> The only thing I can think of is fully funded group homes that are mandatory to live in -- basically prisons with nice amenities and educational programs that you can graduate out of based on demonstrating a track record of being able to provide for yourself
Sounds like a great premise for a dystopian short story
By slowly withdrawing from the internet entirely. Cancelled my facebook and twitter accounts; the variety of websites I visit has dwindled to just a handful; I use a blackberry and will likely go to a flip-phone when I can find a decent cheap one (recommendations welcome). I read more books now.
"filter bubbles, walled gardens, emotional manipulation" are things I no longer think about
Target the violence, not the speech. Perhaps it is a cultural thing. Being an American, we have a bit of a libertarian underpinning to our culture, so maybe it is different.
You use the term "hate speech" as if it is a definite thing, but the phrase is nebulous and can very easily be used to target expressions of an undesired ideology in the case that the authorities have an agenda to push (e.g. certain religious authorities may target another religion's evangelization efforts as hate speech; communists might target people trying to spread Western values of free enterprise; etc.).
Cutting down on trolling, perhaps. But there appears to be an encroaching ideologically-driven purge in some areas against people expressing "incorrect" speech. Most of the complaints seem to be focused on youtube, twitter, and facebook (e.g. pewdiepie; also H3H3 productions appears to be having trouble; the site-wide purge of alt-right accounts on twitter and the banning of Milo; instapundit and james o'keefe were temporarily banned; I think nobody would be surprised if someone like Steven Crowder got in trouble someday soon; etc.).
Folks always make this argument which this kind of thing comes up. Just because you as a private entity can limit free speech, doesn't mean you should. Censorship is generally a bad idea, and I as a private entity can be upset at Harvard for doing it.
While it is within Harvard's right as a private institution to dictate which speech it finds acceptable, it is perhaps still a bad idea. In today's culture, those in positions with the authority to moderate speech (e.g. online forums such as Reddit, Youtube, Twitter, etc.) are doing so liberally. I would prefer prestigious institutions of higher learning to specifically allow these kinds of offensive and hateful speech because they are shocking and uncomfortable, and the more ideas to which students are exposed the sharper their minds become.
Not to mention that filth like this serves as a kind of canary in the coalmine - if one can make jokes about violence against minorities without fear of repercussions, then that bodes well for ideas actually intended to be taken seriously.
Vasco and his humanist priest had their Catholic theology all wrong, and their heresy had disastrous consequences. There is a tendency within Catholic circles to view oneself only as an irredeemable sinner. This fills one with shame and causes a sort of false humility that convinces oneself to reject all good things ("his professional success was at odds with how he thought of himself; he felt he didn’t deserve it"). One further effect of focusing excessively on one's sinfulness, rather than on the love of God, is that quitting sin is much harder. The priest's belief that man is inherently good is also heresy at odds with scripture.
The truth as the Church would describe it is that man is intrinsically sinful but has been redeemed through Christ, and that should fill one's heart with joy and gratitude. No, man does not deserve any good thing, but when good things happen they should be appreciated as gifts, not rejected out of shame. This is true humility.
Some claim that self esteem should instead be replaced with self-compassion. This is a good idea that is in line with Church teaching, since to see yourself as God sees you (with unconditional love in spite of one's faults) is to adopt a perception which is based in truth, rather than the self-esteem movement which is based on convincing yourself of the lie that you are unconditionally good.
1) Good - states' actions are how the constitution was framed
2) Weird - the governors appear to be taking action unilaterally by executive decree, which is how the Paris accord was originally agreed to (Obama) and reversed (Trump)
This might be the best of all worlds. Blue states can join the alliance, and red states can stay out. Everyone's happy and the economic effects can play out as they will.
If the Congress is unwilling to pass your agenda, then you usually just have to deal with not having your thing. That's the point of separation of powers. Going the extra-constituional route as a matter of course fed the GOP's reflexive opposition.
The Republican party seems split between the freedom caucus (less government) and the establishment (not sure what they stand for ... Maybe corporate and military interests?). The Democrats are more-or-less unified around the principle of increasing the size and scope of government, particularly at the federal level.
I do not wish my statement to be taken as a partisan one (although I do admit to being conservative), but rather as a general observation about the dangers of executive decree.
That is because the previous president decided to unilaterally bind the country to the agreement rather than seek treaty ratification from Congress. It is a risk that ruling by executive decree entails.
You do yourself a disservice by misrepresenting my point. A lot of folks throw around the phrase "false equivalence" to mean that the current president is abnormally and objectively bad, and that those opposed to the administration posses some sort of moral and intellectual superiority. This is the broader hypocrisy to which I am referring.
Everybody is a political hack. There is no such thing as objective reporting. You are expressing a sentiment which reflects a suspicious and conspiratorial perspective on the Russia dealings. Rush Limbaugh would express a sentiment reflecting a dismissive attitude towards that topic. Both you and Rush believe that you are reporting the objective truth, but you would point out the false equivalence of comparing your enlightened and objective opinion with Rush's obvious partisan hackery. And so it goes.
A bit of a tangent - it seems to be common for folks to express disagreement with a certain sentiment by labeling the sentiment or the person expressing the sentiment as some adjective of repulsive, immoral, or gauche, rather than describing what about the position they disagree with. It is a bit lazy on your part.
*Except when Sam Altman feels like talking about it