The point of my hypothetical is that communicable diseases have a tendency to evolve to be less pathogenic over time.

That’s not actually a real thing. It was a theory by a guy in the 1800s that’s been soundly debunked but spread because people want to believe it’s true.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/dec/08/facebook-posts/viruses-and-other-pathogens-can-evolve-become-more/

And notably they’re not really two entirely unrelated things. “SARS” is SARS-CoV-1 and “COVID” is SARS-CoV-2.

Office buildings are test tubes, schools are petri dishes.

Polling generally showed Democrats supporting masking by a massive margin. The most recent poll I could find (April 2022) had support for mandatory masking on public transportation among Democrats as 80-5.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/majority-of-americans-support-mask-mandates-for-travel-ap-poll-finds

What’s the point of this hypothetical? It’s both not remotely close to where we are currently and has redefined the consequences to absurdity.

“Would you still wear a mask if the consequence of infection was a single light sneeze?”

“Would you wear a seat belt if the only consequence of car crashes was a small bruise?”

And those were the good old days when they were just trying to be subtly racist, rather than the now times where they’re just straight up trying to smuggle Nazi dog whistles in.

And pair that with the government saying it’s mostly killing old people and those with health issues then just declaring it over. I wasn’t expecting lockdown forever, but just like keeping it as an ongoing health concern. Instead they’ve been wiping their site of tracking, dropping funding, and abandoning workers to just hope their employer isn’t going to get them sick. COVID being over is good politically and good for business, so COVID is over.

Easy:

1. Vote in better Democrats
2. Abolish the filibuster
3. Pass law changing the number of justices on the court

Support from the legislature is all that’s important. If the justices say “you can’t do it”, then ignore them because clearly they can. The constitution says very little about the supreme court and its size has been changed multiple times before. This is just doing history again.

Or instead of giving up we could make court expansion and reform a litmus test in future Democratic primaries. And/or normalize the idea that judicial rulings need to be enforced by someone else and they too have agency.

Because allowing this to continue for much of our remaining lives is also decorum. We live in an unjust system, but it’s not just how life has to be for the next 30 years.

I can’t think of any at-risk group that has meaningful influence on gun legislation, but many of the groups propping up the Republican party have been convinced they are in mortal danger.

Though, frankly, I do find someone who thinks restrictions to carrying a gun at a beach in peaceful and multicultural Hawaii aren’t reasonable to be a bit of a nut regardless of whatever risks you have in your personal life.

Apart from the “why do you need it” question, the beach is specifically a place people often leave items that can’t be taken in the water unattended. Sure, legislators can write laws about how a gun must not be left unattended and gun nuts can swear up and down about how they would never do that, but they will. No matter how much you think “there’s a lot of people around” or “I’ll just be in and out” or “I’ll watch my stuff from the water”, thefts happen, and now a mundane occurrence has turned a supposedly (not really) “safe” and “legal” gun into one of those dangerous “illegal” guns they can’t be held responsible for.

We were perfectly happy with our gun laws, and they worked, and now fringe nutcases and a politically captured courts are telling us we can’t implement common sense restrictions because the nuts have a panic attack if they’re not constantly armed.

You seem to have an argument you want to present regardless of what the person you’re responding to said. They didn’t say it was greedy corporations, just that the Fed’s measures didn’t work.

And while the reduction from peak could be the Fed’s rates, there’s no reason to think it must be, as many of the proposed causes (supply chain disruptions, built up demand, pandemic stimulus) would all be expected to ease over time.

As for your chosen windmill, the studies pointing to price gouging suggest it’s related to a public expectation of prices increases allowing for gouging to piggyback on other causes for price increases. It’s not something the companies can just choose to do at a whim and only just now decided to be greedy, which means they might be pressured to reduce excess profit taking due to easing of any of the underlying factors or even just public sentiment.

It’s not like the rich countries are self-evidently sober and stable in their politics and climate impacts. The richest one just had their own wannabe fascist and has both been responsible for a large part of emissions and rarely met their climate goals.

Your original statement was that the lawyers on both sides have influence. Which they do, but only one side is responsible for all white juries. It’s not a failure of the other side for allowing that to happen.

You can’t exclude your way to having a representative jury. If the opposing side strikes all/most of the black people, none of your strike choices can make the jury more black.

Why Is It So Easy for Prosecutors to Strike Black Jurors?

There are no comprehensive statistics on how often prosecutors strike jurors based on race, but there is little doubt that the practice remains common, especially in the South. In Caddo Parish, Louisiana, prosecutors struck forty-eight per cent of qualified black jurors between 1997 and 2009 and only fourteen per cent of qualified whites, according to a review by the Louisiana Capital Assistance Center. In Jefferson Parish, where a quarter of the population is black, the split was even greater—fifty-five per cent to sixteen per cent—so that twenty-two per cent of felony trials between 1994 and 2002 had no black jurors.

I feel like the governor’s vacation being cut short is not really the headline news event here.

The account you’re explaining is a sterling example of why defederating from Hexbear is a good idea. I’d forgotten what Chapo trolling was like, but it’s very much this. Just sort of immature vaguely-confusing “ironic” trolling over and over again. They’re fishing for a ban and will no doubt go celebrate it somewhere else when they get it, but until they get it they’ll just make comment sections dumber.

It’s never going to be literally 100% of users on an instance. It’s more of a balancing act of “is the communication with this instance a net positive for our users”. It takes a good amount of unmoderated toxicity to balance out the benefit of just regular old communication, but it doesn’t need to be literally everyone all the time.

The user didn’t ask about being banned for breaking rules, they asked about being banned for “being an asshat”.

Non-federation with a CTH-successor certainly makes running a community on lemmy.world more desirable. Back on reddit, before the bannings about 1/3 of mod actions were from TD users, 1/3 were from CTH users, and the last 1/3 was just randos. It’s not like CTH was just a regular sub, they were the source of a lot of moderation.