Here’s the note taking and editors page of awesome-selfhosted. Looks like there are a few contenders in there. DailyTxT looks decent for your use case.

https://awesome-selfhosted.net/tags/note-taking--editors.html

I think you’d be surprised at the number of people who would in fact say that Susan Collins is fair game, but that’s neither here nor there.

I think we’re largely on the same page honestly. I think our difference, if there is one, is the degree to which we think morality vs tribalism is the true influencer.

And this is a bit of a tangent, but I think this is exacerbated by the fact that morals are held to varying degrees of closeness. As an example, everyone agrees that cheating on your SO is wrong. Everyone also agrees that punching someone in the face is wrong. But if a husband cheats on his wife, and she slaps him, you will have people take (often very vehement) different sides on the issue, depending on which “sin” they consider to be worse.

And so, expanding that to the tribalism issues at hand, the majority of people on both sides are attempting to stand for and push for virtues that they believe are most important. Sometimes that’s inclusivity and caring for the poor. Sometimes it’s family unity and economic security.

And don’t hear me wrong, while any of that can be turned towards hate by malicious actors, it is clear that that is occuring on one side more than the other. But that doesn’t make the virtues themselves invalid.

Sure, but it’s equally as unenlightened to say that politics hasn’t devolved into tribalism.

And let it not be missed that your example has one group actively participating in illegal and violent activity and one group that isn’t. The two groups aren’t equivalent on their face.

A more apples to apples comparison would be joking about people at a Trump rally getting killed vs BLM protestors getting killed.

And it absolutely would be hypocritical to joke about the one and not the other, and justifying it to yourself as being fine because people who go to Trump rallies are racist is in fact just tribalism.

To phrase it another way, it sounds like you are saying, to some greater or lesser degree, that, “it’s fine because my morality is perfect, and therefore anyone not on team ‘me’ is obviously pure evil and therefore anything said about them or done to them is clearly and perfectly justified as they aren’t people deserving of moral consideration.”

Of course there’s nuance. Of course every set of jokes fall on a spectrum from universal to heinous.

And obviously a lot of factors go in to deciding if something is truly unacceptable, up to and including if the person truly believes what they’re joking about.

I’m not really arguing against any of that, and I think we’re in fact largely in agreement on that score.

The point I’m actually fighting is one of introspection. To what degree is your opinion on whether a joke is okay or not dependant on your personal political leanings?

How much are you using things like “whether they meant it or not” as a post-justification to make you feel less biased about why you took the position you did? If I provided a hundred different jokes by a hundred different comedians, would your “this is acceptable” vs “this is not” graph more align with a graph of how much they meant what they said, or with how left or right leaning the joke was?

And maybe for you, it wouldn’t be politically skewed at all. Maybe you truly hold an objective metric that can be applied across the board, without a bias towards accepting more things that align to your own beliefs. But you must admit, if so, that it would make you an overwhelming outnumbered minority.

And furthermore, surely you would admit, that most people who do have the “it was a joke against my candidate, and therefore it’s unacceptable, but it’s fine if the joke was about the enemy,” mindset, are quick to argue that they are in fact the most objective person on earth and only make decisions about acceptability based on cool hard logic and rules, not partisanship.

So, is there any set of jokes a comedian could make that are filled with enough punching down or hateful rhetoric that you would condemn, even if the comedian was adamant they were just jokes and that he doesn’t believe anything that’s actually racist/sexist/transphobic/pro-genocide/etc?

Or is it a “no true Scotsman” thing where, if the jokes are bad enough, you just decide that he must actually mean them for real, and therefore you can condemn them out of hand?

If Kyle Gass came out and said, “I meant what I said, I’d have been and would be very pleased if he was killed,” would you consider the reaction justified?

If Chappelle came out and said, “I absolutely don’t wish harm on any trans people. It’s all just part of the act,” would you find his jokes acceptable?

Heck, 15 years ago, way back in 2009, Obama said, “During the second hundred days, I will learn to go off the teleprompter and Joe Biden will learn to stay on the teleprompter.”

The dude hasn’t been able to keep his words straight for a while…

But the timing is… very poor to say the least…

Had the same thought, lol. :)

I would think the bigger issue would be the permanent ceasefire.

I would think Israel doesn’t trust Hamas not to break it, and it complicates the question of, “how do we respond if Hamas kills a bunch of people.”

That awkward silence was effing wild, lol. Judge was giving him the hard stare down.

Fair. I’ll admit, I did start skimming at some point and you’re right, it’s pretty explicit in section 5 and I just didn’t see it.

It’s a wall of text though for sure. I probably would have skimmed it in the same way if I was looking to travel there, lol. Which is on me for sure, but I also wouldn’t expect the penalty for skimming the list and missing something to be ten grand out of my pocket, lol.

I can’t find the pork ban on the link you provided. The closest I saw was “Quarantine inspection of animals, plants and their derived products” which isn’t a prohibition of anything in particular, and the link to the relevant authority literally goes to a dead page.

I googled what not to bring into Taiwan, and this was the first link that came up: https://support.carousell.com/hc/en-us/articles/115008674167-List-of-Prohibited-Content-Taiwan

I can see pursuing that and not putting together that your lunch violates it. It has a big red text about animal product imports, but specifies that it’s about animals under quarantine, which makes it seem like more of a livestock restriction. Especially when it starts referencing legal codes instead of giving you any kind of meaningful explanation.

Combine that with the fact that the dude was Indonesian and routed through a Hong Kong airport, and I think it’s not wildly unreasonable that he would have missed the memo, even if he’d done his due diligence.

And I stand by that, even if he’d not done his due diligence, the punishment is excessive. This feels like more of a “we confiscate the offending material, slap you with a $500 fine, and send you on your way.”

It’s not like he was smuggling in livestock. He had the equivalent of a carnitas burrito from Chipotle in his bag.

The guy was from Indonesia and routed to Taiwan via Hong Kong. There’s a good chance there were no signs or announcements in a language he could understand.

Check what though, that’s the issue. I would never think that my carnitas burrito from Chipotle might catch me a 10k fine.

And let’s be real, there’s no reason to put that “(maybe)” in there. Are you suggesting the dude was like, “Ahahaha, my dastardly plan is in motion! I’m going to snuggle 4oz of pork hidden away in my lunch, in direct violation of import controls. It’s so clever because I have absolutely no discernable reason I would want to do this on purpose!!!”

And what are you recommending me check? Google every item on the “ingredients” list on my coke zero to make sure I’m not smuggling red dye number 33 into a country that bans it?

Most civilized countries don’t fine people $10k for breaking laws that it would be very reasonable they have no idea exist.

I mean, I don’t know that that changes my point at all, but if you’d really like me to rephrase it:

I don’t Google every item in my suitcase to make sure the the type of cotton my socks are made of won’t get me immediately deported and fined $10,000 that I don’t have.

I mean, that headline implies intentionality, no? I doubt the guy knew that his lunch would get him slapped with a $10k fine.

I know I don’t Google every single item in my bag to make sure that something like the type of cotton my socks are made of doesn’t get me thrown in jail.

Fair. Ngl, I just pulled up a map of Israel. Kinda surprised how much bigger the West Bank is than Gaza. My Middle Eastern geography isn’t exactly stellar.

Fair point though. It’s not exactly near the heart of the issue in Gaza. If the majority of the Israeli retaliation is there, it makes sense the West Bank should have little to no casualties.

What’s the cut off for describing someone as a “youth”? 27 seems over that line to me.

But ngl, I’m kinda surprised the number is as low as 500, considering 35k have been killed in total, by all reports.

That is one of the arguments most often used against gun control as well.