You’re not getting downvoted because people are denying Clinton is probably on the list; you’re getting downvoted for saying anyone is defending it.
Get the list, investigate every single person on it, punish anything we can prove. As the justice system is supposed to work.
It was entirely republicans voting against.
I don’t think it’s really gaming-to-politics. I think it’s more like gaming-to-very-loud-bigot. The fact that bigotry is so tightly coupled into right wing politics is just coincidental.
So are you just trying to be an ass here, or are you genuinely just so invested that you can’t see you’re arguing in bad faith?
I don’t think there is a good answer here. I didn’t really want my kids to have phones either but all you’re doing by denying them the primary social tool of their generation is ostracizing them from their peers.
Being a parent sometimes feels like a series of un-winnable choices.
Wat? It’s called a colloquialism. It’s a way to describe something I know you know without needing to spell it out.
You’re basically asserting that anything described using an analogy must inherit all the traits of anything else that analogy is used for, which is just silly. It’s a classic composition/division fallacy.
Yeah, my state just enacted a “bell-to-bell” ban on cell phones in schools for my kids. I absolutely support a ban on phones in class (so long as the school is providing necessary tech to educate with) but banning between class just ignores that phones are an important part of how kids socialize and ripping it away cold-turkey can’t be healthy.
Edit: also, I gave my kids phones primarily so they could contact me in an emergency, and I am very much not ok with the state telling me they can’t have the phone in their backpack.
I agree that it’s not much of an argument.
I loathe and despise using percentages like this.
500% sounds super scary, but is meaningless without providing the baseline. If there was only one instance before and now there’s 5 it isn’t a significant increase but 500% sure sounds scary.
This is a very republican method of argument.
Edit: now tell them to go “do your own research”
Sophistry. I didn’t accuse “anyone that acts a way I don’t like”, I offered one explanation as to why some people might be assholes to women online.
I don’t like that you’re like weirdly defensive about this, you don’t see me making any accusations.
Who’s body shaming? Low self esteem does indeed cause people to lash out at others, and men frequently value their self worth on their dick size.
Why the hell would anyone feel any need to harass someone like this?
Micro-penises.
I don’t have any mainstream media accounts and I’m pretty happy with that choice.
Although honestly I feel like Lemmy is feeling a lot like second Reddit recently and I’m pretty sad about this. See: dozens and dozens of low effort moth memes on feed now.
That was a wild ride.
I mean, if we’re being technical then “hate speech” isn’t a legal term at all, but I should have made it clearer that I was alleging the republicans were building their usual flimsy-as-shit-case to harass their “enemies”.
Making a statement legally classified as antisemitism opens up legal retaliation under the guise of “hate speech”, which is not protected speech.
It doesn’t change the truth of it, but it does change he the consequences of it.
Absolutely no factiod about Lee could possibly outweigh the indignity of sending black people—who have volunteered to serve their country—to a place named after a person who fought for the right to keep them as property.
Humanity first.
Tell me more about how they’re the party of states rights and small government
The title here is misleading.
Cloudflare “getting involved” would imply they decided to act of their own volition; which is not the case here.
“Cloudflare compelled to block specific piracy sites by court order” would be a more honest title.
We should at least take the time to be mad at the correct people.