660 karma · joined June 9, 2021
The 'parental freedom' stuff is really just the 'you're free to not ensure your children are educated'.
You've asserted that California is taking away rights without due process. I'm looking for examples of that.
You also said
"The start of the whole issue was that many Central Valley Farms and counties raised bonds to put in aqueducts and entered into purchase agreements with the state of California. The California legislature then passed environmental regulation and stopped providing the water. In many instances this water was already paid for, or the state decided that farmers must continue to pay while the state doesn't hold up their side of the contract."
which I'd love to learn more about if it actually happened, but Google has nothing.
>Did you read them and do you have questions? I
It's not my job to make your case for you. If you feel like those links have relevant information, pull it out and make a case.
>If you're a fundamental position is that legally established property rights don't matter and are revocable without compensation, I don't know that we will be able to find common ground and share information.
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I can't help but feel that you don't have any supports for your assertion and are therefore grasping at straws to put words in my mouth.
>For some of these people, it would have been kinder if the state simply showed up and shot them.
The state doesn't exist to prop up whatever business they want to run. It's very obvious that your viewpoint on this situation is informed solely by the complaints of people who want to continue to be subsidized by the state at the expense of everyone else.
If you don't have an actual case to make, I don't see any point in moving forward. I've already heard the Ag industry's made up grievances.
Wait till you hear who that farmer took 'his' water rights from! They were there a hell of a lot longer than 100 years.
>What does that mean in this context? All of your property and even your life fall under legal jurisdiction. That doesn't mean the state can ignore the laws it has established and take them away without due process.
You haven't given an example of the State of California taking away someone's rights without due process though.
>I personally think that citizens of California should show some responsibility and buy water from those with rights, instead of acting like petty thieves. If the state is free to systemically ignore its own laws, then individuals should be free do the same. However, that lawless society is not one I would want to live in.
Your claim that California is 'acting like petty thieves' is unsubstantiated. You haven't provided any examples of that. There is a difference between what you'd like the law to be and what it is.
I'm open to reading about examples that support your argument if you have them. The realistic situation on the ground is that ranchers/farmers were allowed to act like drunks at an open bar and now the state is managing water more responsibly with respect to ALL the stakeholders in the community.
It is very obviously not. I'm just pointing out that your 'bird' analogy doesn't work because the government makes laws and policy that affect how existing property owners can use their land all the time.
>In the case of groundwater, the state recognizes farmers as the owners of the water rights (so they are not being taken away), but limits farmers from exercising those rights. Simultaneously, they allow other groups without the water rights to use it.
If you want to find some specific examples, that would be helpful. The state also recognizes my rights to the car I own but can make policies on how I use my property including outright banning my use of it. Water rights aren't god given like the Central Valley farmers would like you to believe. They fall under the jurisdiction of the State of California and the United States of America.
I personally think the Central Valley farmers should stop looking for handouts, show some personal responsibility and adapt to reality instead of asking Uncle Sam to bail them out again.
It really comes down to living in a society with competing interests. Society has decided that protecting the last salmon is somewhat important. I say somewhat because central valley farmers are HEAVILY subsidized by the state and federal government and still to get to take the lions share of the water to grow water intensive crops on the desert heat.
What's that old saying? "When you are used to privilege, equality feels like oppression".
Do you have citations for this?
>The closest analogy for the groundwater situation is if you owned a farm in a migratory bird path and the state passed a law for minimum roosting land. Then, instead of buying your farm and land, they didn't compensate you but said you aren't allowed to continue using it as you have been.
isn't this how literally all laws prohibiting something work? The government generally doesn't prohibit something if no one is doing it. Why should the government buy their land?
For example, the government built the interstate highway network of which all of those central valley farmers need to ship their products by using the law to seize land and then changing the character of millions of acres of homes from quiet and peaceful to loud and toxic. They did not generally buyout homeowners who were not necessary to build the road despite fundamentally changing how they were using their property.
Are we ignoring all the human history involving societies that collapsed or went through ecological and/or violent struggles?
Pre-plague Britain had terrible living conditions and over population. Living conditions for the survivors immediately rose after a huge chunk of the population was removed. Other civilizations that were overpopulated had huge amounts of population move to greener pastures, such as the Saxons.
All conservatives are right-wing extremists at this point.
> You mention them wanting to enforce their ideology on others, but I'd wager they feel the same thing is being done successfully to them
Yes, because they are extremely ignorant and cannot understand that losing their ability to oppress others is not, in itself oppression.
>You advocate to "fight to protect [your] ability to live in peace." If that doesn't involve finding common ground, then what exactly does it mean?
For me it means fixing our electoral system so that a violent tyrannical minority can't impose their violent ideology on the moral majority of Americans.
>This whole idea that it's OK to hate people because because they hold some particular belief leads nowhere good.
Bruh, these people want to make it illegal for me to exist. This 'we need to understand rural white grievance' nonsense is so played out.
> And in particular, the claim that it's OK to hate them because you perceive them to be hateful is so fundamentally hypocritical it would be comical if it weren't so counterproductive.
I don't perceive them to be hateful, they are hateful violent people. This dumb paradox of tolerance stuff you are pushing is very freshman year of college.
We can disagree on trade policy and still have respect for one another. When people have the same fundamental values they can disagree on lots of things.
We're past the point where we need to 'promote unity'. Anyone freedom loving American needs to fight to protect their ability to live in peace.
I don't think most conservatives could even begin to talk about public policy on a meaningful level.
I grew up in MAGA-land. The MAGA people I know are mainly driven but what they see on TV and hear on the radio rather than any real experiences. I don't think you can call it 'grassroots' when there is a coherent right-wing strategy to radicalize a demographic
Well lucky for you, I didn't make that claim!
Opiates are insanely physically addictive and you can easily accidentally become addicted to them using them as prescribed, hence all the lawsuits.
It's more like a TV addiction or a video game addiction where the over consumption is a coping mechanism for other things that are wrong in your life.
Hence 'porn addiction' not really existing.
Any user can make a subreddit about whatever they want. I'd wager the large majority of those users are not teenagers. Regardless, 'used by teens' != 'targeted for teens'.
>The site host, given that they're the ones providing adult material in a commercial context.
Which site host? Reddit is primarily a link aggregator.
> proposed we should create a standard system for labeling and mandate its use for commercial sites that offer adult material, just like we did with TV.
Yes! We need to make sure adults in no way be aware of or responsible for what media their children consume!
Of course that's the end game. We start with forcing companies to 'categorize' their content. Then we make it harder and harder to access the content that people like you have determined is undesirable.
>It's requiring site operators to provide the metadata needed for parents to be able to effectively parent without the solution being "lol just don't let your kid use any website at all".
It's requiring businesses to implement a massively expensive and arbitrary censorship system because parents are unable to tell their kids no. Metata wont be magically created and you know it. What's to stop a host from just refusing to label stuff porn? You full well know that what you are advocating for is the governmental review of all content on the internet.
>But we can force movie theaters to provide ratings of movies and require them to bar children from watching any pornographic films they show
The MPA is a voluntary rating scheme. You should look into it because it highlights all the obvious problems with what you are presenting. Misogyny, christian norms dictating what content can be shown, it's a disaster.
>Of course they do. They don't make it, but they're the ones providing it, and they make plenty of money doing so. hey If that's you're understanding, you don't really understand Reddit in the first place.
Look, just be a parent and stop forcing draconian policies on everyone else because you can't tell your kid no or monitor what they do online. Reddit is inappropriate for children, be responsible, don't let your children use it.
Is Reddit targeted to children? My assumption has always been that due to the nature of having intermingled NSFW content, lack of content filters, or literally any other control that Reddit was squarely aimed at older users.
>Grocery stores are free to sell cigarettes and alcohol along with candy, but they're required to not sell the former products to children. We don't just say "don't let your child go to the store alone".
Tobacco is a lot less subjective of a thing than 'inappropriate content' or 'porn' and its bad health effects are actually substantiated. Is fine art porn? Is a naked person porn? It might be to you, it isn't to me. Who gets to decide what is porn? The government? Religious activists?
>I said companies like reddit should design things such that filters work. If you don't need filtering, you'd be unaffected.
I would be affected because there is now a whole system that dictates what content is. How does one do that? How much does it cost? Is it my responsibility to determine that? The site hosts? What if one host has a different labeling system? It's not simple. It's regulatory bloat that would exist solely because people who popped kids out don't want to actually parent.
>Similarly, if they move their nsfw images that they've already categorized from i.redd.it to e.g. p.redd.it, DNS filtering could easily block them all while still allowing roblox memes, and users who don't care wouldn't have to do anything.
If reddit wants to implement that, that's fine with me. What OP said and what I responded to was this
"I think this is a poor solution; a more empowering one would be *to develop a standard for content categorization and require commercial websites and commercially developed browsers (so all of them that are in common use) to implement content blocking via e.g. header exchange*, with criminal penalties for negligently providing pornography without the correct headers (have some provision for vandalism when good-faith moderation is in place). Then parents actually could just configure their OS or browser for what kinds of content should be allowed."
>The problem is that parental controls increasingly cannot reasonably exist.
You can black list the reddit domain right now. How do they not exist? It might not exist in the form that you want, but that's life. I can't have the government force movie theaters to show edited versions of movies so they are kid appropriate. Some stuff just isn't for kids.
> It's not that much to ask that if a company wants to provide both adult-only and child-oriented content, they should at least provide usable metadata for which is which to make sure filters can work.
Reddit, for the most part, does not provide content.
I'm not missing the point at all. Reddit is a product. Your job as parent is to evaluate whether or not a product is appropriate for your child.
You know that Reddit doesn't have parental controls. If you can't trust your child to not go onto the NSFW subreddits, you should block Reddit so they can't access it. Sometimes you have to tell your child 'no' and they don't get the thing they want. The other thing you could do is write Reddit and advocate for parental controls.
It's absurd and entitled to believe that I should have to jump through hoops because you want your child to have access to a website that it sounds like is inappropriate for them. I personally think Robolox is terrible for kids. Should Reddit install a parental consent form to make sure that parents who don't want their kids to consume Robolox content can't access it? Where does it end?
>It's reasonable to demand that a company that's in the business of hosting forums dedicated to children's topics (e.g. /r/teenagers or /r/roblox) and also hosting forums dedicated to porn needs to do it in a way where the two can be effectively separated or understood by filtering software.
It's not reasonable to expect a company to filter content based on your personal understanding of porn. If a product doesn't meet your needs in terms of parental controls, be a parent and say 'no'.
>The solution to Cartoon Network airing programs for children and adults isn't to block the channel entirely; they just need to correctly label their adult programming so filters will work.
Again, you should write Reddit and ask for these parental controls. I'm fine with that. It's when you pass laws making me jump through hoops that a problem exists.
>n reddit's case, they already mark threads and subreddits as nsfw so it'd be trivial for them to put that onto a separate domain. Even 4chan puts their hobby boards on a different domain from porn and /pol/, and they're not even trying to appeal to children, banning anyone that mentions they're under 18/in high school/etc.
And those are the companies choices. I'm not opposed to parental controls, but if parental controls don't exist, don't pass laws to force them to.
I'm sorry, providing a space for pedophiles to find each other and share content to build community is not 'useful'.
> When we snuff out a particular bit of speech we should have to think about it, however br
Reddit is not the government. They can't "snuff out" speech. They have no social responsibility to provide a community space to pedophiles.
Well, yeah, it would...
>1. Does porn usage line up with other patterns of addiction?
I'm not sure what this question is asking. Porn usage may or may not 'line up' with patterns of addiction. That doesn't mean that porn always or even the majority of the time is. Can you rephrase this question into something more coherent?
>2. Are similarly addicting things withheld from children because their brains are less equipped to handle it?
LOL absolutely not. Children, especially American children, are given huge amounts of sugar, which is actually physically addictive. Many are given huge amounts of caffeine which is again, physically addictive.
Millions of children around the country have tons of access to video games and TV, which can be addictive.
>If yes to both, then it’s a no-brainer.
Well, you're first question doesn't make any sense, and your second question is a resounding no.
The best way to keep your child from becoming addicted to anything is to act like a parent.
https://www.cisdem.com/resource/block-reddit.html
It's called being a parent
*Citation needed
When marijuana became legalized in my state, you had to verify your age and they wrote down your ID in a book. It quickly went away because its draconian as shit. I'm not ashamed to buy weed or alcohol, or look at porn, but I still don't want to create a written record every time I do it.
I also generally don't agree with the moral panic that conservatives want to generate about porn. Most kids see porn and have since porn was produced. It's on the parent to, you know, be a parent.
These laws have nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with social control.
We're talking about a state that imprisoned a women for being topless around her children. These people are dangerous and want to enforce their fringe world view on everyone they can.
Most medical services are routine treatments that are the same wherever you go.People travel for special services, but special services don't represent most of that cost difference.