monotremata

I dunno. I think a lot of regular people felt really strongly that it was critical that the Republicans not gain control of everything in this last election, and given how things are going at the moment, it's really hard to argue that was wrong. Which is not to say that the folks criticizing the Democrats were wrong either! The Democrats' feckless centrism and undermining of leftist candidates has been galling for years. The difficult truth is that the system has been so broken that really good people following genuine motivations were arguing on both sides of the leftist/Democrat divide. I was trying to cling to the hope that if we jollied the current system along, we could get reforms like ranked choice voting and the national vote interstate compact in place that would help shift the underlying incentives in the system away from the two-party system, but it's probably really been irreparable for years now.

Of course bullying people was never going to be an effective tactic, and I never endorsed that. But that's just regular tribalism and anger at the nonconformist. That's just regular dumb human stuff.

Yes, to an extent they do different things, but that's not what the person you were replying to was talking about. For several years there was this idea that "left-handed people are right-brain dominant, and right-handed people are left-brain dominant." And along with that went this whole astrology-tinged thing about the right brain being the creative half and the left brain being the analytic half and whatnot. It's pretty much nonsense.

The "Scunthorpe Problem" strikes again!

Yeah, I think we just disagree about this. You're implying that letting this go forward would be giving in to the state acting capriciously, but that's really not what this is. The states have literally already started spending the money--hiring contractors and so forth to physically build things--based on the funds that the government had already decided to send them, but is now arbitrarily yanking back. Note that this is different from "we are accustomed to receiving funds for this"; instead it's "you made a specific commitment to provide X funds for Y purpose, and are now suddenly stiffing us on the bill." In that light, withholding a portion of the funds that the state ostensibly owes the government in order to make up that unexpected shortfall really isn't that unreasonable. You keep portraying this as them withholding money "because they disagree with federal policies," and saying "what those policies are and why is completely irrelevant," but the policy they disagree with is the sudden and arbitrary withholding of previously-committed funds to the state, and they are withholding state funds to the feds as a direct way of offsetting that deficit. That makes it feel extremely relevant.

I just don't think it absolutely has to be the slippery slope you're portraying it as. I'm getting into technicalities because we're discussing the law and precedent, and technicalities matter a whole freaking lot when you're dealing with the law. There's a reason descending into technicalities is referred to in roleplaying games as "rules lawyering".

And as for highly populous states having a larger influence on federal policy...isn't that just democracy? Power derives from the consent of the governed, and at the moment that consent is at a particularly low ebb.

In any case, yeah, I think we just disagree on this, and it's all moot in the face of the specific court in power. I'll let you get the last word if you want to reply, but I'll probably drop it at this point.

I feel like you're missing a point here. It's significant that this isn't just

they disagree with federal policies that are affecting them.

It's that the federal government has made a commitment to provide funds to the state (e.g. the broadband construction funds, funds to build EV charging stations, etc.) and the federal government is now refusing to disburse those funds because the current administration has decided it doesn't like paying the bills the previous administration incurred, at least to states Trump feels aren't adequately supportive of his policies. The proposal in this case is to withhold delivery of funds the state is supposed to give the government in order to offset the funds the government is also contractually obligated to deliver.

I agree with you that this specific supreme court would definitely rule in favor of the feds, but I definitely don't think the case is as absurdly one-sided as you seem to find it. I think a different court could probably find precedent for this kind of dispute if they were so inclined.

Precisely that. https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/16/politics/dhs-vetting-immigrant-reality-tv-show

I tried this with my Switch, but it turns out the switch version of moonlight is super janky. It can't wake the computer, and the controls don't seem to map right by default, which basically means I have to remap controls every time I start a game (since I go back and forth between the PC and the handheld, and I need to switch them back when I'm at the PC). Plus it sometimes just stops accepting input for a while and makes me run down to the computer. It just has a lot more friction than I thought it would.

I'm doing all that because there's this part of my brain that is convinced that I should get a Deck, even though my problem isn't actually that I don't have a handheld, it's that I can't motivate myself to play the games I already have. So, not actually gonna get a Deck unless the prices come down a lot. The used prices are mostly still over $300, though.

The 2nd amendment just says the government can't take away your guns. It doesn't say anything about it being okay for you to use them against the government.

I mean, hell, police kill people all the time, but the courts treat having a gun on your person as a reason the cops had to shoot you. So they can't take away the gun, but they can take away your life for having it.

Basically you can use it as a security blanket to rock yourself to sleep at night, but get anywhere near the gestapo with it and you die a "terrorist."

💰 💰 💰

So, the EPA sets emissions rules for the country, on the grounds that it would be problematic for industry if there was a patchwork of 50 different sets of rules about this stuff. California got the feds to agree to let them set their own stricter limits, though, and allowed other states to sign on to also use California's rules if they wanted to, which several did.

So I think what's happening here is that the waivers are being rescinded. They've been in place for ages (at least 50 years, I think?) so it's a huge departure from business as usual, but you know how Trump loves stomping on norms.

This article has some of the relevant points: https://www.npr.org/2025/05/22/nx-s1-5387729/senate-california-ev-air-pollution-waiver-revoked

By that logic conception only occurs when you're two weeks pregnant. That's an extremely silly way to count it. (Not saying you're wrong, just that it's frustrating.)