Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I guess the tricky part is when we think of something like freedom of speech, in order to exercise the right, a person can just start talking. If we think of the right to shelter, it's difficult for a person to just, have a place to live. It requires more active intervention by the government. And I think that intervention should happen. I only point it out because there does seem to be a distinction that could trip up the conversation. But I don't have a better term than "right." Anything less seems vulnerable to attack and gradual chiseling away by its opponents.
Almost like you're arguing for an aggressive policy agenda that a lot of people don't support. How about just discuss said policy instead of trying to find language that actively makes discussion more difficult?
It's not public opinion I'm necessarily concerned about, it's attacks by those who benefit from the way things are.
Also, choosing language that strengthens your position is the logical approach for anyone advocating for change. I'm not trying to obscure my position, I'm trying to make it clear.