If the world seems unreal & you feel like you’re watching yourself play a role in a movie rather than living your life, then that might be a psychiatric disorder worth evaluation by a professional. It’s normal on occasions, but not beyond that it interferes with your regular ability to function.

Legal there isn’t and it’s everyone’s fundamental right to criticize & ridicule you even to your face. In a free society, we argue with words, not force or violence.

That’s the general discourse in this community: ignoramuses flush logic down the shitter.

no laws or caselaw cited

invalid opinion discarded

She could have at least asked him to stop before destroying property.

Stop what? Wouldn’t there be a video of her breaking them if they were recording?

Instagram had recommended 1.4 million potentially inappropriate adults to teenagers in a single day in 2022

What does that even mean?

That all still seems like catastrophizing over videos, images, text on a screen that can’t compel action or credible harm. I expect that lawsuit to go nowhere.

maybe [email protected] or [email protected]

As the US Congressional commission on similar laws reported decades ago

• age verification is ineffective with highly adverse impacts
• client-side filtering^[1] is more effective with less adverse impacts.

Those conclusions still hold today.

What I got is the EU is made up of 2 legislative chambers

• council of EU: heads of member states
• parliament: directly elected

and an executive European Commission consisting of a commissioner for each state & who are nominated by the council of the EU. The executive proposes/drafts laws for the legislative chambers to approve/reject/amend or request new drafts.

The commission (dickheads who aren’t directly elected) drafted the proposal. The council (head of state dickheads) adopted the draft without the support of key members. Parliament (the directly elected) has strongly organized for a less Orwellian alternative that opposes the draft. A commissioner voiced their support for parliament’s alternative & offered to extend time for negotiations.

Create a new community [email protected], post it there, then ban yourself. We don’t need to stop there: create a community [email protected] for every proportion x from 0 to 1. Great justice will be had.

Due to a proposition of the philosophy: the sanctity of private property rights.

Was answered with

What do we call a philosophy that accepts the core propositions without the elements you object to? Liberal: your objected elements aren’t essential to the philosophy.

and counterexample of liberal socialism.

And no, there is no private property under socialism, you’re thinking of personal property.

Contradiction: personal property is private, ie, owned by non-governmental entities per conventional definition. I already wrote about “personal property” & "means of production”.

Owning certain items is illegal even in the US^[1], yet people have private property rights. Prohibiting ownership of some things doesn’t prohibit the right to have property.

fucking Proudhon

Don’t know, not critical to the argument. The fact remains the core propositions of liberalism & socialism can be combined without conflict, and liberalism isn’t an economic philosophy.

You never stated your disagreement with the core propositions I had identified.

China at least is fucking big

That doesn’t explain the other communist states or excuse the failure to meet the main outcome & whole reason for existing. All countries have developed & underdeveloped regions. Same excuse would apply to liberal democracies with lower economic inequality, yet they don’t need it.

social democracy in Scandinavia is currently being peeled off by the far right

Again

The actions of governments don’t necessarily follow from a philosophy they may fail to track.

Lapses from a philosophy don’t inform us about the propositions of that philosophy. Are liberalism & socialism consistent together? Philosophies combining both exist.

Could you point out which of the core propositions I identified are incompatible with socialism?

Suck my battery, beep boop.

A bot wouldn’t fuckup markdown: bot harder?

Nah, straw man & bait.

1. The actions of governments don’t necessarily follow from a philosophy they may fail to track. Is whatever you’re criticizing due to a proposition of the philosophy or due to an act that departs from the philosophy?

2. Likewise, knowing only liberals who are capitalists, doesn’t imply liberalism is capitalist. Only knowing about socialists who are tankies/authoritarian, doesn’t imply socialism is authoritarian. They are general philosophies.

3. Now you’re just admitting ignorance of socialism, which permits private property & even markets. Socialism only demands public ownership of the “means of production”. It doesn’t reject personal property & only extreme varieties demand public ownership of practically everything.

4. Even so, your objections don’t imply a rejection of the core propositions mentioned before: the core propositions are distinct from & independent of the criticality of property rights or markets. “Generally supported” in your quote does not mean always or necessarily, only often. What do we call a philosophy that accepts the core propositions without the elements you object to? Liberal: your objected elements aren’t essential to the philosophy.

   Moreover, changing economic systems wasn’t a historical consideration (no alternative was conceived) at the time, so economic system wasn’t a historical or necessary part of the philosophy, either.

   Finally, counterexamples have already been provided: liberal socialism.

   So, do you accept the moral proposition that individuals inherently have fundamental rights & liberties independent of legal status, all individuals are categorically equal, authority is legitimate only when it protects those rights & liberties? If so, then believe it or not, you’re liberal.

If we’re going to drag in the performance of actual governments, though, then liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia including those social democracies you dismiss beat most communist states (China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba) in lower economic inequality: check out the detailed view of this world map of gini coefficients.

Only, North Korea achieves low economic inequality, and that state overspends on military instead of lifting people out of poverty, thus allowing famines & food shortages to stunt growth & shorten life expectances by 12 years compared to their South Korean neighbors.

Counterexamples (liberal socialist philosophies & governments) have already been provided. Your denial of fact doesn’t make it untrue. You don’t speak for all socialists.

I don’t think the leftists who dislike liberalism understand it or liberal philosophy. Liberalism isn’t intrinsically tied to capitalism or even democracy.

It’s a moral & political philosophy that emerged from the Enlightenment in opposition to power imbalances derived from ideologies & traditions that justify divine hereditary privilege, absolute authority of the church & state. To contest the legitimacy of traditional authority, it needed a new basis of legitimacy & found it in liberty.

It holds that individuals have inherent rights & liberties that exist apart from any law just for being human. All individuals have the same fundamental rights, so are fundamentally equal. Legitimate authority must protect these rights. Governments exist for the people, and the people have a right & duty to correct & replace governments with illegitimate authority. That’s the essence of liberal philosophy: legitimate governments protect fundamental rights & liberties of individuals.

It was the original leftism. While left & right varieties of liberalism exist, its leftist varieties are more coherent. All the ideals in opposition to traditional power imbalances serve as well to oppose authoritarianism in general.

Legitimate leftism should oppose authoritarianism due to the power imbalances. Liberal socialism is a valid approach to socialism. The social democracies in Europe are another approach to socialism in liberal democracies. All of these are antiauthoritarian leftism.

kink-shaming

Social democracy is a social, economic, and political philosophy within socialism

There’s nothing to teach: you’re just wrong. An impure economy doesn’t make their philosophy non-socialist. It promotes a welfare state with a corporatist system of collective bargaining. It’s a gradualist, reformist, democratic approach to socialism.

The US economy is also impure: firms don’t own public services, run welfare, or regulate the markets. By your reasoning, “having characteristics of capitalism” doesn’t “make it capitalist”.

Even economies of USSR & China were/are state capitalist according to communists.

Most current communist groups descended from the Maoist ideological tradition still adopt the description of both China and the Soviet Union as being state capitalist from a certain point in their history onwards—most commonly, the Soviet Union from 1956 to its collapse in 1991 and China from 1976 to the present.

Did they fulfill their civic duty? Did they meaningfully fight to defend their cause?

If they fell short of their own expectations, they’ll feel shame.