this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
54 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4413 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Obligatory fuck Ronald Reagan

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

I think the writer have the same opinion considering the way they use “Reagan’s CEQA”

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

high-density units

If I'm understanding the article correctly, this all just comes down to Huntington Beach trying to protect existing housing zoning, where the state is trying to get zoning changed to build a lot of more units in the same area; high-density.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You say "just... trying to protect existing housing zoning" as if it isn't an absolutely catastrophic, economically ruinous, and socially unjust clusterfuck.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

You say “just… trying to protect existing housing zoning” as if it isn’t an absolutely catastrophic, economically ruinous, and socially unjust clusterfuck.

There's no commentary, or opinion, or politics, in my comment.

Just stating my understanding of the literal article.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's not true. "Protect" is loaded language.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

That’s not true. “Protect” is loaded language.

How so?

And what word would you use instead that had the same meaning?

Perhaps you're oversensitive to the usage of that word?

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

'Protect' can imply it's a victim of an unjust action. 'Maintain' may perhaps be a more neutral term.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago

‘Protect’ can imply it’s a victim of an unjust action.

Not in the context of how I used it. Context matters.

‘Maintain’ may perhaps be a more neutral term.

The article describes a conflict between the city and the state, so 'maintain' would not be a proper word, 'protect' would be. The state was trying to take something away from the city.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~