SF is going to be left as the "old city" of the bay area. Construction is happening all around the bay (just not in SF)
Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy
341–350 of 388 posts
Re: Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is that likely GP and others are aware of these concerns and make their decision knowing the consequences, not that they are oblivious due to privilege. I was trying to communicate that we should assume best intentions and not that someone is stupid and “privileged.” I put privileged in quotes not because it doesn’t exist, it does, but assuming someone’s privilege is not a good idea and few know others well…
>My point is that likely GP and others are aware of these concerns I don't think OP was aware. They did not say that letting politics influence where they live was a bad decision for them personally. They said they believed it was a bad decision. There was no qualifier. They were stating it universally. They are also elsewhere in this thread not understanding why a trans person would have trouble making friends with…
"Privileged" is an insult (in popular culture) and if you claim otherwise you are being disingenuous or you are very badly out of touch. (Or you're saying "well I didn't mean it to be an insult" and yeah sure you're very smart.)
Re: Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy
#343Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, what part of "Well Regulated Militia" do you not understand? None of these would be restrictions under a non-absolutist interpretation ignoring the entire start of the 2A. Granted, this does prevail now after decades of relentless promotion. That does not make it right. Red flag laws are for people who have actually demonstrated their inability to control their own violence. There are a number of incidents of…
See District of Columbia v. Heller - "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
Yes, that is a decision based on the idea that the actual text of the constitution can be ignored - the literal first two phrases of the original text: "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...".
The SCOTUS has now clearly shown that such precedents are not binding, leaving the door open for a decision that does account for the actual text of the constitution's Bill Of Rights.
And again, even with that Heller decision, and with many other posts, not a single respondent has shown a single proposed law by even the most liberal state representative that would infringe on a right of a sane, competent, and responsible person to keep and bear arms.
And if we are going to say that there is no restriction, then why isn't anyone arguing that we should be allowed to have .50cal machine guns, rocket launchers, or nukes? These are simply armaments with different rates and power, so why should the state restrict those? Hell, it's perfectly OK under the law for someone to walk into a theater or shopping mall and mow down dozens of people, why shouldn't they be able to just blow up the mall or nuke the city (provided they have the funds to buy the armaments)? That's half in jest, whole in earnest.
Re: Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Romans managed their empire with divide and conquer tactics. Guns, abortion, trans issues are just red meat the corporations throw to the masses to keep their eye off what's really going on. What's really going on? The pensions and retirements of the middle class are being drained away with inflationary monetary policy to pay for wars around the world and keep the corporate class on top. We are free to fight to t…
You're confusing misdirection for divide and conquer. Divide and conquer would mean the US splits up so China can be the superpower.
It means splitting the country politically so that it is impossible to generate opposition to the leadership.
It's pretty clear that that is the modus operandi.
Re: Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
See District of Columbia v. Heller - "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
Yes, that is a decision based on the idea that the actual text of the constitution can be ignored - the literal first two phrases of the original text: "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...". The SCOTUS has now clearly shown that such precedents are not binding, leaving the door open for a decision that does account for the actual text of the constitution's Bill Of Rights. A…
> Yes, that is a decision based on the idea that the actual text of the constitution can be ignored - the literal first two phrases of the original text: "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...".
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. It’s not that the prefatory clause is ignored — it’s that its presence doesn’t negate the operative clause.
Notably, the second amendment neither prefaces the word “people” with “sane”, “competent” or “responsible”, so it’s not entirely clear to me as to whether you’re arguing on a basis of constitutionality or on something else altogether (is it both and neither simultaneously, maybe?)
Re: Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy
#346Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ... you should be moving to a state with no income tax, don't buy property there (because states with no income tax tend to make up for it with high property taxes) Remember not to rent too, otherwise landlords would passthrough the high property to you.
This isn't true in many places for lots of reasons. E.g. in California the owner could easily have grandfathered-in low property tax thanks to Prop 13, that you as a new housing purchaser couldn't benefit from. Or there could be NY-style rent regulation that controls the allowable rental price and doesn't take property tax into consideration at all. Or it could simply be that property taxes go up in a neighborhood (w…
> This isn't true in many places for lots of reasons.
Fair point, but are any of those places in states with no income tax? Thise states have to make up for that loss of revenue somewhere.
Re: Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personal politics, IMO, is not a good reason to avoid living in certain areas. I'm a liberal-leaning moderate but many of my favorite people (friends and family) are conservative, and many of my hobbies tend to be populated mainly by the conservative demographic. You'll always find people here and there who won't give you the time of day if you're not on Team Blue or Team Red, but my take on it is, if I can't make fr…
>Personal politics, IMO, is not a good reason to avoid living in certain areas. I'm a liberal-leaning moderate but many of my favorite people (friends and family) are conservative, and many of my hobbies tend to be populated mainly by the conservative demographic. This is a comment that originates in privilege. The concern for many people is not simply that they would have to be friends with conservative people. The…
[deleted]
Re: Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
See District of Columbia v. Heller - "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
Yes, that is a decision based on the idea that the actual text of the constitution can be ignored - the literal first two phrases of the original text: "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...". The SCOTUS has now clearly shown that such precedents are not binding, leaving the door open for a decision that does account for the actual text of the constitution's Bill Of Rights. A…
Yes, that is a decision based on the idea that the actual text of the constitution can be ignored - the literal first two phrases of the original text: "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...".
Wait, you’re saying the Supreme Court read it wrong, but you read it correctly?
That’s your argument?
Re: Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're confusing misdirection for divide and conquer. Divide and conquer would mean the US splits up so China can be the superpower.
It means splitting the country politically so that it is impossible to generate opposition to the leadership. It's pretty clear that that is the modus operandi.
Absolutely anything to distract folks from class identity. I'm 50-50 on whether or not the intergenerational conflict articles[1] are part of a psyops program.
1. The sort of "Boomer hate Millennial" or vice versa or "Zoomers have no idea what a record player is"-type clickbait.
Re: Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that is a decision based on the idea that the actual text of the constitution can be ignored - the literal first two phrases of the original text: "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...". The SCOTUS has now clearly shown that such precedents are not binding, leaving the door open for a decision that does account for the actual text of the constitution's Bill Of Rights. A…
> Yes, that is a decision based on the idea that the actual text of the constitution can be ignored - the literal first two phrases of the original text: "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...". This is a fundamental misunderstanding. It’s not that the prefatory clause is ignored — it’s that its presence doesn’t negate the operative clause. Notably, the second amendment neith…
While the initial clause may not negate the "shall not be infringed", it obviously, on it's face, modifies it.
The "shall not be infringed" part does not stand on it's own. If it did, the "well regulated militia" part would not have been written.
The claim that these are some kind of absolute, unqualified, unrestricted rights is just wrong on it's face.
The constitutional part of the argument is that — that there is a right, but it is qualified by the well-regulated militia requirements.
The fact that there is no specification of what counts as well-regulated means that we must use our knowledge of the intent of the founders, and of our own reality to make reasonable restrictions.
Since the army of the time was primarily citizen soldiers (the actual army numbering in the hundreds), they would have had some regulations and qualifications. I do not see anywhere that Washington insisted that every deranged village idiot be issued or permitted muskets. We can also use current-day standard military practice, where people qualify, are issued weapons, and have rules about where they can be carried or loaded.
And the original question is based on reasonability - are any even proposed laws actually going to infringe on the ability of a sane, competent, and responsible person to keep and bear arms (and no that does not mean instantly acquire and carry in all situations).