The title is missing a key point here:

US Supreme Court let’s Trump’s transgender military ban take effect | while appeals continue.

This isn’t a final decision if you took it that way.

Naw, they totally called it. Check out the Terminator 2 - 3D show that they used to have at Universal Studios (1996):

Edit (this video link is better): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfvD6UlKSWw&t=1005s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIoeMLwEIDM&t=1204s

What do you mean by “allow you to kill a 3rd party”?

Like if rioters are breaking into your window and start trying to pull you out through it, then you floor it and kill someone else in the crowd who wasn’t actively breaking into your car?

This is something that’s going to vary from state to state, but ultimately it will be a case by case decision where a jury will decide if the use of deadly force was reasonable.

You will be judged based on other’s perception of the events, not based solely whether you yourself thought you were in danger or not.

So, someone trying to “drive slowly” through a group of protesters would probably be found at fault, while a car that was stuck trying to wait patiently suddenly having a Molotov cocktail thrown on it would be judged differently. Even then they will need to consider whether you could have just gotten out of your car and run.

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-drivers-dont-have-the-right-to-plow-through-protesters-idUSKBN23B39F/

We have a little more information now and it is interesting:

https://nypost.com/2024/09/15/us-news/alleged-would-be-trump-assassin-ryan-routh-donated-exclusively-to-democrats-since-2019/

The article starts with:

The Hawaii man suspected in former President Donald Trump’s assassination attempt on Sunday is a long-time Democrat, donating exclusively to the party’s candidates 19 times since 2019, records show.

Then later on it mentions:

Routh, 58, claimed in other social media posts that he supported Donald Trump in his first presidential campaign in 2016 — but later became disillusioned after his chosen candidate won office.

The article you linked was updated, looks like he did have a gun and was spotted while aiming through the fence:

Investigators found the suspect had left behind his “AK-style” rifle, as well as two backpacks, one of which contained ceramic tile, at the scene, Bradshaw said.

When you fail the Captcha test… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UymlSE7ax1o

Woah, I wish I had known about this sooner. Thanks!

Yep, I definitely misunderstood that. Thanks for pointing that out.

It’s not a perfect system by far and I’m not arguing that.
But we’ve already seen how removing all privatization from an economy leads to worse outcomes because we have less options, less innovation, and more monopolies.
In my opinion we need to find a balance between the two systems that works best for everyone. Arguing for either extreme doesn’t make sense (in my opinion). I would rather see if we can come up with some other solutions that are better than the current system.

“Always” is a pretty strong word here. In some cases this is true, but in others it’s not.

For example, if you live in an area where all of the public schools are terrible, you’re going to want to look for other options. If the private schools in your area are way better (and hopefully affordable) then you would want to send your kids there. Public schools can also compare/see what private schools are doing that’s working, and update their policy/curriculum to improve themselves.

Privatizing public libraries is a terrible idea and is currently happening at an alarming rate in the U.S.

Removing all privatization from the entire economy is where we end up with command economies or communism which means that we end up with a lot of monopolies. There isn’t much of an incentive for innovation in those economies. Then you’re either living under some crazy dictatorship, or the country is falling apart and they are forced to change how their economy works.

What economic concept are you proposing that’s better than the current systems in place?

At least government regulations can help keep capitalism in check, but taking that too far leads to monopolies and dictatorships.

Latinos who vote wouldn’t be getting deported…

List of polls for battleground states: https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-harris

Circular reporting is just one thing that can make this more difficult. Checkout the cycle in this xkcd:

https://xkcd.com/978/

I suppose if you’re not trying to let people know that their views are not acceptable then you’re part of the problem.

Yes, but how are you approaching this discussion?

I think there are different ways to handle this. On one hand you can be hostile and “give them what they deserve”. On the other hand you can engage in friendly arguments.

This is a story about how someone from the Westboro Baptist Church left because of the way that people engaged with her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVV2Zk88beY

What’s worth noting from this story, people that were hostile in their interactions with her only served to entrench her further in her ideals.

What caused her to change her mind were the people that had “friendly arguments” and made an effort to learn where she was coming from.

She listed out 4 key points when engaging in difficult conversations. I extracted/paraphrased some of what she said below:

1. Don’t assume bad intent (assume good or neutral intent instead) - Assuming ill motive almost instantly cuts you off from truly understanding why someone does and believes as they do. We forget that they’re a human being with a lifetime of experience that shaped their mind and we get stuck on that first wave of anger and the conversation has a very hard time ever moving beyond it.

2. Ask Questions - Asking questions helps us map the disconnect. We can’t present effective arguments if we don’t understand where the other side is coming from.

3. Stay calm - She though that “[her] rightness justified [her] rudeness”. When things get too hostile during a conversation, tell a joke, recommend a book, change the subject, or excuse yourself from the conversation. The discussion isn’t over, but pause it for a time to let tensions dissapate.

4. Make the argument - One side effect of having strong beliefs is that we sometimes assume that the value of our position is, or should be, obvious and self-evident. That we shouldn’t have to defend our positions because they’re so clearly right and good. If it were that simple, we would all see things the same way.

You can’t expect others to spontaneously change their minds. If we want change, we have to make the case for it.

Not a surprise considering Governor Hochul sabotaged the bill just before signing it:
https://odysee.com/governor-hochul-sabotages-ny-right-to

Most of those videos are also found on YouTube. I would expect that you don’t see those videos suggested to you because the algorithm has learned what you like to watch.

If you open up YouTube with a VPN and in a private tab you’ll likely get search results that include a mix from both the right and the left.

I’d rather not link to them, but from the ones you circled, these are the videos that I found on YouTube while doing a quick search:

• The Babylon Bee video
• The Paris Olympics opening ceremony video
• The Assassins Creed video

Now please excuse me as I purge my history…

What’s wrong with the bot?

One of the major problems with Lemmy is that many posts get deleted and that nukes the comment section (which is where most of the answers will be).

I wish Lemmy deleted posts closer to how Reddit deletes posts - the post content should be deleted, but leave the comments alone.

If you’re using Voyager: Go to settings -> appearance then scroll all the way to the bottom and toggle on the option for “Show user instance”.

Edit: specified ‘appearance’ setting