everyone. everyone would need to shove

update: the platform is too powerful. i've been absorbed as one of their own. it was foolish of me to go there

oh that's very good

looks like the reinforcements have arrived

i feel like the most 2012 tumblr answer to this would be: no

so that's what i'm gonna go with

2012 tumblr, not whatever undead shambling thing current tumblr is

currently trying my best to turn linkedin into tumblr. send help

This, to me, is Blueskyism

The Onion News Network truck is currently stationed outside the Broadview ICE Detention facility just outside of Chicago.

yeah i think that's right. the progressive left isn't annoyed when right-wing pundits gets attention from the right, b/c in some sense that's expected, and doesn't compete with them for scarce attention. Yglesias is left-coded enough that the narcissism of small(er) differences kicks in

in other words, it's base rate neglect

this is also my take. Yglesias is high-profile, very prolific, and iconoclastic, so it's easy for people to find strong takes to disagree with. but i think if you forced his critics to read everything he writes, the dominant response would be "meh, okay, i agree with most of that."

TBC, i am not arguing (and am not going to be goaded into arguing) that CU was decided wrongly. i'm saying that i don't think it's all that obvious that it was decided correctly.

ok but again, the existence of hard cases is inevitable, and cannot be a reason to retreat from all effort to reconcile different principles. 1a also regularly conflicts with its existing restrictions in hard ways, but that's not a reason to just jettison laws against incitement or imminent threat

there are many, many things the constitution doesn't explicitly say, but that courts have nevertheless had to take positions on, right? IANAL and don't care to argue about this, but it's certainly not the case that strict originalism is the only game in town—and that's part of the debate in CU

well, there are lots of distinctions that are difficult to draw in a principled way, but the law is still forced to confront them. one could certainly come up with arguments that place butt cream ads on one side and lobbying for environmental laws on the other. (tbc, i'm not interested in trying.)

this seems like a non-substantive semantic quibble. legal personhood is a legal fiction that exists in _some_ contexts. corporations can't, for example, legally marry, and this bothers no one. the point of the argument is "they're not covered by the 1st amendment", not "they're just like us".

i.e., CU could presumably have been decided by saying "look, in this case, funding the video was perfectly legal. but we can still articulate conditions under which corporations shouldn't be allowed to fund certain kinds of positions, and since they're not people, they aren't shielded by 1a."

well, IIUC, one of the arguments against CU is that corporations aren't (or shouldn't be) considered people, hence their "speech" isn't protected by 1a. believing that doesn't, however, preclude there being _other_ mechanisms or distinctions that protect or prohibit certain kinds of positions.

it's too beautiful a place to ever be _cheap_; if the Bay Area and LA had NYC zoning, it wouldn't be any cheaper to live in either city. but maybe then 100 million people would get to live in California, and the people commuting from Stockton to SV for retail jobs could have pleasant train rides in.

California is best understood as a Greek tragedy. arguably the most beautiful territory in the world, with a perfect climate, yet its stubborn attachment to cars, roads, and (tiny) back yards dooms it to endless affordability crises and NIMBYist apologism

(incidentally, Berkeley was also the first city in the country to pass single-family zoning, way back in 1916. lest we get too smug.)

now i live in Berkeley, which looks exactly like SV outside of its downtown. fortunately, the Berkeley city council just passed an ordinance abolishing single-family zoning in most of the city. so maybe in like 15 years, there will be like 10% more 3-story buildings in Berkeley. small victories.

i felt rage at this on a regular basis living in SV. single-family zoning throughout almost the entire peninsula. buildings capped at 2 - 3 stories right next to commuter rail stations. want to put a corner store on the ground floor of a residential mid-rise on a busy street? lol, move to tokyo

this is canon