Brainsploosh

I've always had a hard time with flat earthers, not necessarily for their hypothesis, but their absolutely inane arguments.

You can see a water droplet curve on any surface. You can dip a ball in water and see it curve, you can literally try it at home.

But then they move the goal posts, which is infuriating, but at least would move the discourse forward into teaching them about physical phenomena.

As mentioned in other replies, there are both time lapses and live feeds showing movement around a ball earth.

Moon landing can easily be checked by bouncing a laser on the reflectors left by humans there.

The technology to land on the moon might actually be lost (probably not), but it's probably easier than landing on Mars or an asteroid, which has been done. Besides, no space mission relies on "let's do it like we did last time", but careful planning and integration of lessons from every space mission and study.

This is btw also guiding principles for any tricky engineering project.

Also, long bridges, artillery trajectories, and the GPS system all take earth curvature into account. Try talking to an actual engineer.

I will give them that in everyday life you'll almost never notice the curvature of the earth, but then again you'll not notice the limit of the speed of light, electron transmission, bandwidth limits on data transfer (beyond your service agreement ofc), Newton's laws, DNS systems, micronutrient deficits, epigenetics, bacteria/viruses, lions, or microfauna affect on decision making and mood. Hell, a lot of people didn't even notice being neurodiverse or mentally unhealthy until just a few decades ago.

Seems trivially easy to realise that local experience is insufficient to explain things outside it...

Which all lends credence to the idea that there's psychosocial components to conspiracy thinking.

They buy one election, and suddenly they have "too much power"...

Politicians of today are spoiled rotten

If you're dead set on getting to like beer, I'd suggest trying some of your top ones in the appropriate settings. Some beers are marvellous on a hot day, some with food, some to enjoy in a sauna or shower (it's a thing), some as dessert and some on their own as a session drink (which I guess is how you tried your list).

Porters and stouts are often good for session, but also around food. The heaviest are sometimes good for a dessert beer.

IPAs are also typically for session, but some are nicely refreshing on a hot day.

Lagers are mostly allowed to exist because of how refreshing they are (hot day, sauna, with snacks).

There's a lot of variety within them though, especially with craft beers, so do check with someone knowledgeable on how a specific beer is best served and enjoyed.

On the other hand, I'm just now exploring the world of iced tea. Tea is already a versatile drink, and with different techniques, mixes and ingredients I've found you can ruin a lot of tea.

Mostly it's good though ;)

Oh, and in case you've only ever drunk sweet tea, there are many other ways to make iced tea. A classic one is to do a Turkish style strong, bitter, tea (let it cool) and mix with ice and cold water in a glass. Sweeten to taste, easiest with a sugar syrup, but any sweetener would work.

If you don't like the bitter sharpness, I'd recommend cold brewing, even a yellow label comes out with a soft profile and you can add flavor afterward with fruit juice, squeezed lemon, dried fruit, etc.

I think I've overestimated the cohesion between local, state and federal level organisations. I was kind of assuming people like DeSantis and Scott were doing their things to further the party line. And maybe they are the odd ones to do that in contrast to the other state politicians.

I hope you're right, and it could actually yield a peaceful end to the degrading spiral. It's gonna be a long road though, here's wishing you luck and stubbornness!

Am I understanding you correctly that you're advocating for grassroots campaigning for the Democrats?

As in: drumming up public support to vote in a Democrat majority, presumably in the hopes of creating a long term Democrat rule where they could address the checks & balances, the skewed system, the dysfunctional ethics and decorum situation, etc.?

That would indeed be a path forward, but I'm worried that the Republicans would counter campaign very hard, and as proved aren't hesitant to use any trick they can to not give up power.

It's what historically worked, but is it still feasible?

Iirc, Reagan was the first to strongarm a party line and establish the strategy of voting for power over anything which has proven very effective, with courts, gerrymandering, and stalled electoral reforms very helpful to form this current opportunity.

But with the current system where it is, I have trouble seeing any such grass roots being able to accomplish much until they gain a majority enough, for long enough to re-establish the checks & balances. Electoral voting and the two party system makes it incredibly hard for a new party to establish, and even then they will get bogged down in the same malintent behaviour exhibited now. At least enough to appear powerless, ineffectual or otherwise not making change enough to keep taking seats, like the Democrats of the last few cycles.

Do you envision some kind of path short of a revolution to throw out the current politicians?

I like your suggestions and I think they'd go a long way towards preventing the current situation to spontaneously happen again.

But I don't think I see a path toward it until someone consolidates power to then create stability enough for these types of policies to be approachable.

I can't see neither Florida nor the Senate voting (anytime soon) for anything like that decentralisation of power.

Almost the entire concept of The West is built upon concessions of Europe to the US in lieu of a guarantee against Russia.

Reneging on that will, and has already started to, isolate the US and leave it a lot more vulnerable to Chinese, BRICS, Russian, and other influence, not the least economically.

If only there was a way to get some actual facts, a quick calculation puts European direct bilateral contributions at about 150% of US.

I don't know if you're new to politics, but it is fairly common for politicians to present an opinion to spur certain action, such as giving more aid. It's what's needed to stop Russia, and stopping now won't be enough.

Also, rearming, sending volunteers, adjusting to NATO, and increasing cooperation is also doing a lot to both ensure a future, and alleviate much of the worry for rebuilding.

I'll suggest that the nazis and fanatics don't get to express their nazi or fanatical views.

You can check out Popper's Paradox/Paradox of Tolerance, which suggests that a tolerant society must counteract intolerance or it spreads to destroy all tolerance.

Except for the people who have XXY and rarer combos