!!!

In an important sense, this is clearly true. But the popularity of this kind of defense of voting for the candidate who is worse on your big issue raises the question: do you care more about the fate of the Palestinian people, or punishing politicians you dislike?

Setting the politics aside, the idea of parents "sending" their kids to a *law school* is incredibly weird. I know dozens of people who've gone to law school; AFAIK none had such bizarrely infantilized parent-adult children relationships such that their parents made the choice.

I know everyone is upset about single family homes being rented out; but I can’t get that mad about it because they give renter families who don’t have a $100,000+ down payment or cannot qualify for a mortgage the opportunity to live in desirable neighborhoods.

This seems like an excellent reason to allow apartments to be built in single-family neighborhoods. Unfortunately the only people who want to do that are, I've been reliably informed, worse than murderous MS-13 gang members.

This is one of those stories that could only happen in California: 1. Mayor of Los Angeles issues an executive directive making it fast & easy to build 100% affordable housing. 2. She doesn’t include any new public money in the order, so it’s supposed to just be a fake

on JD Vance's logic here, if you were arrested and tried for murder, found not guilty by the jury, and then thrown in jail anyway there'd be no due process issue, because you were granted a fair trial.

Do you think the 46 or so states that count much faster than CA are sacrificing accuracy? If not, why don't you think you might have something to learn from them?

Discretionary review is often defended on a kind of localist, communitarian intervention, but as this horrible example demonstrates it actively makes our communities worse, by encouraging and empowering the worst busybody impulses and tendencies within them.

I am very much all for repealing the Faircloth amendment, but I'm not sure I understand why we'd expect this? At least in the short/medium term, most cities have plenty of room to grow under their Faircloth allotments.

It's fascinating how "being serious about power" has come to mean "being incredibly credulous and naive about the universal and categorical beneficence of all existing regulations" for a surprisingly large group of people.

another way of phrasing this is that they disproportionately save lives in low income communities

This seems like a non-sequitur to me. Obviously we should enforce existing laws, including tenant protections, and re-legalize an important and useful housing modality even if do-gooder "I don't want to live like that so no one should" liberals object. Why frame these as opposed?

Causal inference is all the rage. But good descriptive research is vital. This new article lays out an argument for what makes good descriptive research.

I don't understand this at all. UBI isn't, itself, an ideal to strive for, it's a tool to move us closer to realizing several ideal ends. "Critically & soberly scrutinizing the efficacy of tools in our toolkit" isn't anti-idealistic at all, unless we're confusing ends and means.

Preferences differ, but I like density increases near me bc: 1) I like local foot traffic businesses, want them to stick around 2) I use transit, and I know service levels are determined by ridership/density I don't think either of those preferences are "objectively insane"

When Republican politicians repeatedly assert that "Democrats" or "the left" are collectively responsible for Kirk's murder, it's an effort to drive that 28% figure up higher.

Classifying a blowjob as 250% more sinful than the fish thing is quite a choice

I feel like I'm losing the ability to comprehend conservative cultural complaints, a task at which I was once proficient. I think I more or less understand understand the fashion rules complaint on its own terms but I can't make heads or tails of the admin. state connection.

Many replies confirm similar experiences, but it doesn't seem to occur to any of them that "the libs" might be humoring them. That liberals are just mostly nice and polite and don't want to argue at a unifying upbeat rally with a shared goal seems pretty plausible to me.