You could still not choose. "I abstain" and "none of these" are valid votes. Submitting an empty ballot would satisfy the law while preserving the right not to choose.
That said, some have a religious prerogative to not vote, and should be eligible for an exemption.
Money isn't taken out of the account until the cheque is cashed, for one.
Keanu Reeves woah
It's a pain with markdown.
I know at least two times when I was definitely hallucinating in my adult life, which makes me uncertain how many other times I was hallucinating that I don't know about.
Short answer: Yes.
Found the reddit link now I'm off work. I tried to reread it but I got to the part where someone asserted that antebellum chattal slaves didn't have human rights and got too angry / frustrated / disgusted to keep going.
r/AskALiberal question "Do you believe in natural rights?"
InB4 "that's natural rights not human rights": I know the terms aren't synonyms, but the concepts overlap so heavily, and some of the replies to the question were so vehement, that they read to me as a rejection of the validity of human rights as a concept in part or in total. I'm willing to be corrected on this, but if it gets heated I will (advance warning) probably get emotionally overwhelmed and need a long time to compose a reply.
The Democrats have a big problem with "solutions" that either don't address the problem or create worse problems in doing so. And maybe I'm biased by dealing with the Chicago Machine, but there's too much corruption as well. And don't even get me started on the corporatism.
The DNC is pretty left socially on a global scale, which I approve of, but just all over the place in terms of economic policy, and I think that axis is where they get labelled as centrist or even right-leaning globally. Though, yes, Secretary Clinton in 2016 was the most conservative candidate with any real support, partly because she was the most experienced in actual governance.
For example: eliminating the Electoral college, term-limiting senators, declaring an official language, limiting jus soli citizenship, granting senatorial representation to the federal district... there are others that don't come up as often that I can't remember now.
I do have things I think should be changed or reformed, of course, as everyone does, but I'm very much against change for the sake of change. Society can be dynamic, the government should be stable.
Big same on that second paragraph.
I had this experience a short while back, and it really shook me. Granted, this was on the Internet, where people are more willing to say wild things or generally go mask-off, but I was downright flabbergasted. I'll try to summarize the various arguments without inserting my own bias:
because they view human rights as a social or legal concept, and not inherently more important than other social or legal principles
because we as humans haven't historically respected them, and don't respect them universally even now, so demanding respect for human rights is a form of privilege
because the idea of human rights requires a belief that humans have special dignity above that of other creatures (this one I found especially irksome, because I found the arguments denigrating to animal rights)
because various groups advocating for human rights don't agree on what those rights are, so blanket support for human rights is not something they can do
I'll try to find the reddit post where this took place if I can. It was... it was something. If I've misrepresented any of the arguments above, it was not intentional but only because I find them so alien that I cannot understand them properly.
Thanks you so much for sharing this, it really is a great perspective on "death of the artist", and one I haven't seen before.
I've always been firmly on the side of separation, but with the caveat that I won't give money to people that will use it for evil.
But looking at your situation, is that tenable? Do I think your barber will use his income for evil? Not significantly. But the creation of his art, your haircut, includes a toxic process. These conversations are deleterious to your well-being so of course you should avoid them for practical and aesthetic reasons. But morally, what is the best action? I'd argue that a business that would host those kind of discussions is further normalizing bigotry, a real evil. Driving business there would be a moral wrong.
In the end, it's like vantablack paint: The resulting art doesn't justify the toxicity, even leaving aside the moral failings of its creator.
So there's nothing wrong with enjoying your haircut, but don't get another one there. Like with many beautiful things, it's the getting that's the problem, not the having.