Haha, they invented Roommates huh? Coops are out there too. If someone told me they were in a co-living situation I would assume it’s something different… like I don’t know casual friends in the same house.
I had a good laugh at that yesterday. Reminded me of when I was living in a dorm freshman year at UGA. We had a dartboard set up in our room and one day I was bored and messing around with it and came up with some rules for a new game we could play using it. When my dorm mate came back from class, I proudly exclaimed “Hey, I invented a new game. I call it ‘baseball’”! We still laugh at that.
I mean, it’s really stupid, but I’m not sure how it’s related to liberal stupidity.
Also, the website that article came from has many of the hallmarks of “content farm”. The person who wrote it probably got paid 4 or 5 dollars to bang out 250 words about whatever stupid shit they were assigned.
It’s not really re-inventing roommates. Following the link in the article will provide a better description:
So, more like a retirement village for working people. Or maybe a homeowner’s association with benefits.
But regardless, it has nothing to do with liberals.
Didn’t they use too call this kind of set-up like a… quad?
I don’t know… you mean a quad like in college? If so, this is clearly different. I mean, I would be pretty confused if someone done with school said they lived in a quad.
Well college students are the norm but there are quads here that are for rent for the general public, same concept. You get your own room, common living space is shared. Those apartments are called “quad” style. The biggest difference from those and college is you are leasing and responsible for your room and no one else’s. The college version, I thought, you had to do it as a group. I just checked, yep… those apartments are still there…
I mean, maybe? Like banning guns!
But it also gets in the way of a shit ton of bad policy, and it’s a net win by almost any measurement you can think of.
A major reason to have the Constitution, is that it gets in the way of policy… because sometimes people in power think bad policy is in fact good policy.
Yeah. Even if you believe this to be true, what a weird time to make this argument, when it’s clear that a lot of the restrictions on power are necessary to prevent the worst excesses of the current administration (well, in theory).
“This thing that’s literally keeping us from being beaten and arrested for dissenting in a time when it would actually be happening, needs to go,” is probably the dumbest shit I’ve ever seen.
I mean… it’s pretty fucking stupid at any time. But to say it now? That’s… I can’t even.
I’m not familiar with The New Republic, that’s a Liberal site? Wow.
“The Constitution is holding us back” is literally the exact argument I would expect to hear from Republicans right now. To hear it from the other side…that pretty much closes the thread of Liberal Stupidity. The bar doesn’t get any lower than that.
I think you guys may have the wrong idea about the article. I’ve only glanced at it, but it starts with criticizing the ideas that “The point of politics is policy” and government has a responsibility to “get stuff done”. Seems like an anti-technocrat article with a provocative title.
Edit: e.g.
Today, policymaking has taken over a government that is nonetheless bound by the Constitution; politicians promise to swoop in and fix whatever has gone wrong, while working in a system that is designed to curb the impulse to intervene. That tension has helped bring us to our current impasse, where Americans ask more than ever from a government they increasingly distrust.
Apparently few actually read articles before commenting. That article is more of a diagnosis than a prescription.
The answer to the question in the tweet (in accordance with Bettridge’s Law) is, of course, “no”.
The article is poorly written and meanders aimlessly without a point.
I’ve read it 3 times and still don’t know what the fucking point of it was.
I admit that the more I read of it, the less clear I am on their point.
“I’m willing to let other people suffer for my beliefs.”
How… brave of you?
WTF?
Holding people accountable for forcing sex or sexual acts on other people, including children, isn’t really a step towards undoing a patriarchy, so much as creating a society decent people can live in.There are a lot of problems with her statement and her approach.