Well if ya do it in white robes, you’d likely be profiled as a terrorist member org member (kkk), but if ya did it near a church in plain clothes, it would definitely be free speech.
Idk why you keep switching details in your weird little scenarios as if they won’t make a difference and I won’t notice. You’re arguing in bad faith.
Well considering it wasn’t put on any other person’s property and just “near” or “outside”, your attempt at a gotcha falls flat here.
Looks like people just got arrested for it so I beg to differ.
Okay buddy 👍 if you’re incapable of thinking just say so.
There’s plenty wrong with America, but as someone who doesn’t take part in any religion, I appreciate and demand the right to be able to protest or otherwise denounce religions that are morally reprehensible. Islam is one of those, some sects of Christianity as well - namely Mormonism which is functionally the Islam of Christianity lol.
Part of why America has become the way it is, is due to the rampant hesitancy at opposing the fascist/authoritarian nature of religions such as Christianity. Seems America will become a Christian hellscape, France appears to be going down the Islamic hellscape.
Doesn’t change my point that freedom of speech/protest is important to resist the controlling nature of the religious disease.
And I commend them for it. They can do that because their country hasn’t undergone decades of police militarization like in the U.S.
France seems to be going out by death by a thousands cuts while retaining their right to burn down the city; in contrast, the U.S. retains the right to small oppositions and protest while large-scale ones tend to get the full force of the militarized police state. Pick your poison I guess.
I’d hardly say we rolled over like dogs considering there are regular protests with significant turn-out here — they’re just not covered by the media because it would hurt the oligarchs/corporate overlords in their quest for domination.
Further, there’s more than a little bit of evidence that strongly suggests our election was tampered with and that Russia has been in the mix for a while now.
America is in a bad way yes, but until quite literally this year we were doing decent.
Maybe consider the position of the average good-natured American rather than assume they’re all fat and stupid people who want the leader we currently have?
Maybe you should shut up and think for a second before being so aggressive?
No First Amendment rights over there. What a shame. I’m grateful for the ever-so-increasingly-restricted freedom of speech and protest we have here in the States.
Lol at that point ya may as well get an electric moped!
Can corroborate lmao. They’ve saved me so much time that I usually spent correcting misinfo, but I guess that’s what they want on their platform. Anyways Lemmy’s been an okay replacement.
Oops lol, was very sleepy and missed that hint, totally see that now lol. 50% above the average, but also 50% below lol
If it’s the average shouldn’t it be 100? I have no clue, my iq might be room temp lol.
Insane that people are downvoting you especially considering that the post is literally about a woman being unfairly jailed due to Islam’s core values and principles.
So tired of such an oppressive religion getting babied by wayward leftists, and encouraged by alt-right fascists.
Thank god ‘bout you shut up.
Hardly a luxury. Don’t have kids if you’re not going to plan around having kids. And if you have kids and plan poorly don’t start going “woe is me” to strangers on the internet about how hard your life is based off your own life choices. Get out of my dm’s you stalker lol.
You did not just relay an opinion you heard on the radio. You didn’t even it frame it as that. Your initial reply stated your opinions as if they were objective facts lol. I don’t know why you kept arguing with me if you agreed the whole time lol. Tryna gaslight me as if I started this little back and forth between us is crazy. Buh-bye weirdo.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Reconciliation of results was challenging, and findings should be treated with caution given differences in methods and measures, and discrepancies in operational definitions of the bans themselves. For example, the results of two studies supporting bans for improved academic outcomes were restricted to low-achieving students from low socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds… That is, they found that high-achieving and economically advantaged students were less likely to benefit academically from mobile phones use in class, as compared to their disadvantaged peers
Beland and Murphy (2016) examined exam scores in secondary school students and found that in schools which imposed a mobile phone ban, exam scores improved by an average 0.07 standard deviation, pre- to post-ban. Importantly, this effect was driven by the finding that students in the lowest quintile of prior academic achievement made a gain of approximately 14.23% of a standard deviation in test scores, while for students in the top quintile, test scores were unrelated to the ban.
Despite the variability of findings, it seems that in some circumstances there are some negative, although small, impacts of mobile phone use on academic outcomes. This suggests that restrictions on mobile phones in schools might be beneficial for some students’ academic achievement but make no difference to others.
Considering the ban largely concerns itself with CLASSROOMS in South Korea — a place where students are SUPPOSED TO LEARN, y’know, where the principle concern is academics — I’d say that their findings support the ban more than anything else.
Furthermore, TWO studies showed increases in bullying/cyberbullying while the MAJORITY showed decreases in such harassment — but the study still postures itself in a way that hypothesizes why it increases and further hypothesizes that phones shouldn’t be banned to prevent that POSSIBILITY.
The answer is simple if you read your own linked study and actually use your brain while doing so. It’s clear the authors entered into this metastudy with preconceived biases from their “narrative” and highly suggestive “findings” which you cherry-picked your own conclusions from to support your odd, logically questionable comment. And again, you don’t need a study by some rando people to conclude that phones are just not needed and possibly harmful at school for children.
Again, put your iPad down dude, you probably got a kid to go parent. Otherwise, go touch grass :)
God I hate tiny screen. I truly find myself so much happier without tiny screen.
I grew up in the 00’s/10’s so I’m grateful to remember a time before the iPhone lol. Even the early iPhone/Androids were okay.
But now, it’d just an addiction propagating (gambling, gaming, porn, doomscrolling) and parasocial relationship creating metal+glass brick with the added bonus of corporate and government surveillance and a duty to respond to emails and work calls lol.
You make great points by the way. You comment on tiny screen addiction is what got me thinking about how much I hate smartphones these days.
Ah yes, if [unnamed vague concept] of German “educational” “experts” say so then it MUST both be an 1) honest report of findings, and 2) objectively correct facts. Opinion changed. Boom done.
Just kidding.
Thats stupid, and even if they are real and think so, I think they are stupid then lol.
Banning phones means banning phones. It’s hard for kids to sneak a brick of bright light when they’re in a classroom of their peers facing the teacher, so noone will be missing out on anything so long as the teachers properly enforce the new rule.
I think it likely that there will be more positive outcomes by forcing children to socialize face-to-face which is natural and especially important at that age.
Your comment essentially boils down to: Some people think we should just let kids do whatever they want and don’t worry about discipline, rules, or things needing a “right place and the right time.” You reek of “millennial/ipad-kid parent” lol.
Removed by mod