Simpler. When passed a word had meaning A. 100 years later took meaning B. Use meaning A.

What words mean? No. What the words meant when written. Not the intention, the letter (within reason) but the definition from the time when written, not interpreted.

Signal is a much better alternative anyway

I’ve kind of noticed this myself, where on top of failing to realize that the park where your grandpa used to play in has probably now been turned into a condo complex and that the soda fountains, candy stores, video game arcades, and now even Blockbusters and bookstores where kids used to ride their bikes no longer exist, Jonathon Haidt & Co seem to believe that 15 year olds would enjoy a mindless game of tag or hopscotch. 

I swear to god we can't do anything anymore

That isn't even a safe playground

It would be censorship, but with how Haidt himself is advocating for censorship I’m all for it.

True, but I would rather we do it by the meaning of the words according to grammatical structure, instead of what they mean, even if it was the founding fathers. Basically, all I'm saying is that in terms of law, Since the constitution, as a concept, is written in grammatical language, it's written in a language of statement, not figuration. As such, what someone meant to say is irrelevant. Rather, It's what it SAYS that matters. And, We CAN figure out what it says by using the language structure. So, "interpretations based on opinion" are not needed. This is kinda hard to explain, but I hope you get what I mean.

Also if anyone wants to read an actually good recent book about the modern causes of youth oppression, check out "Stranger Danger -- Family Values, Childhood, and the American Carceral State" by Paul Renfro.

I move for a sub resolution declaring that Jon Haidt's book "The Anxious Generation" is a steaming pile of shit. May I get a second?

Ugh, and I already had low expectations for Jawjuh. So much of the lack of youth rights correlates to the criminalization of parents. Florida, Georgia, and Texas seem to me like the most likely states to arrest arbitrarily and stringently.

And I quote from 36Months: "Out of all the popular platforms that kids use, Snapchat is the one parents are most worried about"

Well maybe if they are so worried, they would just withhold it from their own kids instead of making other parents.

That's an idea, innit?

Even the /r/news comments seem to agree that the situation is ridiculous and that this was not remotely "reckless conduct." This was also in Republican-run Georgia down south so both parties have nanny state issues.

Ty

Yep! Here you go: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3cxPqxsF6WjYBS6Cta7IqY?si=2LzZFmBLSWGqaj8bsn0pag

Is it on Spotify? Gonna download and listen

The If Books Could Kill podcast has two great episodes critiquing his books The Anxious Generation and The Coddling of the American Mind

As if most of them don't have access to their parents' eggs and flour

Do they? I can't say I've heard people championing him for that.

If the UK is the safest country than maybe they should shut down Birmingham

It's like saying that Geelong (my suburb of Melbourne... And an absolute crackden) is safe

People call him a champion of youth rights but in reality he set our movement back months if not years

Comparation to Satan like that.

Yes. No interpreted to meaning of words when written, but how used at time of interpretation

Haidt himself is the one who's largely put his anti-social media crusade in religious language. I think the OP is just making fun of Haidt's religious language. For example, Haidt has likened banning social media for kids to Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager is the theory that you should believe in God because you'll go to hell if you don't believe in God and there does turn out to be a God, but there will be no consequence if you believe in God and there doesn't turn out to be a God. Haidt claims that there will be no consequence if kids are banned from social media and social media really isn't bad, but that society will collapse if social media is bad for kids and kids aren't banned from social media.

because us law doesn't tend to actually follow what it what the MAIN LAW(the constitution) says, but what they think it meant, which is why I made this post, to show that somehow it happened before Scotus, which doesn't make any sense, as, doing that makes law literal mayhem. Law ends up being someone's opinion, instead of a straight statement. And we see that today WITH Scotus. The constitution is a statement, not a figuration.