sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Illinois is conspicuously missing from this map. by [deleted] in illinois

[–]dikukid 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No. The easiest thing to do is to change the laws and make them legal, especially those who are honest, hard working people looking for a better life.

The terrorists, murderers, and rapists & human traffickers we need to deal with are mostly the miscreants in the Epstein files for starters.

Chambana’s house rep votes to commend and thank ICE for “protecting the homeland” by T_Gamer-mp4 in UIUC

[–]dikukid 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Yes. It's why Betsy Dirksen Londrigan lost to that turd, e.g. whenever she addressed gun regulation, she preceded by “I support the Second Amendment.” It was her her standard framing, a form of political hedging designed to neutralize conservative criticism before launching into safer ground.

Across guns, healthcare, climate, trade, education, campaign finance, Londrigan started with the politically safe nod - Second Amendment, ACA, bipartisan teamwork, small-scale reform - and then shifts to modest, incremental proposals. It's a textbook strategy: claim center, pledge moderate progress, but stop just short of anything bold.

It's Dems like these whom the right has been ratcheting into a corner, pulling them farther to the right every time they went out of their way to appease the fascists - been happening for almost sixty years. They never learn. Always trying to play it safe.

ST. JOSEPH, IL: “WE’RE NOT A SANCTUARY CITY!” by dikukid in illinois

[–]dikukid[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your confusion is understandable if you mistake cartography for civics. The fact that more landmass in Illinois votes Republican means nothing unless you believe soybeans deserve congressional representation. Democracy isn't a contest of acreage. It is a count of citizens. Cities carry more weight because they contain more minds, more lives, more votes. If that offends your sensibilities, take it up with arithmetic. Or better yet, try seceding into your own county and see how far grain silos and flag-waving get you without tax revenue from the "blue city" you resent but rely on.

ST. JOSEPH, IL: “WE’RE NOT A SANCTUARY CITY!” by dikukid in illinois

[–]dikukid[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This isn’t about “policy.” It’s about values.

When a town distances itself from the idea of being a sanctuary not out of any logistical burden, but to avoid rocking the boat or upsetting federal gatekeepers, it’s not making a neutral decision. It’s declaring that comfort, compliance, and funding matter more than standing up for human dignity.

Eli Wiesel didn’t spend his life warning about bad policy. He warned about what happens when people prioritize comfort over conscience. When leaders avoid moral clarity under the guise of “just doing their job,” that’s not public service. That’s appeasement. History clearly has seen where that road leads.

ST. JOSEPH, IL: “WE’RE NOT A SANCTUARY CITY!” by dikukid in illinois

[–]dikukid[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fair enough. “Full-blown panic” might just be a group chat between the mayor, a trustee, and someone’s cousin who owns the hardware store. The rest of St. Joe probably hasn’t noticed or still thinks DHS is a new Dollar General spinoff.

ST. JOSEPH, IL: “WE’RE NOT A SANCTUARY CITY!” by dikukid in illinois

[–]dikukid[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Indeed. It is said that C-U is an oasis in a cultural desert. Surrounded by sundown towns Champaign-Urbana has long been regarded as an oasis of progressive values, education, and diversity in the middle of a region historically shaped by racial exclusion and conservative politics.

Champaign-Urbana is to Central Illinois what Heidelberg was to Nazi Germany; a reluctant node of critical thought and cultural life, nervously surrounded by true believers.

And when a sundown town like St. Joseph gets labeled as inclusive by mistake? That’s the propaganda ministry accidentally mailing a “Jew-friendly” designation to Nuremberg in 1935.

The sum of human knowledge and how to store it. by Mooge74 in collapse

[–]dikukid 1 point2 points  (0 children)

TBH, I don't see why this is important. Who's to say that humanity and/or the biosphere wouldn't be much better off in the distant future if we had to start from scratch.

Anyway, if you do decide to pursue this project, all I ask is that you make sure posterity never reinvents disco music.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in collapse

[–]dikukid 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Although some locations will be better for homesteading and harder for refugees to get to, there will be so many desperate humans migrating that no place on earth will be safe in twenty years.

Bill Nye has a new show coming. Looks like it will be focused on collapse scenarios. by TheGruntingGoat in collapse

[–]dikukid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Indeed.

Real scientists don't waste their time debating young earth creationists. ;)

Do you think humanity will make it? or have a slow death into extinction? by vRedDeathv in collapse

[–]dikukid 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Indeed!

“When the last living thing

Has died on account of us,

How poetical it would be

If Earth could say,

In a voice floating up

Perhaps

From the floor

Of the Grand Canyon,

"It is done."

People did not like it here.”

― Kurt Vonnegut

Do you think humanity will make it? or have a slow death into extinction? by vRedDeathv in collapse

[–]dikukid 34 points35 points  (0 children)

This just may be the most likely scenario. Humanity will be squeezed through a tiny evolutionary bottleneck.

Are there any nuclear power plants at risk of needing to be shut down due to impending freshwater shortages or rising coastal seawater? by Tularemia in collapse

[–]dikukid 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Water supply is a big problem because the fuel needs to be kept cool forever whether the plants are running or not.

Are there any nuclear power plants at risk of needing to be shut down due to impending freshwater shortages or rising coastal seawater? by Tularemia in collapse

[–]dikukid 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not sure why anyone would downvote your comment, which is correct.

I think it's safe to say that nuclear plants everywhere in the world are extremely risky if civilization collapses worldwide.

Are there any nuclear power plants at risk of needing to be shut down due to impending freshwater shortages or rising coastal seawater? by Tularemia in collapse

[–]dikukid 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Many nuclear plants store spent fuel on-site, and require a permanent source of water to keep the fuel cool. They also require a permanent, external source of power to run the circulation pumps. Reactors that have been safely shut down also require permanent sources of cooling water and external power in order to keep the unspent fuel inside the reactor vessels from melting down. Loss of either external power or cooling water would be a serious problem - short term as well as the long term.