4 ms·
Copied from the other thread as this seems like it is more active, This ruling seems like continuation of the persecution complex of the right. I would like to
by buildbot 4y ago
Copied from the other thread as this seems like it is more active, This ruling seems like continuation of the persecution complex of the right. I would like to point out that some of the most heavy handed moderation and censorship occurs on r/conservative, Gab, truth social, or parler, where typically dissenting results in an instant ban. I suppose that moderation is now illegal then?
One of the big things people seem to love about HN is how heavy the moderation is. Now, open season to flood it with low quality memes?
- diob 4y agoThey'll wring themselves in knots to allow it as freedom of religion or some shit.
- darth_avocado 4y agoThe best way to fight this is to use their own logic on them. Can’t have abortions because a fetus is a human being at conception? Great! Drive in hov lanes, claim tax dependents, apply for childcare benefits and sue if you don’t get any of these.
- gfodor 4y agoNot really, people who are pro-life and take it seriously (in my experience, the vast majority of pro-lifers) would happily trade saving the lives of the unborn in exchange for treating the premise they are children seriously.
- DangitBobby 4y agoGeorgia recently started allowing people to claim fetuses as dependents on their tax returns [1]. 1. https://www.npr.org/2022/08/02/1115204443/georgia-fetus-pregnant-dependent-taxes https://www.npr.org/2022/08/02/1115204443/georgia-fetus-preg...
- dpkirchner 4y agoA government-held database of fetuses, what could go wrong? "Our records show you had a fetus but no subsequent birth. Provide proof of a natural miscarriage or be subject to a criminal investigation."
- masklinn 4y ago> The best way to fight this is to use their own logic on them. Doesn’t work because there’s no logic, and they don’t feel bound by precedent.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoThere is nothing wrong with disagreeing with precedent. People of all political views do this regularly
- masklinn 4y agoHad I meant disagreeing with precedent, that is what I would have written.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoThen maybe I dont understand the distinction you are making between someone thinking they are bound by precedent and agreeing with it in this context. In the specific legal context, there is stare decisis, which itself is not absolute. In the realm of public opinion and politics there is no equivalent I can think of. No individual human has their opinions bound by precedent.
- hidudeurcool 4y ago
- kevingadd 4y agoA core principle of extremist conservatives is that the laws apply to their enemies, but not to them. You can't deploy their logic and expect them to suddenly take the rule of law seriously.