Shikadi

joined 2 years ago
[–] Shikadi@beehaw.org 1 points 3 weeks ago

Right, I guess I was conflating "American" with "made in America"

[–] Shikadi@beehaw.org 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

What does Europe by from the US? I'm in the US and we don't even buy much from the US

[–] Shikadi@beehaw.org 2 points 3 weeks ago

Huh, something good for once?

[–] Shikadi@beehaw.org 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Shikadi@beehaw.org 22 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It says environmental in the title?

[–] Shikadi@beehaw.org 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I can't tell from this summary if the article is sane or bat shit, but usually the bot is good

Edit: the article is good, the summary is bad

[–] Shikadi@beehaw.org 50 points 2 years ago

That's because it's never truly been about the rights of the fetus, it's always been about controlling women

[–] Shikadi@beehaw.org 3 points 2 years ago

Side thought, it's really weird that the right refers to the left as liberals, but the left refers to right-wing "centrists" as liberals, so everybody shits on liberals.

[–] Shikadi@beehaw.org 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Free speech is not what you think it is. In your scenereo you have the right to try to say what you're trying to say. Just because your opinion is unpopular and people are unwilling to publish (freedom of speech and the press goes both ways, you can't force someone to say something either) does not mean your rights are being infringed. This is universal and not just the US. There are no countries I'm aware of that say "all publishers must publish anything anyone says regardless of their credibility". It would be ludicrous.

And if we go back to my example, that person who believes that they're teaching children something true can go through the proper channels of society to change the curriculum. I'm also unsure if you're actually giving the idea of "black people are out to get you" space or just hypothetically, I chose it as an example that's obviously not true. Replace it with teaching them that strange white vans have candy in them and it's okay to eat it. Or replace it with them explaining to the children sexual actions they desire in great detail. Your absolutism says they should be allowed by the school to do this, and if that doesn't change your mind, I've made my case, you disgust me, and I choose not to engage further.

[–] Shikadi@beehaw.org 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I strongly disagree with you and think you're wrong. Especially that you would allow teachers to teach children that black people are out to get you, all to protect some made up ideal that was never intended when the first amendment was added.

[–] Shikadi@beehaw.org 10 points 2 years ago (5 children)

I'm a very strong supporter of free speech. But free speech absolutism where you go out of your way to make all voices heard is not what free speech is about. It's about the government not interfering. Just like people have a right to a gun, but Walmart has the right to kick you out for bringing one, rammy.site users have the right to say whatever they want, and other instances have the right to defederate.

If a teacher goes against the curriculum and teaches children that black people are all out to get them, I sure as hell hope the school would step in and stop or remove them.

That's not a violation of free speech, but in your opinion above it would be.

view more: next ›