Putting aside how dumb of a statement that is, will the state be mandating homes and forcing people into them? If they have to do that just to accommodate my private beliefs, how is that different than a prayer room in public? Should I be arrested if I’m homeless by choice or want to live out of a tent in the woods?
Just skip the argument to state enforced atheism and don’t pretend this line of thought is rational and secular.
Fuck them homeless people right?
There is no logic to this person’s stance, they just want to do harm to the other. They wrap that in a veil of impartial rational reasoning to quell the cognitive dissonance.
If this law was phrased as anti-loitering to keep homeless people off sidewalks or banning private rooms for nursing mothers they would be up in arms. It’s functionally the same, but since it targets their preferred adversary they nod in approval.
“Sorry guys, can’t make it to a 2 hour event. My day is booked solid with assassinations”
It is, by a pretty wide margin. While many more people identify as Protestant, they’re split among dozens of denominations. I haven’t seen recent stats but in 2015 they were about 20% of the US. For comparison, the Southern Baptist Convention was the second largest at about 5.3%
Going to bookmark this for the next time I hear Europeans chastise Americans for being rich and too comfortable and lazy to fight fascism.
Putting aside social safety nets, an average American needs to work nearly 2.5x as long for the same dollar as an average German. And because that number is inclusive of the whole population, I have a sneaking suspicion that the USA’s larger Gini coefficient makes that ratio even higher between the poorer American vs poorer German.
Babe please, I promise it’s medicinal
Pseudo science? There’s boat loads of evidence that social media has negative impacts on mental health, especially for developing minds (to say nothing of other damage linked to screen time). The question for the last decade or so has been measuring exactly how bad it is and what policies work to mitigate it.
And setting out a limited trial of a few hundred split into different treatment groups is just… regular science. Unless you have some airtight proof against the theory or methods, you’re sounding like the one who’s made up their mind.
Personally I’m not giving the benefit of the doubt to propoganda platforms built with the explicit goal of addictive engagement.
Why use a computer at all, it’s the first step towards mass surveillance, better go back to the abacus!
This but unironically
Also if you do some research on this you find that the United States has one of the longest running constitutional democracies in the world.
The US constitution is the second oldest active constitution in the world.
The oldest is the constitution for the US state of Massachusetts.
Tell that to China
The solution is simple, just launder each comment through an LLM to fudge the style and details a bit
Edit, tried it for fun:
lowkey just run every comment through an llm and let it switch up the words and details a bit so it dosnt sound like you wrote it
Oh missed that, thanks. Thought video only included cameras since screenshare wasn’t in the bullet points
Are there any options out there with screen sharing yet? Last I checked stoat was dragging their feet on it
I get that a lot of this linked article is written to (correctly) change the narrative around slavery erasure but some of it delves into baseless hyperbole that can’t be anything but counter productive.
For example:
Evidence suggests that sexual abuse of slaves was so fundamental to chattel slavery that it’s reasonable to assume any histories of “kind” slave owners are complete fabrications designed to preserve the legacy of the masters.
That is either playing fast and loose with wording or an absolutely incredible claim requiring incredible proof.
On one hand, the “kind” slave owner is always a fabrication because the act of owning slaves is inherently immoral and reprehensible. This view makes the claim a borderline platitude; perpetuating an institution that enables rapists is very obviously unkind.
On the latter interpretation, you’re claiming that rape was so universal that any slave owner was almost certainly a rapist (especially if they claimed they weren’t). This would require some sweeping evidence, think studies on the demographics of mixed race slaves or on medical records tied to sexual assaults.
So what evidence follows? Excerpts from Frederick Douglas giving second hand accounts of rape and of Harriet Jacobs giving her first hand account. Nothing that incriminates slave owners broadly beyond Douglas’s phrasing “…in [rape] cases not a few,…”.
I don’t even deny that the evidence might exist, and I would love to see it brought to light if it does. But the thing about slavery, and specifically the USA’s commercial cotton slavery: it’s fucking awful enough if you just list verifiable facts without aggrandizing. Even if everything in this article were true, it doesn’t move the needle much farther beyond the baseline of American slave ownership.
If you’re going to broadly claim “America’s founding fathers were sex traffickers that raped children” then please, name names! Bring receipts! You can’t open with…
These facts are not debatable. [Child sex trafficking] happened.
…and then lay out a single link rehashing that Thomas Jefferson was a massive piece of shit. What do we know about the other 54+ Founding Fathers?
In general people need to learn better aggressive interview techniques. Hostile/gotcha media has been around for at least as long as live interviews have been a concept.
You don’t have to be perfectly infallible or witty. Have two or three prongs of attack, a few different phrasings, and some rejoinders or counters to their likely responses.
Don’t bite with “did you just call this woman a man”, pivot to a different phrasing on the same question, keep hammering and don’t let them control the conversation.
First, I think it’s stupid in general that we all think it’s fine to record people in public and upload their image so that it can be shared in perpetuity, no matter the setting.
Second, just because we live in a dystopian surveillance state doesn’t mean we should shrug and keep feeding the beast. If a state actor wants to track movements from 3 miles away and cross reference that footage with some other shadowy data then make them do that. It costs them time, resources and political capital that could be spent elsewhere. Don’t carry their water by donating data.
Third, there’s more malicious things that can be done with your image than just putting you on a list. Suddenly you get dragged into court and these close shots of you at a protest have been leveraged to inject you into a bloody riot or any other concocted scenario. A state actor has a ton of visual data but there’s no guarantee they have fresh, high resolution content on any given person (think anything that might have changed since your last photo ID: facial hair, thinning hair, scars, etc…).
Fourth, building off the last point, the state actor is not the only thing that matters in our threat model. Maybe some random xitter shitbag decides to use Grok to inject you into CSAM or some shit. That stuff doesn’t need to hold up in a court of law to ruin your life.
Even worse the MAGA nut from down the road recognizes someone and decides to take vigilante justice into his own hands. Hell, he might even be wrong and now some third party is dead for no reason.
I’m not saying that everyone needs to go black block to protests, I think there’s a ton of power in showing support openly to your neighbors and allies. But the message should be in the solidarity of the crowd and not the identities of the people. If you really want to shout “I’m not afraid of you” to the state then I’ve got good news: you can call up your senator or the Whitehouse right now from the comfort of your home!
But until we all can chill on the self doxxing then I probably wouldn’t show up anywhere sensitive without taking the basic steps to protect my privacy.
Can we please stop recording faces…
The vibe perfectly matches the business casual slacks and off brand sneakers
“Semantics”
My guy, they just laid out your argument and demonstrated the particular flaws in your reasoning. What you’re describing isn’t secularism, it’s wishing the state would enforce your particular world view.
Guess what? Removing religious mysticism from the equation doesn’t make that viable or ethical. They already tried this during the French Revolution and it sucked. Giving the state powers to attack nebulous things like metaphysical beliefs is reverting back to the problems we had for thousands of years under Popes and Kings and Caliphs and Emperors.