Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy. (Politics General)

@The Smiling Pony
Wish him luck since nothing in Dobbs provides any fuel for that.

EDIT: I can understand extremists of both Left and Right wanting to find something in the decision to justify their screeching, though. Even if they have to make it up wholesale, knowing that 99.9% of folks will neither have the time nor the inclination to read and comprehend the decision for themselves. Ne vile veritas.

@Background Pony #1F81
Wonder if that why the Pie parents sleep in different beds in one of the Christmas episodes.

Chat Control, as some of you likely know already by now, is a matter that has left me paranoid about the security of confidential communications through unreliable algorithms. It doesn’t help that only CaptainXtra and I seem to be the only ones that actively care about it to bring it up as often as we did. We’d appreciate the outcry to lighten the burdens this whole ordeal left on our shoulders.

Could we have voiced it better? Yes, all things considered, yet the matter is far too concerning (and potentially life-threatening) to just turn a blind eye to. Public action must be taken now, even through just online chatter, but, for all that is good, DO NOT go to the extent of extremism displayed on January 6th, 2021! That act of insurrectionism has gutted so many reputations, good or bad.

Latest update from most vocal MEP if you’re interested in finding out more:
https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/chat-control-eu-commission-presents-mass-surveillance-plan-on-may-11_EFBF%BC/

@DarkBrawlerCF1994
What insurrection? There have been no charges of insurrection to date regarding January 6th.

Of course, newly-minted DoJ Chief Merrick Garland assures us that insurrection ONLY occurs when public business is disrupted, NOT when a federal courthouse is laid under siege and the judges and clerks forced to flee from a violent mob throwing incendiary devices. This peculiar and unique definition of insurrection directly states that if a mob were to burn down the Capitol Building between Congressional sessions, no insurrection would actually take place.

This is, of course, why none of the persons arrested for burning municipal buildings and attempting the same against federal buildings have been charged with much of anything - the duly-elected District Attorneys of such Red States as Oregon and Washington having yet to prosecute more than a handful of people for more than mere misdemeanors over the course of several years of such actions.

Also likely why despite the rhetoric to the contrary, the basis in law for making the rhetoric stick seems to routinely end up not in any charges relevant to overthrowing the government, but in “disorderly conduct” and such like. If the Republicans were running this inquisition, the Democrats would be claiming they were going light in order to “cover” for Trump.

It seems the great crimes alleged are articles of faith and hope, sprung from the same political tribalism that gave us the oft-mocked term “mostly peaceful protests”.

@Background Pony #CE21
I pretty much concur with this one.

@Calbeck
The opinion is sloppily written. There are parts that seem to take aim at the whole edifice of 14th Amendment jurisprudence, even as the main thrust of it is to say that that jurisprudence, while valid, doesn’t favor any particular conclusion with respect to abortion. That’s why they had to include the disclaimer.

@Calbeck
I mean… yeah? That’s how the law is written. Torching federal property is obviously a crime 24/7, but it’s not that crime. Storming the Capitol while Congress is in recess doesn’t prevent any part of the federal government from doing its job. They could meet in an Applebee’s for all it matters, as long as you can fit a quorum in the dining room.

that’s a fair point. I normally allow it because it is such a small percentage and if I can save more lives by only allowing 1 percent of current abortions I’m for it. basically think trolley problem.

Sinn Fein, an Irish nationalist party that was once the political arm of the IRA has won a majority in Northern Ireland for the first time in the country’s history.

Sinn Fien, is a Democratic socialist party that rejects NIs inclusion in the United Kingdom and are strongly in favor of Irish reunification.

Tucked away in the peace accords that ended The Troubles is a clause that allows for both Irelands to vote for reunification if it appears likely that a majority on both sides would vote in favor.

While Feins victory is unlikely to trigger that clause, it may be what starts the conversation on it.

Incidentally, in Star Trek, Irish reunification occurs in 2024. Just wanted to make that known.

If we really want to ensure that the Democrats have more seats in the Senate, all we have to do is get a few hundred thousand people to move from blue states to Wyoming and Montana and flip those states blue.

Just in time for World War III, which Star Trek says starts in 2026.

On the plus side, we’re only a little under 41 years away from first contact.

@Background Pony #72D6
That would require those people to live in those states. A large portion of dem voters would rather die than live in a “fly-over” state.

Supposedly Russia has abandoned the idea of taking Kyiv.

Belarus is taking credit for the change in plans, but supposedly Russia is now settling on taking Mariupol as their win condition.

@Background Pony #72D6
The people in those states are different the ones living in deep blue states. Neither wants to move to the other state, especially not for something as minor as flipping the Senate for a bit.

I noticed something in US online posts.

Left: “art must be political!!!”

Right: “art must not be political!!!”

The reason why US leftists want art to be “political” is because it is to bring out issues often neglected by US society, like abuse of minorities, homophobia, police murders, and corporate abuse. If it is “not political”, no one would bother and more people will be abused or killed.

They also consider “all art is political”, because any art may influence society to treat others, therefore it is “politics”. Usually, those who claim that tend to be from minority backgrounds, like African Americans and LGBT people. That’s why they want to take over the artistic scene, to “direct” society to their views, which might lead to better treatment of those groups, with concepts like “representation” and “agency”.

On the other hand, although right-wingers hate what they claim as “political” art, they seem to have no problems if the same art promotes a conservative or nationalistic view. It seems that what they mean by “political” isn’t only anarchist or socialist art, but also anything involving non-Whites, women (if they are not in traditional, feminine roles), and LGBT people in important roles or historically-European settings. Even things related to Ukraine are considered “political” simply for being supported by left=wingers.

My stance is that even though I do sometimes makes “political” art, I don’t bother if anyone calls my art “political”, if it doesn’t look political enough. I make whatever I want, as long as it’s not destructive to society (like promoting racism, homophobia, Marxism, Nazism, jihadism, etc.). Is that a problem?

The hell is that supposed to mean?

Please tell me that this ain’t implying what I think it’s implying…

@CaptainXtra
It looks like it’s talking about babies available to adopt; apparently there’s not much babies in the US to adopt despite people wanting them.

@Natry
What does that have to do with the right of a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?

@The Smiling Pony
I looked up the page. It was arguing that unlike before, if a mother kept an unwanted pregnancy, there are plenty of people ready to adopt it.

I mean if we’re talking about here on derpibooru I want to avoid political art unless I want to, cause most of the time when I wanna see ponies I don’t wanna think about politics for the n,000th time that day. Luckily derpibooru has filters so I can choose what I see and what I don’t.

That’s sorta always been my view is that the artist should be allowed to draw and post whatever they want. don’t like it, filter it.

@Natry
Ah, so they think it’s cool to subject a person to half a year of disability, permanent body changes, and potential loss of employment and social stigma. Nice.

@HorsesandMuchMOAR
I don’t think it’s really a “art should not be political” position as much as “art doe not have to be political”. The inverse with “all art is inherently political” is an extention of “everything is political” which forces every expression to be one about your own ideals which I find fallacious. This extends outward to where every individual, business, or organization must openly take a stance on every topic regardless of their own knowledge or involvement with the topic in order to appease tribalists that require everyone to have a signifier.

Sometimes I just want to look at ponies and I don’t believe people should hijack other’s creations as a mouthpiece for their particular ideology.

@HorsesandMuchMOAR
Don’t forget when talking about any subject matter through art, you have to avoid creating something that gives off a DARE vibe or preachy and morally grandstand like an evangelist Christians or some Hollywood unless you want the reverse to happened.

@The Smiling Pony
When the alternative (from a pro-life view) is killing a baby that would be deemed acceptable.
That’s what some people fail to grasp here. From the pro-life view you may have well argued that a mother should be able to kill their 6 year old because the child getting sick required her to take time from work or that taking care of the kid was stressful and made her gain weight and she has to spend so much time out of the year working to take care of the child.
This is why it was, is, and likely will always be a major hotbutton issue because there is no possible reconciliation point between the opposite ends.

@phoenixacezero
This too. Political commentary in art can be absolutely fine but when it’s phoned-in it often does the opposite of an artists intentions.

@KharnZeBetrayer
Are these same “pro-life” people also arguing that all children conceived on US soil are automatically US citizens? Or are they for some inexplicable reason much more nuanced and strictly stick to “not a citizen until born” for that?