Programmer explicitly bypasses code safety with unwrap.
Let’s blame it on their programming language!

Cool hot take, brah.

Needs text alternative.

Nah, a child is entitled to full parental care. In cases of financial hardship, the state may provide support. Adoptive parents may takeover responsibilities. Whoever the parents are, though, they are responsible.

This consideration has nothing to do with abortion & everything to do with parental obligations the child.

Right, and no one’s shaming them?

Also

He was 17 at the time but initially charged as an adult.

A minor: charging minors as adults is unjust, and a sentence appropriate for minors should be expected.

No one’s shaming you enough for all the non-consensual sex?

A boy got molested by his female teacher, and she won child support from him! Could you in a million years imagine a male rapist achieving such a legal judgment from a girl he molested?

While I think all your other points may have merit, I need to point out child support is the birth right of the child who exists through no fault of their own. Both parents owe regardless of the circumstances. So, yes, I could imagine that legal judgement by necessity.

Compared to that, rape is rarely talked about…

There are a few colorful insults on that. Maybe not as common, but that’s more the fault of unimaginative insulters.

Who’s doing the shaming?

Why would we shame men in particular for non-consensual sex? Are the other genders shamed less for it?

I don’t think merely shaming for non-consensual sex is an appropriate response. Usually, a criminal offense leads straight to arrest. Aren’t convicted rapists usually stigmatized in prison & after release?

Altogether, a peculiar assertion.

shaming isn’t the primary tool society uses to respond to grape, assault, prison, ostracizing or murder is, so like, so what is there less shame?

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Non-evidence-based medical guidelines caused the spike as explained here.

And that’s no coincidence as explained here.

This is unsurprising to anyone aware how the peanut allergies blew up. Medical guidelines organizations issued a pediatric guideline contrary to known science that wasn’t evidence-based, then later course-corrected^[1]: they fixed their fuck up. It’s pretty well known by the evidence-based medicine community.

So, this isn’t some miraculous achievement: it’s the correction of a self-inflicted setback.

It’s surprising those organizations haven’t been sued into oblivion over this.

The more I read about state capitalism, the vaguer it seems.

an economic system where the government plays a central role by managing key industries and manipulating market outcomes

is the most coherent definition I can find. Examples

• the centrally planned, command economy of the USSR with wage labor
• the liberalized market economy of the PRC with some large state industries, a strong private sector, foreign investment, market-based trade
• the Norwegian economy with state ownership of the oil industry & some companies and ownership stake in large, publicly traded companies
• United States with its publicly funded bailouts & recent state ownership stake in some publicly traded companies.

Some economists argued it’s merely state socialism & planned economy relabeled.

Whatever it is, communist states like USSR & China have long claimed they’re transitional.

Communism is by definition a stateless, classless society.

No, that’s a communist society, a purely unsubstantiated, speculative, moneyless, post-scarcity utopia that has never once been realized & probably never will. Belongs in the realm of mythology.

Communism is the ideology whose goal is the creation of a communist society. Much like Christianity with the 2nd coming of Christ, adherents insist it’ll happen someday inevitably. No possible way their great prophet Marx was wrong.

A communist state (also known as a Marxist–Leninist state) is a government consisting of a socialist state following Marxist–Leninist political philosophy with a dictatorial ruling class that promises to achieve a communist society. Unfortunately, while belief systems like Judaism had the sense to warn adherents against trying to force their dream utopia prematurely, Marx lacked such sense to urge the crazies against it.

Regardless, the overzealous failures here are some strain of communist: they follow the ideology.

They’re rarely here because they get quickly defederated.

I think it has more to do with their not wanting to be here & online communities voluntarily segregating themselves into their respective ideologies^[1].

Defederation is not an effective control against the individuals you want to contain. As we can see with tankies, their annoying conduct rarely rises to the level to result in bans from the unblocked instances they join.

As for spreading their poison, I don’t think people are mindless automatons who must become awful when exposed to offensive rhetoric all day. If mere exposure is all it takes, then they probably lacked decent principles. Sheltering a fragile position that disintegrates at the slightest challenge due to ignorance is a weak strategy that doesn’t build a firm, reliable foundation.

A better solution is to develop a sturdier position on principles everyone is keenly familiar with to effectively defend. They acquire that familiarity through observed & practiced success to defeat challenges. The best answer to speech we dislike is better speech that condemns & challenges it. People need robust principles to do that & acquire them by doing so.

I want Lemmy to do a better job than reddit at keeping fascists from being free to spread their poison.

What fascists? They’re rarely here.

Tankies, too? They’re already here.

• Enforcement of accessibility.
• No reddit-style moderation: the moderators at reddit are unaccountable tyrants.
• Minimal moderation preferably little more than legal compliance & accessibility/usability standards.
• Rejection of loaded reddit moderation concepts such as
  • brigading
  • sealioning
  • calling anything annoying harassment
• Freedom to openly criticize moderators.

Ah, so you reject conventional political science, too? Cool.

It’s just straightforward definitions & logic: the diagram is there for the slow.

Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law.

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, and equality before the law.

State terrorism is a contradiction in terms.

Nope

State terrorism is terrorism conducted by a state against its own citizens or another state’s citizens.

Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.

The violations mentioned before are illegitimate exertions of authority to repress inherent human rights & liberties. Legal authority isn’t always legitimate authority. Violence against nonviolent dissidents (for political/ideological aims) is unjust.

You claim liberal democracy is fundamentally incompatible with authoritarianism

Nope, reread:

Liberalism, however, is fundamentally incompatible with authoritarianism.

I don’t know about labor camps, but none of that has any bearing on a moral & political philosophy.

Moreover, the fact we know it & discuss it openly puts that government far beyond repressive governments that suppress & deny their failures ever happen.

Like all governments, liberal democratic governments lapse into illegitimate authority. More importantly, however, they correct their lapses due to the people exercising their inherent liberties to induce reforms. That’s the design lacking from authoritarian governments like communist states: transparency & accountability to the people exercising their liberties to induce reform. Nothing short of a revolution or dissolution keeps communist states accountable to the people: they repress such liberties & send critics to labor camps as anti-revolutionaries.

Cool ad hominem fallacy, brah. Try respecting logic when you learn it.

Nope, a government can’t disprove a moral & political philosophy. As we can plainly observe, liberalism/libertarianism & authoritarianism are on opposite sides of the ideological map.

Liberalism is a philosophy whereas liberal democracy is a type of government as was clearly stated:

Colloquially, democracy refers to liberal democracy, also called Western-style democracy, or substantive democracy: democracy following ideas of liberal political philosophy.

If anything, all you’re observing is a government depart from a philosophy to become a different type of government. Even so, your claim is off: the US has been protecting inherent human rights & liberties for the most part in recent history until Trump.

Even so, there are other liberal democracies across the globe.