> At the same time, I have seen firsthand how ridiculous such internal discussions have become at Twitter, and they silently take away so much of my work time and put me on the path of depression

To be frank, this is Twitter in a nutshell to an outsider like me: a major personal time-waster that typically ends in anger and depression.

I guess it's not surprising that internal conversations for the platform that owns a significant share of the public discourse can't figure out how to discuss topics like this, but that sure makes me sad. Is it even possible to have effective conversations about these topics online at all? If Twitter can't figure out how to do it, then who can?

> Is it even possible to have effective conversations about these topics online at all?

Yes. Just not at scale, and not in a way that prioritizes ad revenue via "engagement" at all cost.

Prioritizing longer form, in depth content, and discouraging "rapid reaction hot takes" helps a lot. The social media companies could optimize for this, and you see it on HN with the "Sorry, this particular thread is getting short, snippy, and too rapid, you can't reply to it for a while" mechanism.

But short, snippy, and angry is good for engagement. So it remains.

This makes sense. Unfortunately, the cynic in me thinks that even if this is technically feasible (i.e. the software could be designed to facilitate healthier discourse), the reality is that the money would never allow it to happen as you rightly point out. So given that, is it actually possible? I don't think so.

I have a ton of blogs in my rss feeds. Occasionally one will have a response to something a different one published a couple days or weeks previously, and sometimes they'll even go back and forth a few times.

Sometimes some of the ones with guest writers will host a similar kind of exchange all in one place.

> Yes. Just not at scale, and not in a way that prioritizes ad revenue via "engagement" at all cost.

Only if there is some prior trust, if only by virtue of getting along for some time.

If you generally like the other person, and they come up with some incredibly stupid take you're more inclined to listen and ask for clarification than if the other person is unknown to you and says something that seems mildly wrong.

Political discussion is possible if there is a pre-existing and lasting relationship.

> Whichever view you support, move to a State where you will be comfortable.

This really doesn't scale. Firstly, you can't be upping sticks and moving every time a law you don't like is created (or a law you like is repealed). And secondly, you don't need to care about a lot of issues before you find that nowhere on Earth is satisfactory. Then what?

The problem with one king ruling all the lands is what you wrote - if you don't like it, too bad. I would like to learn your thoughts on what is better than the messy system of local control.

I don't have a suggestion, but it seems to me that "just move if you don't like it" is not obviously a better option than "just try to get it changed if you don't like it".

It's worth pointing out that states like Texas passed a law that allows Texas residents to sue anyone that aids a Texas resident with receiving an abortion.[0]

So if I live in California and my friend from Texas comes out to stay with me while they undergo the procedure, I could be sued under Texas law even though I'm not a Texas resident. It's not as simple as just picking which state you want to live in. Also, picking a new state to live in isn't an option for millions of people.

0: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/09/us/abortion-law-regulatio...

Read the article, they're very explicit about this. Lawsuits are a civil matter, not criminal. Texas is just giving their residents permission to sue anyone that helps a Texas resident get an abortion.

If you can't understand the basic concept that you can be sued in another state, there's nothing I can do to help you.

Except there are already some House Republicans publicly discussing a nationwide ban on abortion - guaranteed it's going to be on the agenda if Republicans take back Congress (which is highly likely). Also, it's not exactly easy to move to another state.

Rs such as Mitt Romney are reliable friends of Democrat issues.

Social conservatives spent virtually all of their political capital on Roe and it still took them 50 years to get rid of a precedent that was not only completely lacking in foundation, but forced Georgia to allow elective abortions two months further into a pregnancy than France. And you think that banning abortion nationwide is “guaranteed” to “be on the agenda” the next go around?

Conservatives didn't spend anything close to all of their political capital, rather they have more now than they ever had, and getting rid of Roe has always been a pretext to banning abortions entirely. This isn't merely a political issue for them, it's religious and existential. Conservatives aren't just going to stop at Roe on principle, even though they have a lock on the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas suggested they consider rolling back contraceptive rights and gay marriage as well. Of course he conveniently forgot about Loving v. Virginia but realistically that's on the table now too, because he seems to have forgotten the true nature of American politics and the ideology now in control of the Court. This isn't over by a long shot.

> Clarence Thomas suggested they consider rolling back contraceptive rights and gay marriage as well.

No, he flat out stated that all substantive due process precedent, including but not limited to the cases establishing the right to same sex marriage, marital contraception, and freedom against sodomy laws, are “demonstrably erroneous” and that it is obligatory for the Court to “correct the error” that they represent.

Substantive due process, though, effects far more than the examples he pointed to, and he is very clear that he means the entire body needs to be reversed, not just those examples.

You’re leaving out that Thomas also said that some of those and other implied rights might be found in the privileges and immunities clause. Thomas doesn’t deny that there are unenumerated rights that were recognized at the time of the founding.

Also, I’d be curious to know if any other advanced democracy has a doctrine similar to Griswold. It’s Constitutionally infirm, and if they don’t need it, why do we?

> You’re leaving out that Thomas also said that some of those and other implied rights might be found in the privileges and immunities clause.

Yes, and I also leave out (as, hiwever, does Thomas as well) that many of the substantive due process cases, including the line of marriage cases including Loving and Obergefell, were, in their own decisions, were found to be mandated independently by each due process and equal protection clauses, such that the Privileges and Immunities clause analysis Thomas suggests would be entirely superfluous unless the Court not only through our the substantive due process theory but also just read the Equal Protection Clause into a nullity.

Thomas also leaves out that the Court has (long before coming up with the Substantive Due Process theory he calls on it to reject), actually already done the P&I analysis he calls for and rejected the idea that that clause covers anything other than explicitly enumerated rights, and only (as it expressly states, so it would take a rather tendentious reading to remove this limitation) those of citizens (note that this problem would not exist with the Ninth Amendment which is fairly explicitly about unenumerated rights and, along with the EPC, is a more commonly cited alternative basis for the same rights that have been found on substantive due process grounds raises in legal scholarship, concurrences, and even, IIRC, expressly in some substantive due process decisions as an express concurrent ground for the decision the way the EPC is in the marriage cases and some others.

> Also, I’d be curious to know if any other advanced democracy has a doctrine similar to Griswold

The US doesn't even have a doctrine similar to Griswold; the right in Griswold was upheld by later cases on a substantive due process basis (closer to Byron and Harlan’s concurrence), but Griswold itself wasn't actually a substantive due process case.

> Privileges and Immunities clause analysis Thomas suggests would be entirely superfluous unless the Court not only through our the substantive due process theory but also just read the Equal Protection Clause into a nullity.

Have you read Thomas’s thoughts on these issues? He’s not hiding the ball here, he’s been addressing them for years. He does not think the Equal Protection Clause is a “nullity” lol.

> Thomas also leaves out that the Court has (long before coming up with the Substantive Due Process theory he calls on it to reject), actually already done the P&I analysis he calls for and rejected the idea that that clause covers anything other than explicitly enumerated rights,

Which Thomas thinks is incorrect and he’s got a good argument for why. Again, Thomas acknowledges there are unenumerated rights. He disagrees with liberals about the source of those rights and their scope, but he doesn’t deny they exist.

> (note that this problem would not exist with the Ninth Amendment which is fairly explicitly about unenumerated rights

The Ninth Amendment is a savings clause. It isn’t a source of rights. It’s not a vehicle for 20th century judges to create new rights.

> The US doesn't even have a doctrine similar to Griswold; the right in Griswold was upheld by later cases on a substantive due process basis (closer to Byron and Harlan’s concurrence), but Griswold itself wasn't actually a substantive due process case.

I’m asking whether it matters that there is a Constitutional protection for contraception or not. To my knowledge, other developed countries get along fine without one.

It’s P or I, but you both knew that

I’m curious: have you informed yourself about the actual legal doctrine Thomas is talking about, or is it just about the social policy to you?

I find it plausible that getting people who vote for the wrong team to move to different states is one of the primary goals of this.

And what about the people that can’t afford to or can’t move due to family obligations?

That’s what really annoys me about this — as a reasonably well off tech guy none of this affects me as I have access to ways around them (travel out of state for example). But that’s not true for a vast majority of people that are now living under the tyranny of a minority of zealots.

Yeah, don't like Jim Crow? Just move to a State where you'll be comfortable forehead. Maybe you are already there!

The biggest mistake Lincoln made was leaving the Supreme Court intact after Dred Scott. Should have razed that shit to the ground when he had the chance.

Yeah, just abandon all your friends and family (and don't worry about them, they're on their own), whatever life you've got set up and just move! it's easy!

When the issue is controlled at the federal level, those disagreeing would need to move to a different country. Moving to a different State is easier.

A person who "disagrees" with a federally protected right can simply not exercise that right (don't get an abortion.)