GeneralVincent

It's a bankruptcy auction, and he's bankrupt because he was sued by Sandy Hook families. Some of those families gave money to the Onion to buy InfoWars so Alex Jones is losing his platform and his money.

It sucks for him more than it helps him really.

Hold on, is the straight person arguing for the gays, and the gay person arguing for the straights?? (I'm pansexual and I think we should all just get along)

Honestly, yeah. She's been in government positions for decades and hasn't had any real scandals. The worst thing I heard was that when she was a DA, her department worked with the local police, and the police department had a lab tech that was stealing cocaine and was testing the product at work several times. And a judge scolded the police department and DA office for not doing a better job handling that issue.

She had a pretty decent record of good morals and making effective, positive changes. Unless there's someone I haven't heard

So the people in cities should just be worth less when they vote? It's a federal vote for a federal office, everyone in the country should count the same.

The individual states already have their own powers which make sure the federal government doesn't make decisions that are bad for those states. And each county and town have their own governments that pass local laws.

I've also heard this argument so many times but I haven't heard any actual examples.

Wrong thread, this is postal workers withholding mail

Yes, they are not the same thing. That's what a comparison is. If you think it's a bad comparison, feel free to explain why you think so

What do you mean "doesn't like"? The federal government "doesn't like" citizens sending bombs in the mail, and they would deny you that, yes. I'm not sure what the point of your reply was, it doesn't argue against anything I've said. Sounds like a straw man.

There's a difference between individual mail carriers and the organization USPS or Canadian Post. And there's a difference between dislike and illegal. I thought we already established that, is that something you disagree on??

Yeah Doug was just a tenuous reference to Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy's secret Ruler of the Universe.

I agree, AI is problematic. In theory, that could work in my favor if I train it to be secretly biased towards my beliefs, and put in safeguards to prevent it from being retrained or removed. But I imagine in the real world that would fail spectacularly.

No system can be perfect with imperfect humans and bad actors at its core, and I don't really think AI should have any power over humans. Sorry, I kinda brought this down a rabbit hole away from the original point of the post lol

Ah, well if enforcement is part of the thought experiment then that's only a couple extra amendments. The clear enemy of fascism is democracy;

• Enforcement is led by an oversight committee that is democratically elected by the general population every four years

• The oversight committee is overseen by an AI trained in intellectual honesty, ethics, and democracy

• The AI is periodically trained and updated by Doug, a Minnesota resident who answers Survey Monkey questions on his opinion of ethics and democracy and is unaware of the consequences of his responses. Only the AI knows. No one else must know. Human bias has been conquered and postage peace has been achieved.

Not who you replied to, but let me give it a try if you don't mind.

• All promotional mail must clearly state the organization it was created by and its intent. • Claims made to support that intent must be followed by evidence from an independent and peer reviewed journal, study, or survey from within the past 20 years and clearly cite those sources. • And must provide at least one source that disagrees with the claim if one exists.

If I can't stop fascists sending mail, I'll make sure the recipient has some tools and knowledge to debunk their bullshit. Also it will filter out low effort bullshit, and make factually wrong discrimination more difficult.

I understand that. I'm reading way too many laws already lol

If the letter is determined to be unlawful, there's a provision that allows Canadian Post to not deliver the letter. It's a whole process that the mail carriers did not follow. Maybe if they had tried, and used the argument that it was unlawful discrimination or harassment to deliver the fliers, they would have had a leg to stand on. It seems that they didn't, they took matters into their own hands, and they were punished accordingly.

To be more clear, I'm not arguing against the punishment. Just the fliers and if they could be considered unlawful

Well I'm not too well versed on Canadian federal laws as I'm a bit further south. So I looked into discrimination laws in New Brunswick, Canada and found this Human Rights Act

Some parts that could be relevant;

The New Brunswick Human Rights Act is the provincial law that prohibits discrimination and harassment based on 16 protected grounds of discrimination.

The Act prohibits discrimination in the following five areas under the provincial jurisdiction: Employment (includes job ads and interviews, working conditions, and dismissals); Housing (e.g. rent and sale of property); Accommodations, services, and facilities (e.g. hotels, schools, restaurants, government services, libraries, stores, etc.); Publicity; and, Professional, business or trade associations (e.g. Nurses Association of New Brunswick, New Brunswick Teachers' Association, New Brunswick College of Physicians, etc.).

Publicity includes any publications, displays, notices, signs, symbols, emblems that show discrimination or an intention to discriminate against any person or class of persons

Not a lawyer or expert, but that seems to apply at least superficially. Maybe a bit of a stretch. But it helps that the fliers were full of factually wrong and hateful anti-trans myths. And freedom of speech has limits, even federally.

ETA: However, mail carriers are probably exclusively covered by federal law, and the federal Canadian Human Rights Act ~~only seems to specify discrimination and not harassment. I do think it's too much of a stretch to say this would be covered by any federal laws~~

Final edit: ok I read more. This is the closest thing I could find from the federal Human Rights Act

12 It is a discriminatory practice to publish or display before the public or to cause to be published or displayed before the public any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that (a) expresses or implies discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or (b) incites or is calculated to incite others to discriminate

If I am misinterpreting it, please let me know. I think it could be used as an argument tho