Violence is stupid. In some situations, it’s just an output for one’s rage. In other situations, it’s a battle of who is best equipped (hardware + intelligence). Neither of these address the core of the disagreement. Violence only beats the loser into submission. It does not change their stance on the matter.

Negotiation, on the other hand, ideally, at least gives all parties some gains and losses. It may not be the end of the matter but it’s generally a positive step and should promote some degree of respect.

Maybe we never had it, but I think we’ve largely lost the ability to be respectful and empathetic to others. Even though we find to be of the greatest evil, I think, should be given some initial respect to try to understand the emotional reality of their intent.

I won’t write it out, but imagine the worse crime an adult male could do to someone. Something so revolting that the only “logical” recourse is violence. This is an emotional response that does not address the problems that brought this person to such an evil act. By ignoring the problem and beating the person down, we are not able to understand how they got to this place or how we can recognize this path in others. This is a brief example for the sake of time. If you look at something like genocide, I think the process does scale up but too complex to write out for now.

I condone empathy for all because we all as a species benefit from it.

Edit: on second thought - violence used to preserve life may generally be acceptable.

Assuming you read my whole comment, it would have taken you less time to read the source material to get your answer.

It would have taken you considerable less effort to read the article and you would have actually obtained some knowledge from a source.

You’re genuinely better off avoiding the internet entirely if your intent is to go about your life waiting on people to give you the answers to questions to topics you evidently do not care about.

The laziness of the average person continues to amaze me. You’ve chosen to ask and wait for the answer to a question which could have been answered by reading the article you’ve commented on. “Why” is the reason journalists pen these articles.

For what would they hold the administration in contempt and what does this do to block, stop, or reverse illegal actions?

It seems like you’re lacking a basic understanding of how law and government work and it doesn’t seem like you know what contempt means. And, to make up for that, you throw out witless insults in an attempt to derail the conversation.

You, “the internet”, are far too emotional to consider the reality of these situations. Just because something makes you angry or someone does something you think should be illegal does not mean someone is not permitted to do that action.

There are absolutely actions that Trump has done that are illegal and many of those actions have been decided on while other cases are in court now. “The Democrats”, I presume we’re addressing Congress, are not explicitly the group responsible for holding the administration accountable for everything he does. Congress only has authority over a handful of things (mostly, but not limited to, money) with few options to do anything about them.

The point I am trying to make is; (1) what actions does OP suggest are illegal, (2) a court has to determined that action to be illegal, (3) Congress is not responsible for suing the president nor responsible for determining what is legal nor responsibly for jailing an executive officer, (4) this Republican Congress is not going to pass legislation (the main power they have) to block, stop, or reverse actions taken by this administration. And, finally, what the Trump administration is doing, legal or not, is largely what the United States voters voted for. So, the best way to stop these quote unquote illegal actions is to vote for Democrats in two years.

Gotcha. So you either you don’t know or you do know this is not true.

Congress has no power to jail officials. They can hold an official in contempt and potentially have the US Attorney’s office put them in jail. That’s not happening with Trump. That’s not happening with anyone in Trump’s administration.

They can… sue in court (like Dems did to block Trump’s border wall funding)

Yes. That’s exactly my entire point. And this only works if the courts determine the act to not be legal. This is why, as I said, there are over 250 cases against the administration right now.

There’s a lot going on right now which the public dislikes but that doesn’t necessarily make an act illegal. If nothing else, Trump knows how to work the courts. He also disregards the courts and we’re still waiting to see if there’s any repercussions to that.

Trump is not Obama. Obama fucked up by caving to McConnell. Trump would not do the same. There is no comparison of this administration and any other. History is irrelevant at this point.

Yes. Tell me how congress jails officials.

Dems could’ve jailed officials for contempt

How does that work?

Really? Tell me how a political party can police another party. The only actions congress, in particular, have is impeachment. Impeachment is effectively suing the defendant with no inherit repercussions.

Give me one example of an illegal action taken by this administration and what the Democrats could legally do to “block, stop, or reverse” it.

This bill is about denouncing the antisemitic attack in Boulder with a single line at the literal bottom reading,

expresses gratitude to law enforcement officers, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, for protecting the homeland.

I won’t stop you from holding politicians accountable for every line of every bill they vote for but you’re distorting reality to fit your narrative. There is nothing wrong with supporting this bill and I question why anyone would reject it.

Are you lost?

It’s not the responsibility of a political party to police the actions of an administration. If someone does something you believe to be illegal, you sue them. According to a LLM search, the administration has over 250 cases against them right now. The courts are the ones responsible for judging the actions of the administration and holding it accountable.

Trump was elected to do the things he’s doing. There’s no surprises here. Congress is stacked against the Democrats. There really isn’t anything they can legally do until they regain either the Senate or the House.

The concern should be the legal actions he’s taking; the ones the supreme court ultimately determine are fine. The few that pass that bar are going to be major hurdles to restoring normalcy.

What the Democrats should be doing is forming a unified party that listens to the concerns of the people and finding someone to voice this movement.

It really comes down to the people. We always have the choice of who to elect. We seem to be voting for people who are against our own personal interests because our electoral system is a farce. Politicians are lying so often and so blatantly now that, regardless of your affiliation, the truth is often clouded by bias and emotion, if not intentionally buried. About half of Americans now believe our elections are rigged even though the evidence indicates they’re highly secure.

I mean, if you’re here asking what can be done to fix this shit we’re in right now, the answer is to reform our elections, make them tax payer funded, embrace STAR or Ranked Choice Voting, and pass the bill that prevents elected leaders from holding stocks. Or, I don’t know how you do this but getting people to know the difference between factual unbiased news and fake news and preventing biased opinions from distorting their realities.

When it’s trash day on my block (city life) and the collectors leave a trash can in an open parking spot and I move that can to the sidewalk, you’re claiming that I’m doing this because it makes me feel good to be helpful to someone I’ll never encounter, and that this isn’t “true altruism”.

So, should we be discussing why we don’t do things that make us feel bad? “True altruism” can’t exist because we don’t go around helping people commit murders or because we’re not voting for a politician we dislike? I don’t think that’s the intent of the word.

I mean, there’s ‘doing things because they make you “feel good”’ and there’s altruism. These are not the same nor are they mutually exclusive.

I think perhaps the word you’re trying to shoehorn into altruism is heroism - when you do something for the benefit of others knowing it’s detrimental to yourself. Or, if you really want to dig into doing things that make you feel bad, I’m not really sure what word that would be. Idiocracy?

Nobody’s ever done an adaptation of Asimov’s The Foundation Trilogy, which is too bad.

Are you saying that Apple’s adaptation isn’t worthy of acknowledgment or are you not aware they’ve been producing it?

As a white American male, not once have I considered my own “white American” culture. Kind of hard to wrap my head around the idea. Maybe because I don’t at all relate to what I would consider “white America” - like country music, corn fields, guns, fear of others, etc. So, yeah, there’s a diversity of white American culture across the country.

I also don’t have any emotional connection to the places my ancestors were born. So, at the same time, I reject stereotypical white American culture and my own heritage.

My culture is my family, my friends, my community and the things we do to pass the time and to strive to be better neighbors. It’s not based on color, or nationality, or heritage. It’s more about zip code than anything else.

But I recognize I’m in the minority. A lot of my friends are really into football and tailgating, etc. That’s not something I’ve been able to go all-in on. It seems cultish to me and I like to keep my head above ground.

Personally, I’ve never had a strong desire to fit in or belong to a group. I enjoy the freedom of flexibility and decision making based on my own lived experiences rather than the experiences of others.

To your point about ethnic events, the greatest thing about the US is the diverse culture. I would hate to be part of a monoculture like you find in the vast majority of other countries. It feels a bit like indoctrination to me.

I’d be interested to hear from the youngest generation (15-20 YO) to hear if they care about this at all.

I’m approaching 50 years old and had been an early adopter most of my adult life. Growing up from the 1980s through 2000s, there was a near-mainstream narrative that we were living in a unique era of emerging technologies. It was exciting and we were anxious for anything new.

It seems to me that nothing is really new and there is nothing exciting, if not interesting, about technology today.

I’ve actually been stripping down the technology from my life as it’s become too distracting to get things done and has prevented personal growth and the formation of memories. For one example, I recently subscribed to a print magazine because I prefer a tangible object that I can associate with in and of itself (and choose to own and collect).

Looking at analog trends like vinyl records and film photography and cassette tapes, it seems like people are at least trying to incorporate tangible objects into a modern lifestyle. Then you have the trend of the dumb phones which indicate people are becoming more aware of the detriments caused by an always connected lifestyle. Thankfully, some car manufacturers are returning buttons to their cars in response to owner feedback about everything being a touch screen.

I mean, I’m not a multi-trillion dollar organization with different departments studying the feasibility of future products but I do wonder if something like AR glasses are already more of our past than our future.

I think there’s a more than reasonable desire for a device to help you through your day - especially in foreign countries. But do you think you want that to be glasses or something else?

Lastly, this reminds me of the prediction from Michio Kaku in Physics of the Future about augmented reality contact lenses. Should we at least accept AR glasses as first step towards contact lenses? Do you think society would accept these 20-40 years in the future?

The only people who should be worried about this conversation are therapists and philosophers.

Our culture is fucking with people’s heads by making them have to question shit like this. Words are made up (you should look up some definitions). Our emotions are not. No one should be judging anyone for whom they find attractive and no one should feel shame or pride for having a preference.

So why would people who are attracted to cis people (of a particular sex) and not trans people (of the opposite sex-assigned-at-birth to the sex they’re attracted to) necessarily be transphobes.

This is not a thing. At all. Just because I prefer red apples over green apples does not instill a phobia or hatred of green apples.

The LGBT movement, as with nearly all movements, is about education. It seems you may have skipped over the prerequisites jumped right to LGBT 201.

Yes, “It’s obviously a nuanced subject, and human sexuality is complex” and the point is that no one should be casting societal assumptions upon or judging anyone. The point is to mind your own business and support government legislation that protects marginalized groups from the ignorant and those who lack empathy. “Do no harm” shouldn’t be regulated to practicing doctors. We’ve all lost sight of the “treat others as you want to be treated” Golden Rule. So, mind your own business and treat others with the same respect you believe you deserve.

If you are personally struggling with your own sexuality, I would strongly suggest you seek guidance from a professional rather than pondering aloud on the internet and expecting validation. If you are struggling to understand the sexuality of others, I would suggest you stop trying and embrace the uniquenesses found in every corner of this planet.

Gotcha. I probably could have phrased that better.

Not worrying about how others perceive you and having something interesting to share with others is not contradictory.

I don’t have to like you or agree with you to listen to something you feel passionate about to share. Have you heard of YouTube?

If you’re weird and you have nothing interesting to share, if you lack the confidence to speak with others, then I’m not very likely to give you much attention.

Learning something “so others will like you” is exactly what I’m suggest you do not do. You should learn something so that you have personal confidence in something. The more you become proficient in something, the more confident you’ll become overall. Accomplishing goals and overcoming obstacles breeds confidence. It may help your social interactions if that thing is less niche and more universal but not exclusively.

This is why people ask others what they do for a living. They want to hear you speak about something they presume you’re passionate about. There’s a hope to engage in a conversation or to learn something from you. If you have some niche hobby or job and you’re good at it, people will listen to you. You may even find people come up to you at a party to hear more about what you feel so strongly about.

Don’t ever do something solely because you think it will make others like you more. If you’re not doing it for yourself, you’re not able to put all of yourself into it. You’ll never own that thing. You’ll just be renting it for others.