Except your own children are "other people." They may not "be just fine." Some religions are abusive and traumatizing. Why should adults have to deprogram themselves and recover from trauma later because their parents decided it was fine to indoctrinate their own kids? "Mind your own business" applies to parents too.
HenchmanNumber3
joined 2 years ago
Hashtag That's the Plan
The law would work differently if they, as designated interpreters of the law, interpreted the law differently. If they said you can't have infinite dark money running campaigns because that violates the rights of poor voters, then things would be very different. Plenty of SCOTUS cases have made significant changes to how the law is interpreted and enforced. Congress also seems to very rarely pass laws to counter SCOTUS decisions. So yeah, if we had fewer federalists and conservatives on SCOTUS and more progressives, I think it would have been decided differently, as well as other significant cases.
If money is free speech then anyone with more money gets more free speech, which isn't how rights work. You have the same freedoms and limitations to those freedoms that I do, regardless of who has more money. We're supposed to be equal under the law, but SCOTUS thinks $ome are more equal than others.
Fuck no. Studies have found a positive correlation between swearing and being more honest.
Cyberpunk dystopias are a warning, not a strategic plan!
Time to write a new editorial criticizing the judge.
I'd recommend disconnecting the concept of organized religion from faith in your mind. Determine if you actually believe in a god separate from whether you think a particular hierarchical organized religion is the best representation for that god on earth. Leave the church if it doesn't work for you. Find something that does work for you.
You're moving the goal posts and using a no true Scotsman now. First it was nobody, now it's some, but it's not common.
Your point isn't even really relevant to the discussion. The point was that you're using right wing terminology and framing and pretending it's normal, which is what you admit right wingers do. "Far left agenda" isn't a term that an educated or knowledgeable analyst would even remotely pretend is applicable to the content of the mainstream media.
It seems like you identify as a centrist but you speak from a right wing perspective and don't seem to know what left wing even means. The liberals you probably talk to for context are centrists, not leftists.
Asking one person isn't a good sample size. Read accounts from January 6th convicts who claim to be patriots and real Americans. Have you not heard of Patriot Prayer, which put on events that the Proud Boys attended? It seems like you're engaging in an anecdotal fallacy where you think your limited experience is definitive.
My point is that what you're calling far left isn't far or even left. You're applying an Overton window dominated by right wing perspectives. It's not left when NBC interviews someone from Planned Parenthood or talks about equitable housing initiatives. It's definitely not left when mainstream news organizations use soft language to describe corruption and crimes committed by Republicans. Right wingers love to use CNN as an example of "far left" media, when it's far closer to Newsmax than to the Daily Worker. Corporate media can't be leftist by its very nature.
And I have spoken to plenty of people on the right that call themselves far right. They just prefer their dog whistles and euphemisms in official publications such as "Patriot" or "Real American."
This is just useless gatekeeping. You don't have to be a parent to have a perspective on how people should be raised. Every adult was a child at some point, so everyone has an experience to relate about how they were raised and the flaws they see in different approaches from their direct experience. Parents aren't the only party involved. Not only does it take a village to raise kids, but other people are ultimately affected by parental decisions (e.g. Jennifer and James Crumbley).