Looking ahead to 2023: Random thoughts

Looks to me like 2023 is gonna be similar to 2022, but just newer. 

Hm. Should I update my etiquette rules to keep up with the toxic times we live in? Over at r/scotus, the self-professed highest subreddit in the land (that's a joke, get it?), their rules for banning include a couple of excellent, well-articulated points. Here's a couple of 'em -- they're kind of fun:

Things that will get you banned 

On Politics

Political discussion isn't prohibited here. In fact, a lot of the discussion about the composition of the Supreme Court is going to be about the political process of selecting a justice.

Your favorite flavor of politics won't get you banned here. Racism, bigotry, totally bad-faithed whataboutisms, being wildly off-topic, etc. will get you banned though. We have people from across the political spectrum writing screeds here and in modmail about how they're oppressed with some frequency. But for whatever reason, people with a conservative bend in particular, like to show up here from other parts of reddit, deliberately say horrendous shit to get banned, then go back to wherever they came from to tell their friends they're victims of the worst kinds of oppression. Y'all can build identities about being victims and the mods, at a very basic level, do not care—complaining in modmail isn't worth your time.

COVID-19

Coming in here from your favorite nonewnormal alternative sub or Facebook group and shouting that vaccines are the work of Bill Gates and George Soros to make you sterile will get you banned. Complaining or asking why you were banned in modmail won't help you get unbanned.

Racism

I kind of can't believe I have to write this, but racism isn't acceptable. Trying to dress it up in polite language doesn't make it "civil discussion" just because you didn't drop the N word explicitly in your comment.  

This is not a space to be aggressively wrong on the Internet

We try and be pretty generous with this because a lot of people here are skimming and want to contribute and sometimes miss stuff. In fact, there are plenty of threads where someone gets called out for not knowing something and they go "oh, yeah, I guess that changes things." That kind of interaction is great because it demonstrates people are learning from each other.

There are users that get super entrenched though in an objectively wrong position. Or start talking about how they wish things operated as if that were actually how things operate currently. If you're not explaining yourself or you're not receptive to correction you're not the contributing content we want to propagate here and we'll just cut you loose.

• BUT I'M A LAWYER!

Having a license to practice law is not a license to be a jackass. Other users look to the attorneys that post here with greater weight than the average user. Trying to confuse them about the state of play or telling outright falsehoods isn't acceptable.

Thankfully it's kind of rare to ban an attorney that's way out of bounds but it does happen. And the mods don't care about your license to practice. It's not a get out of jail free card in this sub.

Dang, it sounds like some lawyer wrote those rules. I like the one about the jackass. Think I'll change my rule from asshole to jackass -- it feels more polite and sophisticated. And the one about conservatives getting themselves banned for being jackasses and then complaining of horrible oppression and persecution back at the raunch they hang out at is stellar. It gets a two MAGA, i.e., MAGA!! MAGA!!, huzzah! And, what the heck is a nonewnormal alternative sub (subreddit)?

Here's another great post on the rules a r/scotus, the highest subreddit in the land. This one is about the leaked Supreme Court decision in the Dobbs decision that got rid of a woman's right to get an abortion:

Do not witch hunt SCOTUS clerks.

The leak is exciting and you're more than welcome to talk about it and the motives that the leaker may have had.

You're not welcome to single out, without any evidence whatsoever, random SCOTUS clerks by name because you saw it on some halfwit's Twitter and now your Inspector Reddit senses are tingling.

That's as stupid as it is unacceptable. Don't do it. You will get banned.

That is all.

Well, those are words of wisdom for sure. Henceforth, I'll keep them in mind.

 

Other thoughts? 

Politics as usual. Kari Lake, the crackpot, stolen election jackass in Arizona got her stolen election case tossed out of court. A local news outlet KTAR writes:

Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson concluded that there was no clear or convincing evidence of the widespread misconduct that Lake had alleged.

“The court pointed out that even the plaintiff’s witnesses and experts all testified they had no information or personal knowledge of any misconduct by Maricopa County or any state election official,” KTAR News analyst Barry Markson said.

Despite that Lake is going to appeal. She commented: “We proved without a shadow of a doubt that there was malicious intent that caused disruption so great it changed the results of the election.”

Sigh. Looks like 2023 is going to be a lot like 2022 for stolen election crackpots. They are not going away.

From the What, already?? Files

Speaking of the Supreme Court, Vox barfed up these unsettling thoughts:

Sotomayor and Kagan need to think about retiring

The US Senate is a fundamentally broken institution. Democratic judges need to account for that in their retirement decisions.

We have now lived with the consequences of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s late-life arrogance for more than two years. 

When she died in the final months of the Trump presidency, Ginsburg told her granddaughters her last desire: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” It amounted to nothing. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court, a seat that until recently belonged to the greatest women’s rights lawyer in American history, is now held by her ideological opposite.

Now, eight years later, the question arises: Should Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, 68 and 62, respectively, do what Ginsburg would not?

Both justices are much younger than Ginsburg was in 2014. There are no reports that either is in ill health (although Sotomayor has diabetes, she’s managed that condition nearly her entire life). Realistically, both justices could probably look forward to a decade or more of judicial service if they desire it. But even a mighty Supreme Court justice cannot overcome the merciless math facing Democrats in a malapportioned Senate that effectively gives extra representation to Republicans in small states.

Barring extraordinary events, Democrats will control the White House and the Senate for the next two years. They are unlikely to control it for longer than that. The 2024 Senate map is so brutal for Democrats that they would likely need to win a landslide in the national popular vote just to break even. Unless they stanch the damage then, some forecasts suggest that Democrats won’t have a realistic shot at a Senate majority until 2030 or 2032. And even those forecasts may be too optimistic for Democrats.

Methinks that Vox raises a darn good point. Thinks do look sort of bad for team reality-democracy. Team mendacity-fascism are salivating at their future prospects.

So, how do you like my revised asshole → jackass etiquette first rule?