It doesn't do anyone any good to lie about what things say. Especially when you post what it actually says. It's always been the case that "substantial disruption" of officially called meetings has been at least a misdemeanor. You say that it makes "speaking out" a misdemeanor. In fact, by law, bodies such as school boards, city councils, etc, have public comment time set aside in their agendas, usually providing up to 3 minutes for each person who signs up to comment. This usually takes place at the beginning of a public meeting. And, true, the members of whatever body is addressed usually just ignore what the commentors have to say. but they are able to say it. Sometimes there are organized efforts to address bodies and so the period of time goes on for an extended period. But this change in law is nothing new and really is just clarifying terms such as "substantial disorder" and changed person to adult.
You're trying to sensationalize something that is very mundane. If you think that anybody should be able to walk into any public meeting at any time and say whatever they want for however long they want and in any manner they want, then put that forward as position to get passed as law. Time and place exceptions to "freedom of speech" have long been recognized by the courts. Do you want to change that? Do you want me to barge into classrooms and take over instruction to teach children that 2+2 = 5 and that the notion that 2+2 = 4 is government misinformation campaign to corrupt the brains of our youth? No, of course not. You will recognize time and place restrictions just as any sane person would. You might disagree with where to draw the lines but that's what elected represenatives and the judicial system are for. If you want to be one of them:run for office. get a law degree. Whatever. But don't expose yourself as an idiot by trying to sensationalize something like this.
Of course, it comforts them emotionally. Just like thinking there's everlasting life makes people feel better.
But I'm asking you to red pill me. So far, I'm not impressed.
You can get a sense for people who are open to new ideas and possibilities
So people who might be more susceptible to believing things that aren't true?
versus those of us who are jaded and spoiling for a fight.
Skeptical people who think critically and want to see evidence?
The point of the question isn’t to ‘make them see things my way,’ it’s simply to encourage them to start looking around and start seeking things out for themselves.
But you want them to start seeking the things you see, right? Like, for example, if they look around and say, wow, there's a lot of evil in this world and the victims of it seem to be fairly random. That's not something you want them to see, right?
You might want them to see the person who was driving on the I-35 bridge when it collapsed right in front of them and, wow, what a close call, God must have been there to help them out. But you don't want them to think about the people who went down with the bridge and died, right? You'd say God was with them, too, but then, to me, if God is in both the numerator and denominator then it cancels out.
Why not try that on me and see if it works? I'm not red-pilled, so give it go.
They aren't finding Jesus Christ, though. They are finding some grifter preacher's warped version of Jesus Christ, which is more about fleecing the flock than about the teachings of Jesus, which are mostly ignored.
There's nothing "doublespeak" about saying that "substantial disruption" of official public meetings will result in misdemeanor charges. This is not something new.