you cannot serve both god and money

in other news this has been live for almost 24 hours and still hasn't been deleted.  ~a do we?  paul, do you think what carr did was bad?  worse than what we saw from the Biden administration and google/twitter after trump's COVID?  worse than cancel culture?  worse than micro aggressions?  worse than the aclu measuring harm when deciding who to defend?  ~a a:  bringing up kimmel at the time would not have been interesting discussion.  we all agree it was bad! - mig mig/paul:  jawboning isn't illegal.  it sucks.  but it's not illegal.  the many things carr posted to twitter, though were not legal.  you get upset by the legal things the ACLU does and the legal jawboning Biden does but when it comes to the illegal twitter posts carr makes related to kimmel strangely enough, it's crickets.  ~a I took a quick look at the ACLU press releases to see if they had anything to say about the google jawboning but strangely enough its crickets.  Plenty to say about Jimmy Kimmel though. - mig attempts to justify it (lives need to be saved!) - mig And while cancel culture, micro-aggressions, and the like are not about government restrictions on speech I do believe it did start to change the attitudes of the democratic party and progressives at large.  As paul noted, the ACLU suddenly decided some free speech wasn’t worth speaking up for.  And we get a revelation about the Biden admin suppressing speech and the general reaction from democrats is either crickets or … a:  I would argue that in times of crisis it’s even more important that we not be tolerant of the government  jawboning to suppress speech.  The Covid era essentially provided a sort of blasphemy policy - Thou shall mot question our approved “experts”. - mig paul:  cancel culture and micro-aggressions have nothing to do with the freedom of speech.  maybe you also assume the freedom of speech grants you the freedom of consequences to your speech?  i'd personally say that the supreme court uses the first amendment to go too far, but i think the first amendment is fine as written:  specifically the first amendment is fucking bastardized to force tax breaks for churches.  ~a paul:  "do you disagree that that has changed?"  yes, i do.  miguel's reason link has great examples of biden jawboning, so i'm a bit on the fence at times.  but then, at other times i remember that trump jawbones as a standard practice.  and the intent is relevant:  trump jawboning is about making his legacy seem great.  and biden jawbones because seven million people were dying.  ~a paul:  but, i should take the time to thank you for finding those words.  at least it wasn't all bullshit.  ~a paul:  "at the very least it's nuanced"  i wouldn't use the word nuanced.  i'd use the word inconsistent.  his views in that moment were very nuanced:  i agree 100%.  not progressive, but at least nuanced.  but his views in many other moments lacked nuance:  in conclusion he was inconsistent.  ~a paul:  "Is it the most modern thinking?"  dude i'm not arguing against traditional thinking here.  nobody is.  kirk was not killed because he thought some women should voluntarily be homemakers.  do you guys seriously think that i think women shouldn't be allowed to become homemakers?  ~a https://reason.com/2025/09/24/google-says-biden-admin-pressured-company-to-remove-content feels relevant.  also w-e-i-r-d the lack of mainstream reporting on this revelation, given all the handwringing over Jimmy Kimmel, since this seems far more consequential. - mig https://www.thefire.org/news/poll-majority-americans-believe-first-amendment-goes-too-far-rights-it-guarantees More Democrats than Republicans believe "that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees" -Paul a: Hate speech and micro-aggressions started on the left. Pressure on social media companies did too. Cancel culture. Rock and roll, the cola wars, I can't take it anymore! -Paul a: But at the same time it seemed like we could count on the left to be reliably pro-freedom of speech. Do you disagree that that has changed? The ACLU now weighs the potential harm of speech in terms of whether it will defend it... -Paul a: For the freedom of speech comment, I wasn't saying the right was necessarily better on it. Traditionally, the right has been the side to want to ban Harry Potter and flag burning and whatnot... -Paul a: Again, not exactly progressive, but if anything it sounds like in his vision of the family the happiness of the family generally comes at the expense of the men. At the very least it's nuanced. -Paul And a quote from Charlie: "You do not spend a dime on video games or sports games or things for yourself until your wife does not have to worry about finances. You come last in the family when it comes to finances, period. That is your job. Your wife gets whatever she wants, whatever she wants. The kids get whatever they want..." -Paul One quote that was pulled out from his wife was: "He is the head of the house household and I am not a servant, I am not a slave to the master, I am his helpmate. I am the guardian of the home—that is my domain." -Paul a: Is it the most modern thinking? No. But it also seems pretty far from any kind of "women are inferior and should just be slaves to men" kind of thing. I asked AI this question and it directed me to a video called "The Keys to a Thriving Marriage And Meaningful Life" -Paul a: All the stuff seems to be relatively mundane "traditional family values" stuff like how men should work and provide food and shelter and whatnot and the woman should be helping raise the kids and supporting the family. -Paul a: "do you have an example of this too?" Citations needed? For the Charlie Kirk thing, I don't have any specific video or anything in mind. When I was trying to research the context of things he had said about women, though, it never had to do with women being servants or whatever. -Paul https://www.wsls.com/news/local/2025/10/03/jay-jones-faces-bipartisan-criticism-following-alleged-controversial-text-messages/ I’m unclear on what taking “full accountability” or full responsibility” would mean in this context.  So far “Oh gee I’m sorry” doesn’t feel like enough, but expecting Jones to drop over this  might be unreasonable also… - mig paul:  "the man's whole mission was having open debate on college campuses and he was killed for it.  Seems like that's worth being concerned about"  here we agree.  i don't like that kirk was killed.  and i do respect kirk for trying to go to college campuses and having open debates there.  and it does concern me he was (more or less) killed for something he was saying in those debates.  ~a paul:  "it's disturbed me how much the left seems to have abandoned that position"  do you have an example of this too?  other than robinson, most of the people i can see abandoning the pro-freedom of speech position are pro-maga (or otherwise very-pro-trump).  not anti-maga.  ~a paul:  "he's a believer in traditional family roles"  do you have a place where he talks about this i can read / hear?  every place i've seen him talk about traditional family values, it seems to be at the expense of women?  ~a a: Seems like that's worth being concerned about. -Paul a: "I'm pro freedom of speech" I am too, and it's disturbed me how much the left seems to have abandoned that position. Disagreeable positions or not, the man's whole mission was having open debate on college campuses and he was killed for it. -Paul a: And sure, that last one is because of her husband's death, but it sounds like she had a bunch of other endeavors beyond just submitting to her husband. -Paul a: I mean, his wife doesn't seem to fit the mold. The first line in Wikipedia calls her "an American businesswoman and podcaster who is the CEO of the conservative organization Turning Point USA (TPUSA)" -Paul a: I haven't listened through everything he's said, obviously, but the things I've seen (extremely limited) seem to indicate he's a believer in traditional family roles and not that women need to stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. -Paul a: "I'm a little surprised that you think that was kirks position" I'm learning on the job. I knew next to nothing of Charlie Kirk's (I almost wrote James Kirk) positions before his murder. I've been reading up on them as you mention them to me. -Paul mig:  why should we leave aside abortion?  ~a mig:  how do you get from:  women are ugly, angry and bitter, and not in charge to "Children are better off with having both parents around"?  He's advocating that women are not in charge and so therefore he's not advocating that they could voluntary not use their rights.  ~a I mean there’s a large difference between saying “Children are better off with having both parents around” and “Single parenthood should be outlawed.” - mig ‘s no advocacy of using force.  Kirk is clearly opinionated on how people should live their lives but there’s no taking away of rights if some people decide he’s right and choose to live that way. - mig I can’t really reconcile this “no rights” argument when there a:  leaving aside abortion for the moment what are these “many” situations were women have lost or have no rights? - mig xpovos:  "I don't think we've ever tried to change the language on an amendment". no I think the 21st definitely had a repeal section and a new addition section.  you can have both in one amendment, and that is what we did in 1933.  ~a "He was suggesting emphatically that she give up some select freedoms, rights and license". he was suggesting emphatically that she didn't have the freedoms, rights, or licence.  and in many situations, in the united states, he is correct.  ~a Obviously, SCOTUS has gone back and forth on that.  It isn't likely to change any time soon, but it could.  Took us 40+ years to overturn Roe v. Wade, but it can be done. -- Xpovos a: I think the point you're working at is that "a well-regulated militia, being essential..."  The purpose of well-regulated, implying some level of organization--that must inherently be by the state(?), at least one of the 13 (now 50)? Against a federal overreach; not an individual against the state (any of the 51, and more). -- Xpovos a: I don't think we've ever tried to change the language on an amendment. It would probably be a repeal, and then some kind of pinky promise to enact a new one.  It's one of the reasons I was so curious, because it seems so weird and hard. I do think a straight up repeal, which you're correct, I wouldn't prefer, despite not being a gun right activist, isn't likely. -- Xpovos xpovos: you are right, sorry I'm mostly being nonspecific because I don't know what I want, or what a new 2nd amendment would look like.  It would probably be bad for gun rights activists though:  most gun rights activists would not like to live in a (much safer by the numbers) oecd country.  the pendant in me wants to point out that the 21st amendment is indeed an amendment even though it mostly just repeals another amendment.  ~a "you're not in charge." Maybe harsh, but no one is.  This is the fundamental flaw of license.  At the end of the day the raw violence chooses. I have the license to walk in front of a bus, but if I do, my rights are less potent than the laws of physics and momentum.  We're not in charge.  We live in a physical world which restricts us. We live in a society, too. -- Xpovos Kirk wasn't taking her freedoms, rights or license away. He was suggesting emphatically that she give up some select freedoms, rights and license to enjoy (in his philosophy) a better and happier life. -- Xpovos a: In the Taylor Swift version, she would VOLUNTARILY give up some of her freedom (to the point of license) and refrain from doing licit things because by choosing to restrict herself in a pact with someone else (who also restricts his license) results in, at least theoretically, more harmonious.  It's the concept of a social contract restricted to two people. -- Xpovos a: On the other topic, I think there's possibly confusion on rights vs. license.  I'm pretty open and I like wide license. I recall an argument in my 20s where I was fighting a right-wing republican and noted I wanted freedom to the point of license.  I still do. -- Xpovos a: But those countries, with the possible exception of Australia, which was a little weird; and where I'm not fully competant in discussion, didn't have a 2A.  So you're not describing modifying 2A, you're talking about eliminating it. If that's the position, that's fine, but I feel your lead-in was misleading then. "a new amendment since this one seems bad for is." -- Xpovos being a horrible person (this is a smear) will always be legal.  ~a mig:  yes, I agree.  discrimination on someone's gender is generally legal unless you're breaking some employment law or harassing someone or refusing to serve someone.  but if it not technically being illegal is the best you can say about his actions that is a sign.  ~a a:  that is his opinion and having that opinion takes away nobodies rights. - mig title:   thank you.  ~a paul: "Wouldn't it make sense to engage and try to change minds?" I do sometimes wonder.  but nah . . . I'm pro freedom of speech.  you wanna spout off about how women are dumb or angry or bitter or ugly that is protected speech, but I'm gonna call you out on it.  ~a mig:  "are you saying people voluntarily choosing or being convinced to follow traditional family roles is somehow taking people’s rights away?"  no.  he wasn't arguing for traditional marriage.  he was arguing that women who weren't traditional were angry and bitter and not in charge and women over 30 weren't attractive in the dating pool etc. ~a paul: "I do think that things like a belief in a traditional family" I don't think that was kirks position and I'm a little surprised that you think that was kirks position.  I think a traditional family is fine if it's what they both want.  this is not what Kirk seemed to argue for.  ~a