So the people in cities should just be worth less when they vote? It's a federal vote for a federal office, everyone in the country should count the same.
The individual states already have their own powers which make sure the federal government doesn't make decisions that are bad for those states. And each county and town have their own governments that pass local laws.
I've also heard this argument so many times but I haven't heard any actual examples.
Wrong thread, this is postal workers withholding mail
Yes, they are not the same thing. That's what a comparison is. If you think it's a bad comparison, feel free to explain why you think so
What do you mean "doesn't like"? The federal government "doesn't like" citizens sending bombs in the mail, and they would deny you that, yes. I'm not sure what the point of your reply was, it doesn't argue against anything I've said. Sounds like a straw man.
There's a difference between individual mail carriers and the organization USPS or Canadian Post. And there's a difference between dislike and illegal. I thought we already established that, is that something you disagree on??
Yeah Doug was just a tenuous reference to Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy's secret Ruler of the Universe.
I agree, AI is problematic. In theory, that could work in my favor if I train it to be secretly biased towards my beliefs, and put in safeguards to prevent it from being retrained or removed. But I imagine in the real world that would fail spectacularly.
No system can be perfect with imperfect humans and bad actors at its core, and I don't really think AI should have any power over humans. Sorry, I kinda brought this down a rabbit hole away from the original point of the post lol
Ah, well if enforcement is part of the thought experiment then that's only a couple extra amendments. The clear enemy of fascism is democracy;
• Enforcement is led by an oversight committee that is democratically elected by the general population every four years
• The oversight committee is overseen by an AI trained in intellectual honesty, ethics, and democracy
• The AI is periodically trained and updated by Doug, a Minnesota resident who answers Survey Monkey questions on his opinion of ethics and democracy and is unaware of the consequences of his responses. Only the AI knows. No one else must know. Human bias has been conquered and postage peace has been achieved.
Not who you replied to, but let me give it a try if you don't mind.
• All promotional mail must clearly state the organization it was created by and its intent. • Claims made to support that intent must be followed by evidence from an independent and peer reviewed journal, study, or survey from within the past 20 years and clearly cite those sources. • And must provide at least one source that disagrees with the claim if one exists.
If I can't stop fascists sending mail, I'll make sure the recipient has some tools and knowledge to debunk their bullshit. Also it will filter out low effort bullshit, and make factually wrong discrimination more difficult.
I understand that. I'm reading way too many laws already lol
If the letter is determined to be unlawful, there's a provision that allows Canadian Post to not deliver the letter. It's a whole process that the mail carriers did not follow. Maybe if they had tried, and used the argument that it was unlawful discrimination or harassment to deliver the fliers, they would have had a leg to stand on. It seems that they didn't, they took matters into their own hands, and they were punished accordingly.
To be more clear, I'm not arguing against the punishment. Just the fliers and if they could be considered unlawful
Well I'm not too well versed on Canadian federal laws as I'm a bit further south. So I looked into discrimination laws in New Brunswick, Canada and found this Human Rights Act
Some parts that could be relevant;
The New Brunswick Human Rights Act is the provincial law that prohibits discrimination and harassment based on 16 protected grounds of discrimination.
The Act prohibits discrimination in the following five areas under the provincial jurisdiction: Employment (includes job ads and interviews, working conditions, and dismissals); Housing (e.g. rent and sale of property); Accommodations, services, and facilities (e.g. hotels, schools, restaurants, government services, libraries, stores, etc.); Publicity; and, Professional, business or trade associations (e.g. Nurses Association of New Brunswick, New Brunswick Teachers' Association, New Brunswick College of Physicians, etc.).
Publicity includes any publications, displays, notices, signs, symbols, emblems that show discrimination or an intention to discriminate against any person or class of persons
Not a lawyer or expert, but that seems to apply at least superficially. Maybe a bit of a stretch. But it helps that the fliers were full of factually wrong and hateful anti-trans myths. And freedom of speech has limits, even federally.
ETA: However, mail carriers are probably exclusively covered by federal law, and the federal Canadian Human Rights Act ~~only seems to specify discrimination and not harassment. I do think it's too much of a stretch to say this would be covered by any federal laws~~
Final edit: ok I read more. This is the closest thing I could find from the federal Human Rights Act
12 It is a discriminatory practice to publish or display before the public or to cause to be published or displayed before the public any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that (a) expresses or implies discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or (b) incites or is calculated to incite others to discriminate
If I am misinterpreting it, please let me know. I think it could be used as an argument tho
No where does that source say Biden tried to shut down the Internet. The closest is this part
Donald Trump publicly advocated that “in some places” we have to talk about “closing up the Internet.” He got his wish, but it came after him personally following his election in 2016. The very free speech about which he made fun turned out to be rather important to him and his cause.
Also I can't take a site seriously when one of their sources they link to is the Twitter user "End Wokeness"
There are some parts I agree with, but there's plenty there that's right wing dog whistles for "I want to say hateful things and have no consequences" free speech
They said it CAN be a nightmare when it's bad weather. Being a parent is hard, and there are parts that are mentally, physical, and emotionally exhausting. Especially when they're so young they could die just sleeping the wrong way.
You're being unnecessarily obtuse and combative. It brings nothing to the table and alienates the people you're talking to. If you want to be taken seriously, try approaching the subject with a little bit of maturity and empathy. You can even have the same message that someone isn't right to have kids, without coming across like a random asshole on the Internet
In the comic she isn't picking a fight, she is confiding in a friend her frustration that sometimes men can have fragile egos. That doesn't mean men are the root of all problems. The comic is saying that often criticism, no matter how small or in what context, can be met with an overblown reaction that derails any potential conversation and spirals into name calling and whataboutism.
It would be sexist to say men are the root of every problem, but I'm not seeing anyone claim that. Not in the comic, not in these comments, not in real life, really only in certain toxic Internet spaces. A woman pointing out a common problem they experience with men ideally would be met with self reflection, not deflection. It is not a lack of empathy from women, it is women not understanding why men struggle to identify an issue that seems so clear to women. And men not understanding why women would make a generalized statement that seems to criticize individual men.
But women are often talking about a systemic issue with men, not trying to personally insult individuals. And the deflection and insults that they often receive just furthers the frustration between sexes. You're saying that the issue would be prevented if women didn't say things that have negative messaging. I firmly believe that would make the issue worse, as the first step to fixing an issue is identifying it and facing it head on.
Men often have fragile egos. That does not make men evil. It is barely even an issue unless an individual man lets it define his actions. If a criticism from a woman doesn't seem true to you personally, congrats! You have self reflected and don't have to worry about it because she's not talking about you.
If it helps, I have empathy for you. I'm pretty sure I'm not cis so I don't call myself a man anymore lol but I had the same feelings as you do until a couple years after I met my wife. We had long talks and disagreements about the divide between men and women that form from miscommunication and misunderstanding. And I expressed frustration at the criticisms women often have of men. And she explained that it's not meant to insult, just vent from personal experience. That it's not a way to make men feel bad, not malicious or looking down on men. It's just an attempt to communicate an issue they see. And after a while I started to see how true that is. And then I realized I might not be a dude so it kinda was a waste of time lmao
Sorry about the wall of text, tl:dr when a woman is critical it's meant to express a frustration and communicate an issue, not insult or put down every individual man. If you're a man and hear criticism, it's not likely applicable to you. But it helps to self reflect and have empathy