My mum was a 17-year-old free spirit so she was locked up and put in a coma

Might take a karma hit for this, but whatever. Its the truth.

Christians are more concerned about *causing* extreme child abuse, and then turning around and claiming its to "save them", so the abuse isnt reallllly abuse.

Most of these camps cited are christian. And the people running them? Dogmatic christian fundamentalists. And these are the same types that run "pray the gay away" camps too.

And my inflammatory, albeit true comment also goes right back to the heart of the article:

"Reformatories were institutions where girls and young women who refused to conform to the Franco regime's Catholic values were detained - single mothers, girls with boyfriends, lesbians. Girls who'd been sexually assaulted were incarcerated, assuming the blame for their own abuse. Orphans and abandoned girls might also find themselves living behind convent walls."

Extremist Roman Catholic "values", demonization and imprisonment of 'unruly women', anti-LGBTQ. Same damned thing, again and again.

When are we going to actually look at these issues dispassionately and realize that religion itself is the problem?

I'm sorry, but you are completely strawmanning the parent. Nothing they said is typical of an "authoritarian lap dog". The point being made is rather modest: that sometimes involuntary commitment is necessary to help someone when their brain is working against them. Obviously this kind of power can be abused, but the current approach leaves those who need that kind of help to fend for themselves.

But I guess involuntary commitment makes people feel icky so fuck those guys, right?

You should read: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/you-call-that-compassio...

>Sounds like either someone with very young kids or else someone with a dismissive/naive parenting style.

Increasingly this is what the tyranny of the majority is in the western world. People who don't have kids, or only limited experience with kids, declaring that parents are neglecting or abusing their children because they don't behave the way the hypothetical ideologically pure parent would. Almost every single one of them has a cell-phone and the second they see something they disapprove of they can call CPS at the drop of a hat and make your life a living hell, even if you are 'innocent' of even whatever BS they made up.

As always, it's just a smug attempt at moral superiority. They want the intoxicating power rush from threatening and imposing on parents, with none of the responsibility, and the state is all too happy to provide it to them. Just punish and then rest soundly knowing you have no kids of your own for which you could be prosecuted.

Lol this is the USA. I've been interrogated when a stranger drove past my rather remote property, in the middle of nowhere, and saw that my child was walking about 50 feet "by herself" on her own fucking property(I was actually watching her, just from further away, so I was able to intervene before they called CPS).

Welcome to America where you must watch the kid every second until they turn 18, except at the moment they turn 18 they must be booted from the house to figure everything out all at once with nothing more than a minimum wage job, a gun, and rents that reach the stratosphere.

> Throwing Molotov cocktail is trivially an criminal offense.

This is a protest against a fascist regime we're talking about. I don't know the exact context of any of this because I'm not Spanish, don't speak the language, and don't really know all that much about the nuance of 1968 Spain. I'm fairly sure you're just as ignorant of this as I am but the difference is that I'm withholding strong judgement one way or the other instead of jumping on one detail.

I do know that throwing a bunch of tea you don't own in the sea is also trivially a criminal offence. Kicking the shit out of an SS-officer is also trivially a criminal offence. etc. etc. You can have a long discussion about when violence is or isn't justified. I don't know enough about this specific situation to have a strong opinion. But pretty much everyone agrees that at some point you need to look beyond the law and trying to reduce this to just a matter of the law is massively naïve at best.

Yes I agree, which is probably why we should treat 18-year olds more as children than adults (although obviously they are in-between the two). Brains continue to develop to the age of about 25.

Where did I say anything about speech? Were you under the impression that protests are inherently non-violent? Violent protests are absolutely a thing. That's why "non-violent protest" is a term.

And of course it's armed conflict. But the point is that it's armed conflict against a fascist dictatorship killing over 100,000 civilians by most estimates -- which is what makes it considered legitimate violent protest by many people.

Armed conflict against fascist dictators is a good thing.

It's an obvious quote, unless you think people are going to misunderstand and think that the BBC as a publication is talking about it's mother somehow. Quotes are generally well understood to be the view of the person giving it, not the publication.

Choosing to substitute a general principle instead of reading about the particular event as it happened 50 years ago... that likely informed the formation of that principle...

When you have nothing to add, say nothing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_transition_to_democrac...

Or have the courtesy to do the reading.

Even when it's gone really badly, like the Russian revolution, the revolution was a huge improvement.

80% illiteracy. I think revolutions almost always go well because you usually have to be really terrible to cause one to happen.

> Most violent revolutions end up replacing one dictatorship with another.

Don’t those new violent dictators also tend to be more aligned with the people revolting?

Anyway, it kinda makes sense to me that the people advocating for change through violent means don’t suddenly stop being violent when they get to power.

Yes, not normal in a normal context. However if you're fighting against a dictatorship it fully qualifies as heroism. When dictatorship comes to your country (madness is growing everywhere so be prepared) you'll be grateful for anyone fighting against it, or one day you'll be the one writing "... then one day they came for me, but there was no one left to fight for me".

Under a dictatorship it ought to be.

Study your history, because that’s an old story. The Puritans who settled in Massachusetts Bay did not try to establish religious freedom in the modern, pluralistic sense. They just wanted freedom to practice their own religion. They were intolerant of dissent and quickly established their own orthodoxies. Individuals who challenged their religious and civil authority, such as Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, were banished. Quakers who arrived later were brutally persecuted, with some being executed.

There's very little little-l libertarianism here. It's always anti-Communist Reagan-Greenspan style Objectivism disguised as little-l libertarianism.

They can seem like libertarians because they believe that they themselves should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want, but any activism is of the consumer-rights variety i.e. "I can do whatever I want with my property!"

Under Franco, the mean HNer would be upset that they couldn't buy (or create) whatever book they wanted or any piece of art they wanted. That's it. They'd even preface that objection with an "admission" that most of the books or art that Franco would ban were terrible and shouldn't be read or looked at.

Franco himself was weak, soft, and like the 3rd choice to rule fascist Spain. His position and his government was due to the tacit support of people very similar to HN users today. At least he's keeping the Russians away...