Wikipedia too, I suppose.
This sub’s credibility seems to be on par with the Gray Zone based on what you’re upvoting - I’m blocking this brain rot.
Wikipedia too, I suppose.
This sub’s credibility seems to be on par with the Gray Zone based on what you’re upvoting - I’m blocking this brain rot.
Is this a case of “if you call us genocidal, we’ll kill you too”?
The greatest flaw in the system is the fragmentation and consequential cost - when things were consolidated under Netflix, things weren’t perfect but it can’t be said that they weren’t far better.
The true underlying flaw is capitalism, but isn’t it always?
Because the AI isn’t needed, and would be computationally expensive.
Extensions like ublock origin and sponsorblock work just fine.
Yeah - that was a hard watch…
Air bud.
I had a golden retriever growing up, and he was the best friend I could have asked for. Seeing the dog in peril (I don’t really remember the movie now) was too much, and I lost it.
Unions aren’t silver bullets - but they’re bullets nonetheless, and that’s good enough most of the time.
Union contracts leave things less open to interpretation, union advice helps employees understand that this is a legal issue, and coordinated legal action and representation help you win the fight in court.
Leaving it to individual employees to individually see the problem, recognise they have legal standing, then fight Phoney Stark’s infestation of lawyers isn’t super-realistic, and turns the employment contracts into nothing more than a weapon to fuck with the employees, because Musk can just ignore anything in the contract favourable to employees.
Surely it’d have to be a little goatee…
It’s not a strawman - it’s a straightforward demonstration of the fact that you don’t belive in the legal argument you put forward. Try to avoid talking about logical fallacies you don’t understand, and putting forward arguments you don’t believe.
If the legal argument is nonsense (of course it is - this is a conversation about morality), and you’ve stated that all censorship is bad, how do you square that with your (apparent?) pro-censorship stance on death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and child porn?
Few matters of law are objective when you get down to it, but existing organised crime laws could be interpreted to include genocide - seems straightforward enough.
Edit: You linked a definition that agreed with me, then deleted it. Somehow I suspect you still haven’t bitten that bullet.
So you were wrong when you said that not all censorship is bad.
If paedophilia were legalised, you’d defend it? If not, why would you raise legality in a conversation about morality?
I don’t know what you’re trying to control for, but I’m trying to stop genocidal groups from consultating power. You’ve got nothing to contribute other than hoping there’s someone left to hold the genocidal dipshits to account after they’ve committed that genocide.
Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech.
You’re stopping that expression - it’s censorship. It might be censorship you like, but you can’t pretend it’s not censorship.
distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so.
Again, this is squarely within the definition of censorship. I don’t know why you’d raise the legality in a discussion of morality - surely you don’t think legalising genocide would make it acceptable.
Banning membership of a group that aims to oppress and kill huge groups of people is a pro-freedom move.
Please don’t make me put a dictionary in front of you.
This stuff is a social contract - if people are free to break the social contract and be intolerant or fuck with peoples’ freedoms, it harms peoples’ freedom to tolerate that behaviour.
Your argument is akin to saying that using force to stop someone that’s currently committing a mass shooting justifies that mass shooting - it’s moronic.
Stopping people from saying something, and literally censoring CSAM isn’t censorship - got it.
Where does stochastic terrorism and incitement of violence sit with you? How about the Nazi dipshits loudly expressing their “thought” while armed and standing in front of an event at a library? Jan 6 propagandists whipping the morons into an insurrectionist frenzy?
Expression of thought in the kinds of ways in talking about have very tangible consequences.
I think x group are subhuman trash that deserve to be exterminated - they’ve stolen everything from us, and need to pay for that. They’ll be raping children at this event - it’s our patriotic duty to stop them!
I think you’re confused about thought - it’s got nothing to do with anything I said.
Making threats, triggering a stampede, downloading CSAM, and participating in a group whose objective is are all actions with tangible consequences.
What’s the utility in protecting these things? As far as organised crime organisations go, what’s more serious than genocide?
They’re not leftists - they’re just red-coded fascists.
The clearest evidence of this is the total disregard for worker enfranchisement and meaningful decommodification.
Removed by mod