dgzl

You're only partly right, the problem more is exceptionally worse than when you were a kid.

I'm 4th generation Southern Oregon and when I was a kid (20 years ago) I rarely saw homeless people in Medford, they either were much more reclusive or didn't exist. Ashland is it's own case however and we would play the game "Hiker or Homeless."

There's a bike path that runs from Ashland all the way to... Well, at least Central point, or maybe Gold Hill? It's about 25 miles. The Medford sections are now overflowing with tents and homeless camps, enough to make it dangerous for families and children. This was unthinkable twenty years ago.

I'm not sure what benefit sharing the screenshots would have, I'm not trying to out the mod or get vengeance.

The video I posted was about a Lake Oswego woman going nuts and verbally abusing some local PD who were handling the situation with elegance. My title was something like "this is why I don't trust when people senselessly dog on the police." It was removed because there wasn't anything specific to Portland or surrending area (not true but ok). I told the mod I would just repost with the title "this is why I don't trust when Portlanders senselessly dog on local police" and was told not to post. No rules broken, just intimidation and censorship.

I don't subscribe to the progressive/liberal/left/socialist ideology and I'm genuinely afraid to publicly share that fact in Portland. There are many people in PDX who will violently attack you if they catch wind of that fact. This isn't a secret. It's also not a secret that Oregon outside of PDX and Eugene are generally Red communities.

For instance, look at the protests in Portland last year. The counter-protesters were far more disruptive and violent than the visiting protesters, but the typical Portlander wouldn't see it that way. In my own discussions with them, they see Trump supporters et. al. As being fascist and as causing violence simply by existing, thus justifying their pre-emptive violence.

And my desperate attempts to become unbanned was met with paranoid skepticism and unfounded rebuttals. I had literally only posted one other time, showing off a meager 10 bottle collection. And somehow trying to help not only the community by sharing a discount code, not only starting a discussion about the aforementioned sauces, but also helping the struggling company. I didn't really see a problem with it. The community like the post and engaged, but somehow I was a first-offence marketing shill worth banning for life.

No.

I was banned from r/hotsauce because I posted a coupon-code for a brand I was interested in trying. They were trying to sell stock to help mitigate the downfall of the COVID-19. The mod said I was an advertising shill and needed to be purged... As if people posting their collections all day didn't count as advertising.

One of my posts to r/Portland was incorrectly removed with the excuse "not related to Portland." in reality it was related however the post was contentious and I was prevented from re-posting. The moderator didn't even pretend to acknowledge a genuine rule that was broken, just simply told me not to post it. After I complained I was muted from contacting the mods.

Not to blame you but this is the kind of BS that makes me uninterested in the Reddit community, and uninterested in Portland in general, rife with cancel culture.

That doesn't make sense. When we enforce the Constitution on the government we are demanding they recognize our rights and the structure we prescribe. "enforce it on how a government responds to natural events" doesn't change that. You're trying to pretend there's some kind of loophole where there isn't.

Your wording of "willingly spread" is also exaggerated, and I fail to see how you equate that to a person taking the generally accepted measures to prevent the spread while in public.

Event still, this isn't HIV we're talking about here, and it will presumably be seasonal going forward. Most people who even contract this will walk away perfectly fine.

There are currently 36 million jobless claims from the shutdowns. How long be before streets everywhere become inundated with freshly homeless people? How long until people riot? When does the shutdown outweigh people's livelihood and freedom?

You'd be surprised the number of people who believe nuclear warheads are protected by the second amendment. Either way, that's a fair compromise and this is not.

What a ridiculous statement. You cannot enforce the Constitution on edit: acts of nature.

I would say locking down the country violates our rights to liberty and also the pursuit of happiness.

Road rage is infectious but I'm not sure why it matters anyway.

They are certainly more effective than Government handouts.

Using the other rationale, driving puts others at risk and we shouldn't be in the road until driving is perfectly safe.

Constitutional rights, ya know.

Aka, offering their employees stable work and pay.

A Christmas Story is classic Americana

I grew up in a very poor family and the other poster is right... many people living the degenerate lifestyle have entirely bizarre understandings of reality, acceptable social behavior, mortality and ethics, quality and efficiency... We're creatures of habit and keeping your mind in the gutter long enough will soak it full of crud that can't be reversed simply by dishing out cash.

It's my opinion that these people would be most helped if they were given work. Work gives incentive, teaches values, gives opportunity, creates a foundation of something to be proud of, gives a platform to build a resume from...

I didn't see this in the comments but Walmart bought Moosejaw a few years ago.

>Theory is great, but practical results matter.

True that! Thankfully our Supreme Court frequently sides with the people and their rights against the government.

You wanna know something that I think a lot of people don't really understand about America........ we're a really young country. One of the youngest. And one of the best! We haven't had much time to settle into our new diggs, ever since we fought your terrible government- and won. Our country is still settling while many other first-world countries, such as Britain, have been settled for centuries. You may not understand this but our government isn't federal top-down. The organization isn't Feds > State > Local > People. That's not how rights work in America (see A10.)

>In practical terms I genuinely feel vastly more confident in my liberty, safety and freedom over here than in the US.

I get the feeling you don't excersize contentious liberties. In which case, you're not the right person to ask if they feel confident in their liberty.

Aus is an island. The US boarders two countries and has an illegal smuggling problem. The size-to-population isn't even remotely similar, and neither are the rights allowed to the citizens.

You don't understand.... the quality of conversation goes down dramatically with caps-lock and erratic speech style. And that makes the rest of us lose interest, and respect.

As I said: more descriptive words.

I generally lose respect for people who think caps-lock is an acceptable way to type messages to others. You should try looking for more descriptive words to get your point across.

I think I'm missing some context. Filming isn't the issue then, broadcasting is? Seems like another asterisk on supposed "rights" that exist in countries that pretend they have them.

Oi Gov'nor, can't you just scan my brain and tell if I'm lying? That would make life so much easier.

I must be missing something, where is the distinction here? They seem like equally problematic actions of speech.

I'd like some source material on your claim about freedoms, and New Zealand is a tiny island, very easy to control.

Similar in what ways? Aus is an island country whose societal composition and Constitutional rights are nothing like ours. I wouldn't say they're very similar at all.

That's a unanimous opinion? You're speaking for all 66M of your citizens?

>Some rights we have voluntarily abrogated in order to meet what we believe to be more important responsibilities

This would be handled by our 10th amendment rights.

So I'm looking for a source of what rights Brits have and it's sort of difficult to understand... This [0] outlines several dates of ratification but I'm not really sure which currently apply. I figure at least these [1] apply but maybe you can give me better information. After looking at some of these articles of rights, I'm not overly impressed, most of these "rights" have asterisks on them. Not to mention how often these say "necessary in a democratic society" when talking about the restrictions, as if they know you're not going to be convinced when reading it.

> Article 10: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

> 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Notice how the conditions are vague, ambiguous and longer than the right itself? That's going to be a big fat no from me, bob.

An interesting difference with the American Bill of Rights is that it's largely full of implied rights, as it doesn't expressly grant rights to people, rather it's written in the form of "government cannot do xyz".

> Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The end. No asterisks, no vague conditions, no ambiguity.

[0] https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/what-are-human-rights... [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents