Take my breakdown with a grain of salt, as I did not dig into all of it, owing to the quantity of citations. Picking some at random, I found a mix between sources contemporary to the time period and ones that are secondary. I did not check the relevancy of the wiki quite, this was just 15 minutes of snooping around.
This one was interesting as it claims it was minutes from a meeting of a contemporary society called the the American Philosophical Society.
[103] Ord, George (1840). "Minutes from the Stated Meeting, September 18 [1840]". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 1: 272.
They still seem to be running to this day, and sound like they have a long history in the US. Not to say they are trustworthy, I know nothing about them.
It will not, because those laws already largely exist. It has been quite well established I'm the US that inciting violence is not considered protected speech. The laws just don't apply the same to wealthy people like Trump as they do to anyone else.
Let take this as an example that just blindly saying things "worked" in the past means we should keep doing things the same way
Always got to love victim blaming. It's always a class act.
I really hate the idea of saying corrected in this context. There is really no right and wrong in language iself. Standardized language is not some "correct" way to speak, but a common guide to try to help an individual be understood by more people. Someone not following standard is not wrong, just maybe difficult to comprehend due to not following convention. I think in one off mistakes that are hard to understand, it is better to thinking in terms of asking for clarification. In more consistent problems of understanding, I think explaining (which is not the same as correcting) to them a more conventional way of speaking to easy future communication is the best path.
Also equating individuals unique linguistic quirks to cancer is gross.
I knew exactly what video that would link to before I clicked. Great video, glad to see someone else reference it.
Holy propaganda Batman.
Had a dude come around in my neighborhood a few times. It was the middle of the summer and it can get above 100 where I live. Gave him pbj and some water because if was all I had at the time. He only asked for food and water. Haven't seen him in a year now though.
I agree with the idea, but I highly doubt this is why they are not there in practice. I could be wrong as this is just purely speculative on my part, but I don't have a lot of faith in most US politicians.
Teachers can just be cruel sometimes. Some of my worst bullys in school were teachers. One of my teachers meowed like a cat at my friend in front of the whole class to mock my friend for him meowing.
As opposed to your evidence based approach of using divination to determine the person you replied to in your original comment was in some sort of minority of opinion?
Sorry some of us have empathy. You ever been in a room with someone dying an early death? Also thinking something is invalid because of spelling mistakes is incredibly childish.
No one is admitting defeat, they are just telling you to stop focusing in on the symptoms and start focusing in the problem. You want to address drug misuse problems in western society? Start by addressing the problems that actually highly correlated with it. Help for unhoused persons. Better mental health systems. Those two things alone could curb a huge majority of drug misuse. If you take care of the symptoms then the problem will be mostly solved without need for any criminalization, be it criminalizing supply or demand. For the rest of people I think more funding of rehabilitation and drug education (and no, just telling people to abstain from drugs is not good education, just like abstinence is not good sex education).
I'm so sick of this "nOtHiNg is fReE" retort. Yeah, no shit it isn't. Most of us are aware of that. Like others have said, what we mean is taxes should be the means by which we pay for education. Taxes paying for education is not utopian. It exists as a means for paying for education in the USA already, K-12. I personally don't think it is a stretch to change higher education to a tax drive model. Even in a world where it is "free" for the students there will still be people who don't go, so it's not like we have to collect taxes to account for all persons. College is not for everyone. Also if you try to use current college tuition as an excuse for it costing the tax payers too much, I don't want to hear it. It is already well established that higher education costs have balloned faster that other products and services in the market and I think that is a symptom of the stupid profit models of modern universities and colleges. From personal experience at university, you get treated like a line item on there accounting sheets rather than a student and that alone is a huge factor in the enshittification of higher education.
Of course most of us don't love it. A lot of us live in places where, due to concepts like gerrymandering, we have no political choice, so people have to resort to stuff like this. We love that people are fighting back, not that it has to be this way.
Something that always gets me is when people lump in anti-religion with these others. Reglion in any country with freedom of religion is a choice, these other things are not. Someone doesn't choose to be a particular ethnic group. Someone doesn't choose to be disabled. People don't choose to be gay or have gender dysphoria People do choose to believe in things that I think are ridiculous and saying that I cannot call that out is just religious people saying you can't call them out. If you can tell me I am burning in hell because I don't believe in your pie man in the sky then I can tell you that you are stupid for believing in a pie man in the sky and comment on absurd actions that are caused by those beliefs.