You Should Know
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated. We are not here to ban people who said something you don't like.
If you file a report, include what specific rule is being violated and how.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
view the rest of the comments
You should know, that's unconstitutional.
Edit: what the fuck is this appeals court smoking? "Money is speech... no not like that." So I guess every political donation that is not known to the public is also not free speech?
You cannot dictate what a business or individual spends its money on or why. Burn this fucking state to the ground and start over.
They basically just ruled that piracy is legal for meta in their case about scraping Anna's archieve for their AI.
The class divide is very literally getting baked into our legal framework. I know it's always been there, in an unspoken manner, but it's making strides in being letter of the law now.
A big joint labeled "AIPAC" that got passed to them in a Federalist Society blunt rotation.
You absolutely can and we routinely do. Just look at the embargo of Cuba, for instance.
You can ban imports, you cannot dictate that I buy products from fucking Walmart.
And yet... I would't bat an eye if I saw a new executive order tomorrow requiring that.
Executive orders aren't worth shit to citizens. All he can do is order the executive branch around.
Where do you think Walmart gets its merch? You're just pointing to different steps in the supply chain.
The anti-BDS rules are, functionally speaking, not even bans on how you engage with the economy. They're bans on your speech. You can go to Walmart or not. You can buy things or not. What you can't do is step outside the store and announce "I didn't purchase a Sodastream specifically because it would profit Israel".
And, again, going back to Morse v. Frederick and Harisiades v. Shaughnessy and United States v. O'Brien all lay out instances in which the US government can restrict speech. This is just the latest encroachment.
What does that have to do with the argument? They're pointing out that the government can restrict where you spend your money but the opposite is not true.
The government can restrict your actions - including where you choose to shop (or don't shop) - based on your stated intent. That's always been true. It's the foundation for discrimination law - hiring and firing based on race, religion, or disability.
If you announce "I'm not hiring you because you're unqualified" there's no legal liability. If you announce "I'm not hiring you because you're black", that invokes legal liability. Arkansas is extending this line of reasoning to nation-of-origin. You cannot go into a store and say "I'm explicitly refusing to buy Israeli wine". You cannot operate an investment bank or office that declares "We are explicitly boycotting every business of Israeli origin". It's now classified as a form of discrimination and one in which the state DA's office has a zealous desire to prosecute.
Hiring is a different analogy that still doesnt really fit the situation well. If I work at Acme Corp and get quotes for materials from a company in Israel and one in Brazil and decide to go with Brazil because I dont agree with supporting genocide, how can the government compel me to instead purchase supplies from Israel? Beyond the whole ideological aspect of "free markets" and whether Republicans are major hypocrites or not, what legal mechanism is there for the government to require you to purchase generic items from a specific company solely based on the nation that company is located in regardless of price, quality, volume, etc? There's zero chance there's legitimate legal footing for this.
Just off the top, they can deny you future business with the state or federal government in turn. If you're a company whose lifeblood is government contracts - Microsoft or Amazon being a couple of big classic examples, although any run-of-the-mill mid-sized construction company would also qualify - then this would be a death sentence.
But more broadly they can issue fines, sue for civil judgement and penalty, prosecute members of the company under whatever statues they've erected, or just send in the police/sheriff/national guard to shake you down without ever actually getting the DAs involved.
The law is what the courts say it is. And we've stacked our benches with right-wing assholes. In Arkansas, at least, I doubt you'll have trouble finding a state supreme court willing to rule in favor of the government.
Unless you have a fiduciary responsibility to investors, which can still be satisfied if you think that business relationship would harm the businesses reputation, there's nothing anyone can do to force you.
The 1st ammendment begs to differ.
I realize you are regurgitating The preposterous legal arguments of the lawmakers that have passed these laws but that Legal reasoning is laughable as it is for So-Called civil asset forfeiture Where the fifth Amendment against seizure of private property without due process does not apply because they charge your property not you. The State verse your wallet and car.
These are clearly bad faith ad hoc arguments they are making.
The First Amendment isn't self-executing.
Civil Asset Forfeiture is another great example of Government In Practice rather than Government In Theory. Like, we can wax poetic about the Ought, but I'm talking about the Is.
Arguments they're winning by stacking the courts with judges predisposed to agree.
At some point, a system is what it does. You can't just plug your ears and scream "My high school civics teacher told me this is wrong!"
So what is your point? Because we got corrupted politicians that dishonor the highest laws of the land, what? We should not try to see those laws ever enforced? Just give up and accept it?
We should see things as they really are and stop playing make-believe. Digging in your heels and saying "You can't do that because the First Amendment stops you!" is akin to some sovereign citizen announcing he can't be convicted of a crime because the flag has a yellow fringe.
The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. And if you live in denial, insisting that people can't hurt you because laws protect you, you're going to have a very bad time when the cops come knocking at your door.
Not at all. You've got to reach out to your neighbors, join community groups, unionize your workforce, and oppose the fascist government at every opportunity. And you've got to do it knowing you'll be breaking the law at some point along the line.
If you want to talk about Israeli BDS, you've got to talk about it like a guerrilla fighting an insurgency not like a customer choosing Pepsi over Coca-Cola.
I don't agree with your analysis of what I am saying here. Wanting a restoration of the Republic is not playing Make-Believe, it is not surrendering.
Obviously we already talked about the rules not being honored, nobody is making believe they are being honored on this thread.
But within the rules of the government we have we could fix the government and Society. It is just a matter of getting good leadership to get us there and organizing behind them.
Clinging to the mythology of the American system is.
That's been disproven repeatedly and categorically going at least back to Nixon. We've been repeating the cycle of Conservative Breaks Rules / Liberal Sweeps It Under The Rug for 50 years, easily.
How many more generations plan to get Rope-a-Doped by toothless establishment hacks?
Who could you name that would qualify? Are we going to get a big name blue state prosecutor like checks notes Kamala Harris?
I don't know what you think you are even arguing here. I know the system can work because it did work. In the post-war years until the 1970s. Only after business started to cooperate on a long game to undo the New Deal did it all go to shit. Piece by piece. In 1972 the business Round Table made a long game and it has since been refined.
That was over 50 years ago. The amount of fuckery that has happened would take another 50 years to undo assuming the Democrats were up to the task. They are not which is the reason things are so bleak today
My point is we organize and take the dem party, strong leadership that can build and run a pol machine, we could get back there in 2029, assuming r's are too busy infighting and too disenchanted to steal an election they clearly lost. All state level cheating still losing the election that is and congress and scotus not granting it to the loser anyway.
A famously great time to be an American, assuming you weren't colored, Latino, LGBTQ, or a woman.
American corporate collaboration didn't begin in 1972. You can trace it back to the antebellum era and the birth of American industrialization.
The New Deal was a historical aberration that came through the rapid economic attrition of the Great Depression. Prior to the Depression of '32, Henry Ford, JP Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller were individually as powerful as any half dozen elected officials combined.
Yes anytime the new deal is brought up the detractors say that minorities were discriminated against, so, nothing they did counts. Defective logic, nothing anyone did ever would count using that logic.
Give me one historical example where you could not find injustice to negate using an example from? Just one. Nothing now would count. Nothing in us history.
Using that argument is telling of where your head is at, perhaps actively stymying resistance, to accelerate the decline mistakenly believing something better would replace it. That is the more charitable take on your use of that argument too.
The Pre-Nixon Era was defined by more than just the New Deal and the Great Society.
Understanding history is very different from advocating for "accelerationism"
Yet you do not indulge my question, give me one example that cannot be dismissed with your logic dismissing the new deal?
Emancipation. Pretty revolutionary
Lincoln did not even want emancipation at first, and grant was corrupt and let his admin loot the government, then abandoned reconstruction to jim crow in a deal to get to keep the 1876 election they stole from tillman for hayes.
That republican party? Hardly.
Lincoln campaigned at the head of an abolitionist party on the platform of halting slavery expansion in the territories and gradually phasing it out nationwide.
After the civil war broke out, he saw rapid emancipation as a means of collapsing Confederate resistance. And in the immediate aftermath of the war, he was a full throated supporter of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.
What you're saying is categorically untrue.
He did not support abolition until well into the civil war look it up.
He removed missouri's general or whatever keeping them from joining confeds for endorsing the idea in fact.
Regardless that same party abandoned the former slaves to steal an election after rampant corruption.
So any example of the civil war era is also disallowed by your logic. It was not perfect so therefore your example can be discredited.
He opposed the spread of slavery into Free States and made it a central message of both his Senate and Presidential bids.
Well also keep in mind that the Israelis have our politicians compromised, not just on the Epstein stuff, probably a range of issues, and seemingly our CIA and FBI did nothing to stop it if not more likely helped them do it.
Why would they stop it? J. Edgar Hoover spent his entire career at the FBI trying to extort elected leaders into doing what he wanted. And don't even get me started on the Dulles Brothers.
Pretty much their entire job to curb the more popular impulses of a liberal democracy.
Allowing a foreign intelligence agency to get blackmail on our politicians is in open Defiance of the reason for being of the FBI and CIA.
They clearly have their priorities screwed up, and by All Rights should live the rest of their lives in a work camp on the North Slope of Alaska building public housing for the inuit.
Not if the foreign intelligence agency is working in concert with the FBI and CIA.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.
Yeah I know it is only getting worse by all indications.
This. This cannot be said enough.
*States
Fixed it for you. You are welcome.
Minnesota is in the same appeals circuit and deserves better.
i really really wish that were true. were it, i'd have the medicines i need.
Again, controlling imports is a long established power. The government cannot force you to buy from a specific business.
Even if, for instance, a state requires that liquor be purchased at a state store, THEY CANNOT FORCE YOU YO BUY THINGS THERE.