Regarding the Compact

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Sun, Oct 12, 2025, 10:06 AM UTC

wat10000 wrote: post #76

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like that your ideological counterparts have made the exact same statements about every administration ever. Your post does not carry weight just because it is heavy. When all you have is claims of fascism, everything is a nail. Despite yours or my agreement on the topic of the day, this admin has pushed more power back to states than any in your lifetime. Those sneaky fascists, always giving up power…

It's not wrong just because the same is said by others about others. The current administration is currently invading multiple states using the US military. That's kind of the opposite of giving power back to states.

Post by Volundr » Sun, Oct 12, 2025, 5:04 PM UTC

rickydroll wrote: post #172

Volundr wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your link does not back up your claim that heckling is illegal. In none of the cases mentioned in that article is heckling found to be illegal.

Here is a better article that I intended to post, plus a couple more for some nuance on 1a protected speech vs. regulated speech https://nefac.org/is-heckling-a-speaker-a-crime/ https://www.aclumich.org/en/cases/hecklers-veto https://stanfordmag.org/contents/the-first-amendment-does-no... .

Post by mtalantikite » Sun, Oct 12, 2025, 7:24 PM UTC

kjksf wrote: post #89

mtalantikite wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of what is in the compact, it's important that our educational institutions have independence to run themselves as they see fit. To make funding conditional to a set of demands by the government takes away that independence.

That is obviously the case that federal money comes with strings and strings curtail independence. What you seem to imply that there should be no strings. Which is a position you can have but it has never been the case. To wit, one of the things this compact wants is an enforcement of civil rights act and Biden admin did the same thing: > The most important stipulation during the Biden administration attached to fede…

Post by mirabilis » Thu, Oct 16, 2025, 6:58 PM UTC

desselc wrote: post #168

mirabilis wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you propose preventing situations such as these? “The couple said they were in the women's lobby bathroom when a male security guard came in and started banging on the stall doors. Baker said she was in one of the stalls while Victor waited for her near the sinks… Baker was born a woman and identifies as a woman.” [1] “Gerika Mudra, 18, went to dinner in April with a friend in Owatonna, about an hour south of…

Those already very rare instances will become even rarer when males stop insisting they have a right to access women's spaces based on supposedly womenly thoughts in their minds. Thankfully, this fad is on the way out, and with it, the overvigilance that has led to unfortunate misunderstandings like you mention in your comment - none of which are justification for males to impose themselves on female spaces.

Post by mlrtime » Mon, Oct 20, 2025, 11:14 AM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #132

DrewADesign wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That feels oversimplified. A lot of people would think people that oppose Nazis are the ones with the ideological problems. Who defines what a problem is in our society? The majority or some skewing of it. This is the problem that politics is supposed to solve, and then the problem that the electoral college was supposed to safeguard against. How do we avoid the tyranny of a demented majority? Aligning to a specific…

> A lot of people would think people that oppose Nazis are the ones with the ideological problems. Who defines what a problem is in our society? The majority or some skewing of it. This view presupposes there are not moral facts.