I would be careful with phrases like, “there is no contradiction.” There is a comprehensible tension between free speech as the ability for anyone to say what they wish, and a prohibition on hate speech as a prohibition on saying specific things. Denying that risks damaging one’s credibility because it can appear that we are merely refusing to acknowledge that tension.

I argue it’s better to admit these tensions. And that’s not an admission that the arguments for prohibition of hate speech are weak, but it is an admission that as real people in the real world, we can never have the comfort of a tension-free, contradiction-free theory for anything of significance.

I can’t help but think a person would be justified in permanently disabling these aircraft.

It would be nice to have some opposition, though. Even if most “conservative” media right now is little more than xenophobia, or cult worship, there do exist sound arguments against the typical internet-left positions. I don’t have a solid enough read on what comes through New in the fediverse to say whether any of that is being submitted and just downvoted off everyone’s feeds, or if all that’s being submitted is the average conservative media junk.

Still, political spaces without opposition/diversity invariably degenerate into purity contests, and circle jerking.

It’s a constitutional amendment that was ruled on. The Constitution applies the same in all states. If it were just Colorado law I think it would be much harder to appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court.

I was curious how often this actually happened and found this other article with some figures.

https://www.iosconews.com/news/state/article_3280a3fa-bc08-54ae-80e1-a92d10aab51b.html

“More than 5,400 minors were married in Michigan between 2000 and 2021, according to the nonprofit Unchained at Last. More than nine in 10 of the minors were girls, with 12 under the age of 16.”

So I guess it was mostly 16 and 17 year olds who now have to wait to 18.

I’m sure that’s not what was in his letter.

If your question is merely about public relations, sure it’s a terrible move. But I think there’s actually a more meaningful question underlying all this furor; what are the limits of friendship or love? What is one supposed to do when someone close does something horrible? Cast them aside? Pretend you never knew them?

Kutcher must have had some idea of the risk he was taking, but he did it anyway. I find that striking. For some people friendships can be like family. I feel like this is an older sentiment that doesn’t find expression often today. Would you find it appalling if Masterson’s mother spoke on behalf of his character, or should she likewise keep her distance?

I don’t know. It all just seems more complicated and tragic than the typical social media mob can process.

It’s hilarious how many different definitions of fascism I see on Lemmy on a given day

No one is obligated to patronize any business or artist (generally speaking). Obligation isn’t the issue. But it sounds like, yes, you choose not support/patronize artists who have certain opinions you disapprove of.

I’ve seen this sentiment floating around the Internet sometimes, and it always strikes me as very limiting.

You really apply some kind of ideology test when choosing which artist’s work to enjoy?

EDIT: Perhaps this hinges on what you mean by “support”

This is not communism.

Maybe we can federate the communities on our federated instances 🤔