HenchmanNumber3

Definitely. Unfortunately, some of the people who would benefit the most are the least inclined to accept or seek out such therapy. I don't like to be cynical but I'd guess we need a few generations to pass for it to become more common and less stigmatized.

The #MeToo movement is a largely social movement. Most of the consequences for exposed abusers was social, which led to public shaming and loss of job opportunities. There were legal consequences for some, though victims advocates would like to have seen much more. The few legal influences that came from the movement were laudable. Some states banned nondisclosure agreements and arbitration clauses relating to sexual harassment and now there's the Speak Out Act at the federal level.

But by and large, the social consequences that were the primary result weren't powerful enough to change the longstanding cultural issues such as toxic masculinity, incel subculture, patriarchal traditionalism, male chauvinism, etc. which contribute to the issues that the movement sought to name and shame. Social consequences can lead to diminishing returns if those who oppose change double down and re-entrench in the problematic cultures. They turn accusations into merit badges and proof that they haven't bought into "woke" (or whatever toxic buzzword will come to replace it when woke isn't a powerful boogeyman word anymore) culture.

Greater legal support for victims and greater legal consequences for perpetrators would be preferable, but the current legislative climate would make that difficult to progress except in some states.

It's not a failure. It's just another sign that the opposition to human rights is fiercer than expected and greater effort is required. We couldn't expect that horrible people would magically respond with self-awareness and shame when their culture of abuse and exploitation was highlighted and led to consequences for some. It just means social pressure is only one factor of how to address systemic cultural issues.

Hashtag That's the Plan

The law would work differently if they, as designated interpreters of the law, interpreted the law differently. If they said you can't have infinite dark money running campaigns because that violates the rights of poor voters, then things would be very different. Plenty of SCOTUS cases have made significant changes to how the law is interpreted and enforced. Congress also seems to very rarely pass laws to counter SCOTUS decisions. So yeah, if we had fewer federalists and conservatives on SCOTUS and more progressives, I think it would have been decided differently, as well as other significant cases.

If money is free speech then anyone with more money gets more free speech, which isn't how rights work. You have the same freedoms and limitations to those freedoms that I do, regardless of who has more money. We're supposed to be equal under the law, but SCOTUS thinks $ome are more equal than others.

It's subtle, but note that it says that they preach that they hate those groups. I've met plenty of conservatives who love to say they hate the rich, but they only think of George Soros or other bogeymen when they say it. Trump and Musk get a pass because they consider them to be on the same political sportsball team.

Fuck no. Studies have found a positive correlation between swearing and being more honest.

Cyberpunk dystopias are a warning, not a strategic plan!

Time to write a new editorial criticizing the judge.

I'd recommend disconnecting the concept of organized religion from faith in your mind. Determine if you actually believe in a god separate from whether you think a particular hierarchical organized religion is the best representation for that god on earth. Leave the church if it doesn't work for you. Find something that does work for you.

You're moving the goal posts and using a no true Scotsman now. First it was nobody, now it's some, but it's not common.

Your point isn't even really relevant to the discussion. The point was that you're using right wing terminology and framing and pretending it's normal, which is what you admit right wingers do. "Far left agenda" isn't a term that an educated or knowledgeable analyst would even remotely pretend is applicable to the content of the mainstream media.

It seems like you identify as a centrist but you speak from a right wing perspective and don't seem to know what left wing even means. The liberals you probably talk to for context are centrists, not leftists.