In a magical hypothetical world where we could make this happen without it being absurdly cruel to the animals, I’d love to see it.

That’s not a species of animal. That’s the living embodiment of a fundamental force of nature. No mortal, man nor beast, can defeat one.

Cannabis

I think a grizzly bear or a polar bear would take it. Any other bear it’s going to the gorilla.

It all needs to get a lot less complex and confusing. I know the complexity is a byproduct of the defederated nature of the whole thing, but it’s also the primary thing limiting growth. The fediverse is never going to grow to anything other than a tiny niche if it isn’t immediately understandable to people who have 0 background in tech.

It is, in fact, possible to quite smoking. I was a regular smoker for a decade. My fiancee asked me to quit, so I did. Haven’t had a cigarette or vape since. That was over a decade ago.

Yes, it’s difficult, and not everyone is able to quit as easily as I did. But don’t pretend like it’s impossible to quit.

Because second-hand smoke doesn’t exist…

Second hand smoke isn’t a biohazard? It literally causes cancer…

Yes, it’s 100% immature, which is exactly why you should do it.

My bad. Thanks.

Fun fact: Monopoly was originally called “The Landlord’s Game” when it was created and was meant to teach people about the fundamental absurdity and contradictions inherent in the capitalist system of land ownership. It was later co-opted by a family member of the creator who sold it to Parker Brothers. They renamed it Monopoly and turned it into the commercial success it is today.

Again, you got that kind of money? I live outside DC, so not close to an international border. In fact, most Americans don’t live somewhere they can travel across the border easily. And with the way the government is denying entry to people with the wrong level of melatonin, I don’t think it’s particularly safe advice to tell people to start crossing the border regularly.

And most people in the US do not fly for vacations. It’s very expensive to fly, and most of us have cars we can take. I’m planning a family vacation later this year to visit my grandparents ~700 miles away. We priced it out and discovered it’s actually cheaper for us to rent an RV and drive than to fly. Flying, especially internationally for a shopping trip, is an extreme luxury for most of us.

Because that’s realistic advice. You have money for be to buy a plane ticket every time I need groceries? Who’s going to fund everyone moving to another country? You got that kind of money? Because I don’t.

Mental asylums as they existed in the US before the 80s were often little more than glorified prisons. They did all kinds of horrific things to people which today we would consider torture.

That said, most people (not all, but most) who were in mental asylums were there because they had very real issues they needed real treatment for. Most people were not getting the treatment they needed, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t need something.

The mental asylums absolutely needed a lot of reform. Most probably did need to be shut down, or, at the very least, the entire staff needed to change and they needed a completely new philosophy of care. What this country absolutely did NOT need is to just throw all those people out onto the streets to fend for themselves. It seems to have been a lateral change for the people who needed help and a negative change for the rest of the country.

I’m not sure I would use the term “mental asylum” as that has a lot of cultural connotations I don’t think we need or want to bother with. However, I do think the federal government should provide massive amounts of block grant funding to states to open new facilities which can provide inpatient services to people who suffer with mental health problems. These should be founded on a care-first framework, not the torture prisons of yore.

Since it’s clear we’re talking about the US here, the 1st Amendment clearly states (emphasis added):

Congress shall make no law respecting … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It says nothing about citizens, tourists, foreign nationals, etc. In fact, the amendment only limits what Congress can do (and the Supremacy clause extends this to the states). It doesn’t say “Citizens have the right to free speech.” It says “Congress shall pass no laws abridging the freedom of speech.”

It’s pretty clear that anyone and everyone has the right to free speech and assembly. The right wingers you’re talking about are trying to rewrite the first amendment to justify their fascism.

Honestly, as an individual there really isn’t much you can do with your purchasing power about it.

Next national day of protest in April 19. Find the largest one you are able to attend and join in.

They can secede, with the consent of the other states (meaning an act of the Federal government).

The general theory is that once a state enters into the Union it gains certain privileges and benefits which it would not previously had access to. Things like military protection, federal government investment, the increased power/influence in global politics/economics, etc, etc. Each state is getting things from other states and the federal government at the same time as they’re giving things in return. Since it’s a two-way relationship, it should take both parties to sever that relationship.

It just seems wrong to me, kind of like not allowing divorces.

I’d argue it’s more like requiring alimony after a divorce. When two people are married often one will put their career on hold or de-emphasize it in order to focus on other things to support the marriage (eg stay-at-home parent). When the couple then divorces, the courts recognize that the individual who put their career on hold is now at a sever disadvantage in that they have forgone however many years of experience, advancement, salary, etc. They can’t just jump back into the workforce and expect to get a job as good as if they had been working the whole time. And the other member of the relationship (the one who did not sacrifice their career) got the benefits of having someone to manage the home while they could focus on their career.

So the court acknowledges this disparity in the relationship and will require the higher-paid member of the marriage to pay alimony payments to the other as a way to make up for that economic imbalance between them. The higher earning member of the marriage can’t just divorce and go about their way without having to compensate the other for the years they spent focusing on the family rather than their career.

This is what the secession of a US state would look like in theory. We tried the whole “one side gets unilaterally decides to break up without mediation or compensation to the other” thing. It was the impetus for the bloodiest war in American history. In order to secede “the right way” (ie without bloodshed), a state would have to go to the Federal Government and ask to secede. The government (which is a collection of representatives of the states and people in the states) then debates and decides on terms.

Of course, this has never been done or even tried. I suspect that pretty much every single state (except maybe California) would find that the benefits of staying in the Union far outweigh the benefits of leaving.