Lorewarn

There is no danger "of the Islamic faith". There's danger of radical zealots, who use religious ideology as a weapon, which Islam has a bit more notable of a share of. Language like this implies that it's baked inherently into the religion, which it isn't. The fringe is absolutely small. There are two billion Muslims worldwide, and almost all of them are peaceful people who find terrorism horrific and evil.

I think Memorial has definitely been as loud as this plenty of times, but I've never heard the animosity and bloodlust from the crowd that existed that night. Still gives me chills when I watch the youtube highlight videos.

Not sure if Brown said that or not, but if so it's definitely a lie - that was an explicitly Christian prayer. (there's video where you can hear his words). I'd be curious to hear from someone well educated on constitutional law on this one, but looking back 11 years later it feels entirely inappropriate to make this moment explicitly Christian; imagine the backlash if a player decided not to go out for that moment.

My guess is that the Supreme Court will probably rule on his side, and I think that's the right move constitutionally. I guess there's some argument that the public presence of it could create an implied social pressure to participate, but I doubt that will stand up legally.

https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/33783970/how-unknown-high-school-football-coach-landed-center-supreme-court-religious-liberty-case Thoughts on this legally and ethically? “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven... And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."

Found this article a few days ago. Seems to be even more interesting now that Musk is buying Twitter. I've been a big fan of Jonathan Haidt's work for a good while, and found this to be a great insight (it's quite long though) https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/?fbclid=IwAR1CnsYLd0hdB5k9QKV-mAh1uuP2D_f3aDbq7AArhLg3tXp2GHoBbIDOswY

Shaun King is an absolute clown grifter dips#!t idiot. My question is where the hell did Elon get the cash for this?

Not the victory but the action; in the deed the glory.

I don't and wouldn't use the language of "the islamist problem", because I think it paints with a painfully too wide brush, but I think it's also naive to to not recognize that islam has a very violent fringe. It is absolutely a fringe, and is still small, but compared to other major religions seems to be disproportionately troublesome. I'm drastically far from being an expert on world religion and am glad to be proven wrong but per my perspective of the world there's far more violent extremism acted out under the banner of Islam than there is under Christianity/Judaism/Hinduism/Buddhism. But in case I'm not abundantly clear the overwhelming majority of Muslim folks, especially immigrants, are kind humble peaceful folks, and the crazies don't define the religion the same way that Westboro Baptist Church doesn't define Christianity.

Not sure how much intention is behind it or not, but it's definitely the case every time we get new turf. Here's 2013: Here's 2005 on what looks like a cloudy day:

The red was obviously starting to fade, but it still had plenty of color in it and was a stretch to classify it as pink imo. Although I guess my standard to compare it to was 2011-12, and everything compared to then is leagues and leagues better.

Way too many people keep treating mental health, and being mentally fragile, as a sign of weakness or poor spirit/toughness. Nah, you can be the toughest person imaginable and still have the forces of hate and scorn and mocking and discrimination and humiliation against you be tougher than you still. Plenty of folks would do well to share your perspective, and then extrapolate it to be applicable not just to physical health but mental health as well. Large parts of this larger conversation culturally would be nearly as necessary.

I don't have a political party, but I do absolutely strive to give everyone dignity that I can, especially the ones that society casts aside. Who's defending and what kinda stuff?

There's nothing whiny or unreasonable about wanting and hoping to be treated with dignity and respect unless you've done something to deserve being treated otherwise. That's all the overwhelming majority of people want. Sure some loud people on social media want to be offended; but most everyone in real life isn't looking for a fight, but some folks because of something they can't help about themselves are constantly the victims of great offense without looking for it or wanting it. And most of them handle it with a surprising amount of grace and resiliency.

re: the bolded I agree and I can totally see the same in why people aren't down with it. Devo just asked me how I personally felt about it, and I don't have an issue with it. Being concerned about our social standing is one of the most foundational things baked into our DNA as a species, there's no getting around it. Do you think being treated as a disgusting monster and lumped in with people who do act on it makes their fight to not act on it easier or harder? Do you think being attracted to kids and doing everything you can to make sure you never abuse a kid is easier or harder if you can never talk to anybody about it? I don't know what we're supposed to do about it practically, but it's weird to me that you/we wouldn't want to provide resources and encourage the people cursed with a perversion trying to conquer it. Because if they don't, then, you know, they end up abusing kids, and we all agree that's the last thing we ever want to happen.

1st - That's what I said, so I guess Devo and you don't disagree with me there. 2nd - Fair enough, but they're not addressing their students here, they're addressing their tiktok followers, and there's an argument that when they're posting on tiktok they're not a teacher, they're just a person. I wouldn't do what this person did, but if I'm friends with someone who's parents are abusive or have disowned them or are otherwise a source of pain for someone, I'll absolutely say 'f#&% your parents' if that's the solidarity they need from me (which it has been before). 3rd - I'm fine not seeing eye to eye here. All pedophiles no matter what, or only the pedophiles who actually do something? Asking in general, and also because the third person I posted is very clearly talking about people who are attracted towards kids but are not acting on it but are constantly fighting to never commit any sex offenses. The entire point of their book is preventing sexual abuse against children, not normalizing it.

Curious to hear more; what do you find alarming about each?

SHUT UP THE IRS IS DOING A GREAT JOB AND WE'RE ALL PAYING EXACTLY OUR FAIR SHARE ON TAXES GUYS SHUT UP SHUT UP Don't listen to him IRS!! You don't need better technology

I agree that it can easily cost them elections, but why is it a dumb idea? It was founded in 2003. Was America some lawless hellscape before then?

The first guy I'll say two things. One, I don't think there's any reason to bring up the topic unprompted for that age group. Second, with that being said, nothing he said was wrong or controversial outside of not needing to say it in the first place. The second one is 100% innocuous. It has zero to do with sexuality or gender and is a harmless encouragement, presumably towards his tiktok followers, not his students. Not sure what other content of his is out there that led to him getting fired. The third one the guy explicitly makes clear that he isn't at all endorsing pedophelia, he just holds an opinion of respecting the terminology that groups of people prefer. Instinctually it makes me a bit uneasy but I always lean on the side of being able to have conversations and understand other folks, especially the ones that we just deem monsters (primarily so we don't have to actually deal with what makes them that way).

Not sure. Depends on which ones you're talking about. I'm glad to offer my thoughts on any individual example. You know that he had his profile public and/or had his real name attached to it at the time? I don't. Let's say his name was public. Then I'll go back to my original point that there is no story here, and Taylor Lorentz is at worst doing exactly the same thing as libsoftiktok is, as her name was also publicly available.

They repost videos and then offer commentary and a narrative that these people are grooming kids, are predators that need things like child protective services called against them, then make a bunch of claims about things not actually present in the videos ("this play is marketing sex and nudity to 5 year olds!"), and so on.

You're gonna say that isn't true and then link....Tucker as your evidence? The "tan your nuts" "I'm just asking questions guy" (who is btw on record at least twice suggesting "these teachers" whoever that is should be assaulted) Here they are posting a teacher, tagging their school, eventually sharing who the teacher is, and celebrating when the school had to block the account and many of its followers after harassment: Here they are bragging about this teacher getting fired in large part due to this tiktok, which they posted. Oh and then hear they are revealing their full name afterwards: Here they are claiming credit for this person getting fired: Here they are arguing that it's okay that they successfully get teachers fired because obviously the teachers in question are bad: Here's a podcast episode where she acknowledges what you just said isn't true:

If these two quotes are true there's no story and no hypocrisy here: "Chaya Raichik, in her management of the Libs of TikTok Twitter account and in media interviews, has had significant impact on public discourse and her identity had become public knowledge on social media. We did not publish or link to any details about her personal life." "[A]ll the info in the Libs of TikTok piece was already publicly available online. but Taylor had one thing that no one else had which made the report possible...Glenn Greenwald accidentally confirming their identity lol," Binder tweeted. Even if they're not, a journalist confirming and publishing the name of the person behind a huge social media presence that, per the claims of that very person, has gotten teachers featured on it fired, and routinely doxxes LGBTQ folks, seems like it isn't the biggest element of the story to worry about.

Yes, and if I understand the case right, the primary reason they struck down the law was because it was too vague, and was more primarily based on the government restricting the 'speech' element. And those rationale are good ones when talking about the government. All of Kennedy's other rambling doesn't seem to be relevant, and even if all of it is, none of that is relevant in the conversation of social media companies themselves banning access to their sites.