I think you'd be cutting out a significant portion of the workforce by excluding those in early adulthood.

I'm guessing their position is very much "oh they still need to work and pay taxes...and they shouldn't expect any more support than they currently have in order to do so...but they need to figure out how to manage it all without driving, and they should be disenfranchised as well".

There's more than one specific topic covered in sex ed.

We teach math to children, but nobody is suggesting that you need to get your toddler into differential equations.

While I personally agree with most of what you said, I disagree with your assertion as to the reaction you'll get from peers.

We've made admitting mistakes worse than the mistake itself these days, and it's slowly unraveling accountability.

I associate this with boomers more than kids, but that's subjective since an old former friend I know always used to do it.

They also used "seen" instead of "saw", as in, "I seen dark clouds so I closed the windows." which is like nails on a chalkboard to me.

You're getting downvoted because Lemmy, but that's more or less how I read the ruling as well. They ruled very specifically in a way that let them punt on all the other questions these trials have created.

I'd hoped for better, but not realistically.

More great points, I agree.

Also...it might just be me, but I find that I subconsciously have more respect for a person, both as a person and as a reliable source of information, if they present things with qualification, as you suggest. To me, it's a sign of humility and an indication of an appreciation for the complexity of any given subject if someone is knowledgeable enough to both field questions and demonstrate proficiency while also being careful to qualify and delineate between what's fact, what's generally accepted, what's their understanding, and what's their opinion or guess.

I listened to a podcast last year about TOP GUN instructors and the grueling process they go through to become subject matter experts in their specific subject, and one of the things that stuck out to me was that they're less worried about being right all the time and more worried about three qualities: being knowledgeable, approachable, and humble...with the understanding that with those three qualities, you're going to eventually get to the point where you're almost always right, with the added benefit that you've trained yourself to remove ego from the equation, so you're less likely to fall prey to the trap of clinging to bad information/belief/assumption just because you want to look correct.

I'm glad you addressed the aversion to being wrong because I think that's part of the core of what's causing so many problems in America today (and maybe other places, but I can only speak to my own familiarity).

I feel like as a society we have created an environment where we demonstrate and reinforce to children from like kindergarten onward that the worst thing you can possibly do is be wrong. Someone who is always right is seen as smart, capable...in short, a winner.

Conversely, if you're ever wrong, that completely and permanently undoes your entire argument/position and not only that, but you're branded as unreliable/untrustworthy, uninformed, stupid, dishonest, or naive.

We expect perfection in correctness, and while being right is the expectation, being wrong is a permanent black mark that is treated as a more serious negative than being right is considered as a positive. Nobody just assumes that if you're right about one thing that you'll be right about all things, but if you get something wrong, there's a very real shift toward double-checking or verifying anything else that comes after.

We even tease friends, family, and children for mispronouncing words or singing incorrect lyrics. Basically, being incorrect is so stigmatized that we reinforce to everyone, children and adults alike, that it's better to not even try...not even make an attempt or join into a conversation...than to risk being wrong. When someone is wrong we use words like "admit" like it's a crime, or admit defeat...and that just creates an environment where nobody is ever encouraged to speak up about anything for fear of (gasp!) being wrong.

And now we're coming full circle on this at the highest levels, with our leaders being blatantly and objectively wrong...and absolutely dead set on avoiding having to admit that at all costs, setting a precedent that has oozed into even casual discourse among regular people. It seems like it used to be that being wrong was bad enough, but to dig in and refuse to admit it was even worse...lately it seems that admitting you were wrong is now even worse than doubling down on it...so now we have a situation where we can't even agree on basic facts because one or more sides will be wrong but would rather insist on their position than just acknowledge​ they were incorrect.

Wouldn't the combo of the first amendment and the supremacy clause pretty neatly dismantle the new Louisiana law?

Right.

Honestly for as much "woe is me" that they crammed into this piece, my takeaway was mostly just, "Hmmm...good."

Like...I love rural PA, I'm just not wild about a lot of the people who live there. They vote against my own interests (and theirs), disproportionately influence state government, and welcome corporations that proudly destroy the environment while taking a hostile stance toward anyone not like them.

This isn't down to every last person, of course, but broadly speaking, the ones who aren't fitting that template are also not the ones doing most of the dying.

So the piece is reading, to me, more as, "the people most responsible for keeping the shitty aspects of Pennsylvania shitty are dying faster than they're breeding"...which is good news for the more reasonable residents of the state.

Are you from rural PA?

Knocked it out of the park with this comment.

Sincerely,

Someone originally from the same town as you, basically.

I'll assume that I'm just missing a reference or three because the alternative is that I'm having a stroke.

Hell, in the inter-war period, mainstream America was even generally pretty comfortable with...uh...if not actual fascism, at least things that looked and sounded a lot like fascism.

The Great Basilisk is displeased by your repeated misspelling of the word "falter".

Prepare your simulated ass.

Better yet: on Lemmy it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, support yourself with facts or have someone else do it, admit mistake or not...if what you post isn't in alignment with the overall masses, it's jail downvotes.

A few local places incorporate mayo into so many of their rolls that I actually avoid those places because with me not really liking mayo, I can only order from like 30% of their menu.

Because of the American football maneuver, you'll also hear Americans using the term "punt" in other contexts as well, frequently in a business setting.

Because a punt in football is effectively saying, "Achieving success in the short term is impossible, impractical, or just too much of a hassle...so we're going to forget pursuing it for now and we'll try to score again later."... you often hear things in a meeting at work where maybe there's some sort of an opportunity that for whatever reason, the team or company isn't ideally positioned to take advantage of, so they'll say, "Ehhh, let's punt on that issue."

It's the pitfall of nearly every setting where "because magic" is a valid explanation for really anything.

When magic is shown to enable, say, telekinesis, the immediate logical conclusion is that the same method should apply to mundane transport of goods and people. Then when you see the same people using horses, cars, etc. it absolutely necessitates an exploration of the limits of the magic and why it works in one situation but not the other.

Yesssss...in American football, a punt is an action or a play that happens when a team is down to it's last attempt to move the ball to a certain yard line. If they succeed, they earn more plays but if they fail, the opponent gains possession at the spot.

A punt is a special play where the possessing team drop kicks the ball, using their last play to give the ball to the other team, but the drop kick sends the ball a long distance down the field. A good punter is often capable of sending the ball 50+ yards down field, as well as gauging distance and direction so that the ball gets close to the end of the field without going over (which resets its location much closer to the starting point). While scoring points is obviously usually the better outcome, a good punter is invaluable to any team.

There's a bit more to it, but that's the gist.

Oh now don't start that again!