no-dr-onboard

It's literally neurologically harmful, but few will see this because their morality is not rooted in anything authoritatively objective beyond goongood.

privatize the gains

socialize the losses

we truly have learned nothing :/

I've turned down, blocked, and scolded recruiters from both Snap and Bytedance because of this. No amount of fluffy TCP could make me work for these companies.

(fd: I worked at anduril, palantir, and mithril cap and had no qualms for a long time)

Calling on legislators (in any odds) to perform legislation “Puffery” is a hand wavey way to beg the assertion that “alternative tactics” need to be implemented to get around the process. This is how corruption happens.

Change the rules legally if they don’t work. Rouse your base with actual arguments legally if they don’t work.

One might say that the Democrat is about to get stomped for obvious and unmentionable reasons (it's Kentucky, he's black)

Middle school level opinion. Laughable, almost. What possible authoritative source could you point to to even remotely beg this case that isn’t silly conjecture in 2026?

The Intellectual Life by AG Sertillanges. Note that it does presuppose a Christian worldview, so ymmv depending on your belief.

I normally don't respond to bad faith responses like this, but I found the following quote pretty funny:

> Even if I grant moral objectivity, I reject that you have epistemic access to it so it's moot.

This is a silly and self refuting statement.

A lot of your argument presupposes a distinct lack of parental authority in the education of a child.

The way that it appears to be playing out is that parents were repulsed by perverted and strange worldviews being taught to their children on their dime. They called their legislators to make the changes and, in a rare event, the legislators listened and are acting upon it.

The system, for once, seems to be working. Both sides should see the objective value in at least that.

Not op, but GitLab fits the form.

That’s a good question. Assuming a righteous and just government:

The government couldn’t justify the killing of innocent civilians.

The government couldn’t justify the killing of the unborn.

The government couldn’t justify eugenics.

There are objective moral absolutes.

The government has a responsibility to protect its constituents. Sometimes that requires collaboration. This isn’t hard.

Your argument makes sense to me and changed my mind. Thank you.

A lot of these are actually grandfathered in. Vulcanization, electrolysis, auto painting, etc. I think the emphasis is that CA has effectively made it difficult to get regulatory authorities to agree to issue new permits. That was the part that stood out to me.

Maybe reworded as “He has skin in the game”

> so obviously his point can’t be true > so obviously he’s biased and we can’t do the mental work of sifting > so obviously I can dismiss this as teleologically false.

Please don’t be so lazy you guys. There is something to be gained here.

“Yes you can” misses the point.

But you’ll incur heavy taxes, huge COB increases, tightening regulatory scrutiny and all for nothing compared to being just one or two states over. It’s has been one economically and morally disadvantageous to do manufacturing in California due to hypernanny regulation. What’s worse is that generational and heritage firms that have lived in California for 50+ years are effectively put out of business because of these policies… and that’s just at the national level. No one has even mentioned how CA based businesses can’t compete with China.

I get what you’re protective over though. We all like clean air and streams. No one is voting for more superfund sites. We can agree on that.

Your response seems to either woefully uninformed or bad faith. I’m assuming the former.