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.
Definitely. Unfortunately, some of the people who would benefit the most are the least inclined to accept or seek out such therapy. I don’t like to be cynical but I’d guess we need a few generations to pass for it to become more common and less stigmatized.
The #MeToo movement is a largely social movement. Most of the consequences for exposed abusers was social, which led to public shaming and loss of job opportunities. There were legal consequences for some, though victims advocates would like to have seen much more. The few legal influences that came from the movement were laudable. Some states banned nondisclosure agreements and arbitration clauses relating to sexual harassment and now there’s the Speak Out Act at the federal level.
But by and large, the social consequences that were the primary result weren’t powerful enough to change the longstanding cultural issues such as toxic masculinity, incel subculture, patriarchal traditionalism, male chauvinism, etc. which contribute to the issues that the movement sought to name and shame. Social consequences can lead to diminishing returns if those who oppose change double down and re-entrench in the problematic cultures. They turn accusations into merit badges and proof that they haven’t bought into “woke” (or whatever toxic buzzword will come to replace it when woke isn’t a powerful boogeyman word anymore) culture.
Greater legal support for victims and greater legal consequences for perpetrators would be preferable, but the current legislative climate would make that difficult to progress except in some states.
It’s not a failure. It’s just another sign that the opposition to human rights is fiercer than expected and greater effort is required. We couldn’t expect that horrible people would magically respond with self-awareness and shame when their culture of abuse and exploitation was highlighted and led to consequences for some. It just means social pressure is only one factor of how to address systemic cultural issues.
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.
It’s subtle, but note that it says that they preach that they hate those groups. I’ve met plenty of conservatives who love to say they hate the rich, but they only think of George Soros or other bogeymen when they say it. Trump and Musk get a pass because they consider them to be on the same political sportsball team.
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.”
You use terms only right wing news sites use, such as “far left.” The “far left” in the US is limited to smaller, unrepresented people, for example: anarchist groups in places like Portland and Seattle. The mainstream media is corporate and capitalist. It can’t push “far left” perspectives because it has none. It pushes at best centrist ideas like “women should have some amount of say in their health care,” but they’re even milquetoast about that. “Far left” is black bloc protesters milkshaking Andy Ngo. Let me know when the mainstream media endorses that.
That likely means that you’ve been consuming further right media that paints anything left of hunting homeless people for sport as “far left.”
Being more moderate would mean moving leftward.
This is good. It will drive more people away from Reddit.
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).