Windows sucks now? Like there was a time it didn’t?

expressing an opinion we disapprove of isn’t an exception to free speech: for that we can express our condemnation

the harm principle requires more than mere offensiveness such as true threat or incitement of imminent, lawless action

proved reddit’s free speech stance wrong

free speech is never wrong

That’s just such an easy link to memorise, isn’t it?

You memorize your links & type them out like a boomer?

Early christians had an interesting take on this.

Before the religion organized into a hierarchical orthodoxy, communities distant from the emerging establishment (not particularly attached to jewish traditions) in places like Alexandria were left to their own devices to figure out christianity: they formed loose households & study circles to interpret texts in the context of their local traditions & culture and settled on a number of competing interpretations. Among them emerged a popular, influential interpretation.

• Reading the older jewish scriptures & newer texts quite literally, they concluded there were 2 deities. 1 of whom, the unhidden Demiurge (Yahweh of the old testament) who had created the material universe, was a vengeful and ignorant deity inimical to human welfare. Consequently, material existence is flawed & evil, and they must escape that realm by seeking personal knowledge of the other, hidden deity: the transcendent spiritual entity, the Silent Depth (or the Monad), who briefly inhabited Jesus with that revelatory wisdom or logos found in the newer texts. In other words, there’s cool god (Jesus’s god) & evil genocidal god (Yahweh).
• Moreover, they concluded that church authority isn’t needed: Jesus had awoken a spark of divinity in matter that would find its way back to its transcendent source with little need of episcopal authority or sacramental practice.

This interpretation became known as gnosticism.

Sticklers with the evil trash god of older jewish scriptures didn’t like this idea, became early church authorities, denounced it as heresy, & purged all the texts they could of it.

So, yes, even some early christians believed the entity modern christians refer to as god is kinda shit.

What are you trying to argue? Non-liberals will demand liberty from intrusive imposition of age verification? What do we call these advocates for social liberty? With which major US political ideology do they belong if they had to choose?

The politically illiterate US population uses every term and definition wrong.

You must be speaking of yourself: now you’re disagreeing with political scientists & historians. The linked article cites definitions & references from both.

The political spectrum article

Generally, the left wing is characterized by an emphasis on “ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism” while the right wing is characterized by an emphasis on “notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism”.

Political scientists and other analysts usually regard the left as including anarchists, communists, socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats, left-libertarians, progressives, and social liberals.

reaffirms political scientists consider progressives & social liberals on the left.

Also they are relative

Not entirely: words still mean things.

Progressivism: ideology

that seeks to advance the human condition through social reform.

Social liberalism:

variety of liberalism that endorses social justice, social services, a mixed economy, and the expansion of civil and political rights

social liberalism places greater emphasis on the role of government in addressing social inequalities and ensuring public welfare

So back to modern liberalism in the US: what has it endorsed & pursued?

The modern liberal philosophy strongly endorses public spending on programs such as education, health care, and welfare.

What are these if not social reforms to advance the human condition (ie, progressive policies)?

It combines ideas of cultural liberalism, social liberalism, progressivism, civil liberty and social equality with support for social justice and a mixed economy

Important social issues during the 21st century include social justice, economic inequality (wealth and income), voting rights for minorities, affirmative action, reproductive and other women’s rights, support for LGBT rights, and immigration reform.

What is the support for mixed economy & these issues if not the definition of social liberalism?

Are you claiming any of that has much to do with “notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism” that characterize the right? They seem to have an awful lot more to do with “ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism” that characterize the left.

It’s time to face reality & admit the facts don’t support you.

all I’ve heard from so-called US ‘liberals’ was nearly as horrible and right-wing as the rest

Then maybe you don’t know many liberals.

overton window is so narrow it only goes from fascist to center-right

Regardless of what you think, people in the libertarian left of the political map exist in the US, and there are only 2 major ideologies there to choose from.

Modern liberalism is one of two major political ideologies in the United States, with the other being conservatism.

They’re not throwing their lot in with conservatism. That really narrows down the possibilities.

US liberals are mostly social liberals & progressives. They include liberal/libertarian leftists from the political map.

Are you claiming liberal leftism? Then welcome to the club.

A lib (liberal or libertarian leftist) as opposed to what? A non-liberal, ie, authoritarian leftist?

I don’t think authoritarians have credible claims on this matter or anything worthwhile.

Et tu, California with Democratic majority in both chambers? Fucking disgraceful.

That might explain why so many comments in this post on edible packaging didn’t reject the idea as defeating the purpose of packaging & were even suggesting wrapping the packaging in packaging to keep it contaminant-free.

Nope: ed like in the picture.

Absolutely disgusting erosion of liberty and privacy, though it’s not the least bit surprising.

Legally, it’s not an erosion. Public spaces aren’t private, and it was a charge that hadn’t yet reached (probably costly) trial. It’s the same level of erosion as before when they lacked this level of public surveillance.

this cop is fully convinced (or acting as if he were) about the validity of this minimal-effort investigation they apparently were ready to arrest someone over.

That’s standard procedure for police in the US: overconfidence & pressure of any kind (eg, lies) to extract a confession no matter if false or the evidence doesn’t support it. Their approach seeks conviction (no matter what) rather than truth. They’re twats.

No accountability on their end

Their unaccountability is standard. Welcome to US law enforcement. They were just as bad before.

I hadn’t the slightest inclination to dig until I needed to plant a tree & bought my first shovel: unexpectedly satisfying.

Dogs make more sense now.

sustainable breakthrough that could cut emissions and eliminate slaughter in the $400 billion leather industry

Seems pretty pointless when leather is a byproduct of slaughter for meat, and meat (not leather) drives the demand for cows. Even at 0 leather demand, cow slaughter & their impact on the environment would continue at the same levels.

For the slow: if we switched entirely to lab-grown leather, then what would we do with the unused cowhide stripped from butchered cows? Let it go to waste while redundantly pumping unnecessary resources to grow the same thing in the lab? That’s massively stupid.

This reminds me of the invention of edible food wrappers entirely missing the point of wrappers protecting the food from contamination which would now include the wrapper needing protection.

Jarred by his teachings, religious conservatives would reject a Christian AI modeled after Jesus as “too woke”.

Deep state & FBI cover ups of child sex-trafficking rings run by cabals of shadowy elites linked to the unfalsifiable existence of the Epstein files.

Hyperbolic rhetoric isn’t a true threat. In the US, criticizing the draft by saying at a political rally

I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is LBJ.

is protected. Likewise, ill-wishes for death are mere opinion.

Such speech merely offends genocide supporters & pearl clutchers.

Alternative text in post is great. However, these are also images of text: quotations & links to sources would make more sense.

And everyone else is entitled to criticize self-indulgent complaints as useless whining.

Right, it’s worse.