• 0 Posts
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 29th, 2023


  • No one is admitting defeat, they are just telling you to stop focusing in on the symptoms and start focusing in the problem. You want to address drug misuse problems in western society? Start by addressing the problems that actually highly correlated with it. Help for unhoused persons. Better mental health systems. Those two things alone could curb a huge majority of drug misuse. If you take care of the symptoms then the problem will be mostly solved without need for any criminalization, be it criminalizing supply or demand. For the rest of people I think more funding of rehabilitation and drug education (and no, just telling people to abstain from drugs is not good education, just like abstinence is not good sex education).

  • I’m so sick of this “nOtHiNg is fReE” retort. Yeah, no shit it isn’t. Most of us are aware of that. Like others have said, what we mean is taxes should be the means by which we pay for education. Taxes paying for education is not utopian. It exists as a means for paying for education in the USA already, K-12. I personally don’t think it is a stretch to change higher education to a tax drive model. Even in a world where it is “free” for the students there will still be people who don’t go, so it’s not like we have to collect taxes to account for all persons. College is not for everyone. Also if you try to use current college tuition as an excuse for it costing the tax payers too much, I don’t want to hear it. It is already well established that higher education costs have balloned faster that other products and services in the market and I think that is a symptom of the stupid profit models of modern universities and colleges. From personal experience at university, you get treated like a line item on there accounting sheets rather than a student and that alone is a huge factor in the enshittification of higher education.

  • Something that always gets me is when people lump in anti-religion with these others. Reglion in any country with freedom of religion is a choice, these other things are not. Someone doesn’t choose to be a particular ethnic group. Someone doesn’t choose to be disabled. People don’t choose to be gay or have gender dysphoria People do choose to believe in things that I think are ridiculous and saying that I cannot call that out is just religious people saying you can’t call them out. If you can tell me I am burning in hell because I don’t believe in your pie man in the sky then I can tell you that you are stupid for believing in a pie man in the sky and comment on absurd actions that are caused by those beliefs.

  • Themadbeagle@lemm.eeto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneGay rule
    4 months ago

    I personally don’t feel like lumping this in with the kind of shock humor that toilet humor is feels analogous.

    This to me, reads just as surrealist humor that is meant to highlight the absurdity of some straight men’s homophobia not allowing them to interact with or do anything procieved as gay. Not that I think I needed to explain that to you, just highlighting where i am coming from.

    This isn’t to say it cannot be shocking, or intended as such, I just don’t personally feel like its main purpose is to shock.

  • So, before I begin, I want to bring back in some context that is important to the point I want to make. Alito made his statement in response to a juror fighting summary rejection from a case, in which the rejection was due to their belief that “homosexuality is a sin.” The plaintiff, in this case, identified as a lesbian.

    I think it is very important to point out that Alito is being very careful in picking his focus of concern from a constitutional perspective as, you have to remember, the sixth amendment garuntees “speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury”. To put it another way, the court try to eliminate, from they jury, pool any individuals whose bias would negatively affect the outcome of a case in a way not congruent with the law. To me, it seems very intentional that he would champion one constitutional right and neglect another as Alito, a Supreme Court Justice, should be taking all angles of the constitution into question. He should not take into account just those parts that align with his held bias and beliefs.

    Now, how should we as individuals, considering both the 1st and 6th ammendments, broach asituation in which two individuals right clash?

    I have tried to look into if there was any precedent on determining what happens in the case of conflicting constitution rights, but I could not find anything. So, as to my limited knowledge, I can’t really look to precedent (if someone knows anything about this, please share).

    Personally, I would believe that since it could be the matter of someone’s freedom on the line in the case of a trial, I lean in favor of the summary dismissal. Not being on a jury does not, in any way, amount to an injury to said individual that in anyway compares to the possible ramifications of allowing bias onto a case in which someone’s life or property is on the line. The individual can continue to believe whatever regressive asinine dogma their religion subscribes to(and yes, I am showing my bias), while the case is decided by people more willing to only consider the law of this country and not some diety who has no authority here.

  • If you read the article it does not mean states will have to issue licenses to same sex couples in their own state, just, from my understanding, honor ones issued in states where it is legal (which while Obergefell stands is all of them). It is also important to note that the Supreme Court had the power to overturn legislation if it deems it unconditional, so, while it would be hard for them to outright overturn this bill using the constitution, since a state cannot hold religious preference due to seperation of church and state, it cannot be ruled out entirely. I feel it is likely they rule in favor of an individual, such as a county clerk, not having to issue a marriage license if it “goes against their religious beliefs”, which could basically mean a ban for large areas of some states with highly religious conservatives.