You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I am saying if there is a law establishing legal consequences for speech then you do not have absolute freedom of speech.

If you have legal consequences for speech, you don’t have free speech

True, but sadly that’s because of what became a genuine user safety concern

Right now to me it means basically private control of the means of production. Because left has seemingly become a euphemism for collective control of the means of production.

Anyone know Al Gore’s email?

To be honest: you can still make your own website, and in many ways big companies are actually making it easier through open-source projects and stuff like Let’s Encrypt. The web industry is remarkably open compared to what big companies do in other industries. A lot of the standards meetings and stuff you can just go to and give your opinion. Or ignore the standards and fork it yourself. This alarmism I fear will make people not take the actually alarming things like encryption bans or ID requirements seriously.

Sometimes

Yea but I also think he’s just not a cardinal

I don’t think he’s a cardinal, just a bishop. But I also don’t really know how the Catholic church works

At the time it was the only “country” on the continent. There were people actually arguing for not including the “of America” too, so it would just be “United States”

Wdym? I’ve always thought this USian thing was just typical Western Europeans + Aus/Kiwis

Huh, offtopic, I didn’t know there were derby parties outside Kentucky

While their claim isn’t falsifiable, because someone who doesn’t isn’t a real both-sideser

It’s only when you dispel the myth of moral relativism and believe that, yeah, some things ARE wrong (and we should avoid and condemn them, of course)

You can be a moral relativist without equating someone else’s view of morality to your own. Or rather, while still only valuing your own.

What does right wing mean to you?

Doesn’t vindicate cruelty towards him

As others have pointed out the stroke could definitely impair his ability to understand its impact on his mental state.

But also yea no, someone can be very wrong and you can think and state that without being needlessly cruel to them.

What did he do that makes you think he’s in bed with Trump?

xd

yeah, why dont we all have more tolerance for people doing active harm?

Yes. Tolerating someone’s existence and humanity doesn’t mean you have to enable them to do things you disagree with.

While we are on the topic, Who speaks for the CEOs here? They are human right? And has anyone asked the zionists about their feelings? their pains and fears?

Yes. Someone who genuinely believes they are acting morally, even if they do something evil, are not themselves evil. They are misguided. You shouldn’t enable them, but you also shouldn’t be needlessly cruel to them.

But also, Fetterman is responsible for his actions and his actions suck.

Yes, but context matters. People’s motives matter when you judge them. People’s circumstances matter.

Thats how responsibility works, and leadership comes with a lot of responsibility.

Nitpick not about you, but just how people talk about congress in general: let’s just be honest, most of them are not leaders. Or at least not leading anything beyond their team of staffers. And they were not intended to be leaders, they represent their constituents, serving them not leading them.

You perform or you get what Fettermans getting.

What? Ridiculed and mocked by people on the internet who’s primary hobbies are thinking of creative insults and coping? I’m not being facetious, I’m asking what just saying cruel things on Lemmy does thats productive.

Once he gets the eff out, he wont hold that responsibility and can be treated as just another human with human problems again.

Why can’t he be treated as a human now? Just a human who at least you believe is wrong on serious issues, and therefore causing harm based on misconceptions.