27
submitted 21 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) by pebbles@sh.itjust.works to c/casualconversation@lemm.ee

I never really understood, but now that that house bill passed that may end up blocking AI regulation from individual States. I get it. I don't like knowing that even if everyone in my state wanted to stop companies from using AI for hiring decisions, we couldn't.

Texans, I feel you.

Edit: I'm learning a lot about Texas in this thread. Thanks for all the context folks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ocean@lemmy.selfhostcat.com 8 points 21 hours ago
[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 5 points 21 hours ago

The wiki doesn't talk about who's funding the modern efforts.

i.e. Calexit, Albexit, Brexit, etc.

[-] pebbles@sh.itjust.works 1 points 21 hours ago

Yo that is curious. I see Russia pop up so much in reading about different secession movements.

I wish they weren't all right wing movements. When do the anarchist get to run the secession.

[-] pebbles@sh.itjust.works -1 points 21 hours ago

Well I have a vague understanding of it. I read through the Wiki and a lot of the reasoning in recent years seems to align

According to its website, the objective of the Texas Nationalist Movement is "the complete, total and unencumbered political, cultural and economic independence of Texas".

During the rally, many in the crowd began to chant "secede, secede", to which Perry remarked, "If Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that?"

After US president Barack Obama won the 2012 US presidential election, bumper stickers and signs saying "secede" started to appear in Texas

Basically: we don't like what's going on with the federal government and would like to not be bound by them.

I mean I generally disagree with their specific politics, but I get wanting to leave when you feel bound up / forced to do things that you think near no one in your state would vote for.

I know I didn't touch on original reasoning, but I really only care about what's been going on recently. So I skipped to stuff in the last 25 years. I'm not trying to talk to folks from the past.

this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
27 points (76.5% liked)

Casual Conversation

3308 readers
330 users here now

Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.


RULES (updated 01/22/25)

  1. Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
  2. Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
  3. Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
  4. Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
  5. No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
  6. Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.

Casual conversation communities:

Related discussion-focused communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS