zoning and invest in building many more, higher density, mixed use urban areas. I know which one I choose.

I’m ok with a decent amount of tech in a car. Like I’m fine being able to connect my phone to the car and have android auto take over the infotainment system.

This reminds me of my 2016 Honda Civic. It had just the right amount of tech.