I’d bet that you’re the type to claim any of the peaceful protests that happened in 2020 that didn’t become riots would also qualify for those bans. Then again, I’m not qwhite so sure why you’d be all for calling those events “riots” but are also willing to downplay an actual riot where people were chanting for the hanging of the sitting Vice President.
I’m not morally opposed to this course of action because fuck the insurrectionists. But the ethics of this move (as alluded to in the article) do give me pause.
Any cop that does what he did should be placed on desk duty for at least six months—and that’s the bare minimum that could be done to deter this bullshit.
One of the planks of his 2016 platform was “repeal Obamacare”. He shittalked John McCain after McCain sealed the fate of the AHCA. His administration fought to use the courts as a means of repealing Obamacare up until the end of his term. I can say without reservation that I believe Donald Trump absolutely would’ve signed a repeal of the ACA without a replacement plan.
Both Trump and the GOP in general couldn’t stand to let anything done by the first Black POTUS stand unchallenged—even if tearing down Obama’s accomplishments meant hurting millions of people in the process. The Republican party may not be a racist party per se, but it is the party most widely supported by racists and racist organizations. The GOP is also the party of lawmakers and politicians and pundits who use racial dogwhistles (and bullhorns, as of late) to stir up the voting base, and the party that literally depends on its voting base being racist as hell in their voting patterns. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you. They’re hoping you won’t read up on the history of the party after the ideological switch of the GOP and the Dems in the wake of the civil rights movement, the Dixiecrats, and the creation of the Southern Strategy. Don’t let them make you a fool.
Actually with less taxIncome would force the government to prioritise programs.
And which programs do you think they’re going to prioritize: the ones that help poor people or the ones that help protect rich people’s profits at the expense of poor people’s lives? Do you really think enough people in the federal government give a shit about poor people to change the priorities of those in charge, who want to keep the ruling class happy by making sure their profits aren’t touched in any way?
Tax the rich. Tax the fuck out of them. Being a billionaire is unethical and immoral, anyway.
Trump himself has always focused on replacing the program. That nobody came up with anything… is unfortunate.
He didn’t come up with anything other than saying “we’re gonna have a great plan” over and over (was that going to happen before or after Infrastructure Week?), so how about you say he fucked up, too.
We can’t, however, known with the ‘certainty of god herself’ what Trump would have done with a repeal only plan.
The whole point of every vote to repeal the ACA—including the vote on the AHCA—was to repeal the ACA in its entirety (or close enough to that). None of the plans put forth by the GOP or Trump had any solid ideas for what to do about the healthcare system they were prepared to throw into complete disarray (with the side effect of kicking millions of people off their healthcare plans, to boot). They didn’t have a plan to counter the rising costs of drugs or the fact that poor people couldn’t afford even basic-ass healthcare without nearly bankrupting themselves. They just wanted to get the scary Black man’s healthcare plan off the books and feed that red meat to their voting base.
We might not know what Trump would’ve done if the repeal had passed. But we can make a hella-educated guess based on his entire life history up to (and after) that vote: He would’ve celebrated the repeal as a massive accomplishment for the American people while offering nothing to help those his “accomplishment” would’ve kicked off their healthcare plans. (“They’re all in states that didn’t vote for me anyway,” he probably would’ve said at a post-repeal cult meeti—I mean, rally.)
At what point should a person begin paying federal income tax?
Everyone above the poverty level should pay some form of income tax. The trick is figuring out what percentage of their income should be taxed based on how far above the poverty level they are. A flat tax would fuck over the less well-off by making them give up a far more useful (and needed) amount of their money than a rich person would ever have to give up. As I’ve said before: The person making $30k would need $3k in a far more acute, direct, I’m-fucked-without-it way than the person making $30 million would likely ever need $3 million in the same way. If you seriously can’t understand (or care) how that works, I don’t know what the hell else anyone can tell you to make you understand (or care) about how a flat tax fucks over the poor.
The part of the plan that Trump and the GOP never came up with. “Repeal” was always the primary goal; “replace” was something they didn’t worry that much about, or else they would’ve had an actual plan ready at any point in the near-decade between the passage of the ACA and the fateful repeal vote during the Trump administration. Or did you forget that the GOP tried a few dozen times to repeal the ACA even before Trump took office, each time with no real replacement plan ready to go? And the plans they did have only ever yanked back parts of the ACA; none of them offered any solutions for the problems still plaguing the American healthcare system even after the passage of the ACA. (To wit: the Amercian Health Care Act, which was so unpopular that it was considered the primary factor in numerous Republican losses during the 2018 midterm elections.)
I don’t follow how lowering someone else’s tax rate changes anything
The point, you callous asshole, is that poor people can’t afford to pay as much into public funds as the rich can. Someone with a few thousand bucks in the bank at most—money which they’re saving as a buffer in case of a financial emergency—can’t afford to give a single cent of that up. Someone with a few tens of millions in the bank can give up a small fraction of that without their lifestyle changing in the least. A flat tax would tax them both at the same rate, but the poor person would need the money they’d be paying far more than the rich person.
As income grows, so does general comfort. Someone making $30k a year is going to be scrimping and saving and cutting corners on everything from food to clothing just to pay for rent and utilities. Someone making $30 million a year could literally pay $30k in taxes per month for a year and still not have to worry about food, clothing, shelter, transportation, or anything else they need to survive. The poor person will always have to worry about a doctor’s visit or a car problem or some other out-of-nowhere problem sinking their finances; the rich person never really has to think about any of that.
Sure, it sounds like a nice idea to make everyone pay “a fair share”, but “a fair share” isn’t fair to those who need their money in a far more acute and direct way. I know for a fact that those deductibles you keep mentioning as if they’re a financial miracle that prevents all poor people from paying taxes don’t always result in lower payments (or refunds!) when the taxes come due. And since the government—especially a conservative-controlled government, kinda like the one you helped vote into office in 2016—loves to cut the tax rates for the rich and refuses to close loopholes that would make the rich pay more into the public treasury, trying to force poor people into paying more because “it’s fair to the rich” or somesuch bullshit sounds like you’re in favor of socialism for rich folks.
A flat tax is like trickle-down economics: People who haven’t been brainwashed into believing those ideas would work know those ideas don’t work because those people aren’t “poverty is a moral failing”–believing conservative assholes. The appeal of a flat tax is a millimeter thin; your being unable to see that, for whatever reason, is a “you” problem.
And would you be equally as violent if all I did was smash a window on your house? After all, I did destroy part of your property, and you’ve made your feelings about property and property rights abundantly clear, so… 👀
He had called for repeal and replace since the day he came down the escalator and announced his run.
What’s the first half of that phrase, again?
Neither you nor I have any knowledge of how he would have responded to a repeal without a replacement.
Considering how he had no replacement plan at the time Congress came the closest it ever got to repealing Obamacare in its entirety and didn’t seem to give a damn about introducing an actual replacement plan at any point after that failed vote? I doubt he would’ve “responded” with anything but “WE WON, SUCK IT LIBS” or some variant thereof.
I’m simply not following you.
I’m going to try explaining this again. Try to keep up.
Assume the flat tax is 10% of all income, regardless of any deductibles or whatever. For someone making $30,000 a year, that comes to $3,000; for someone making $30 million a year, that comes to $3 million.
The person with the $30k income needs that $3,000 with far more urgency and utility than the person with the $30 million income needs that $3 million. The poor person might run into a bad run of luck and that $3,000 could be the difference between, quite literally, life and death. They can’t afford to lose that much money to taxes because they need that money in the here and now. The rich person won’t miss $3 million any more than they’d miss $3,000 because they’ll have $27 million to play around with. They don’t “need”, or can at least afford to lose, that $3 million to taxes because their needs are already met and they can afford luxuries that the poor person could only dream of renting, never mind owning.
A flat tax would punish the poor by making them give up an amount of money that could mean the difference between making rent and having to find a homeless shelter while letting the rich pay an amount of money that will barely affect their life in any way.
And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living. (Mark 12:41-44, King James Version)
Are you implying you would never pick up a weapon to protect yourself, your loved one, your family and friends, your community?
I will only pick up a weapon in defense of self or others. All other violence is bullshit—and that includes the death penalty as well as violence intended to protect (or destroy) property.
My “issue” isn’t with the violence itself. It’s that I said you’d kill without hesitation because people aren’t property and you never pushed back on the idea. I mean, if you want to say otherwise, now is the time to assert that you actually give a damn about people—moreso than property, too!—instead of letting the idea that you sincerely believe in an ethos of “property over people” hang in the air.
You may as well give up trying to explain the flat tax thing to him. I tried, and he bit back with the “but the rich pay more money so it’s still fair” bullshit. He either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care to understand the law of diminishing utility.
Because forced association is a fallacy. All you have to say is that their opinion is their own. No association then.
Yeah, no, shit doesn’t work that way, son. If you claim not to be associated with racists, but you still allow racists to use your property as a soapbox for their speech, you’re still associated with racists regardless of how many disclaimers you put up. People will see your property being used by racists and assume you’re okay with the racists and their racism; that’s how human nature works. Being forced to host racists and their speech doesn’t change that fact. But it does bring up the question of why you might think being forced to host racists is a good idea if property rights weren’t a thing.
I sent money to gofundmes and charities set up in the aftermath.
Oh wow, you had a semblance of an afterimage of a ghost of a heart somewhere in your body at one point. Bravo~.
I still stand by the princip[le] that it should have be[en] a choice.
Do you really believe people should have the right to knowingly and purposefully infect others with a deadly disease? Because I’m sure plenty of anti-maskers who contracted COVID would’ve argued for the right to be without masks in public…before they caught COVID, anyway. (And probably after—assuming they were still alive, that is.)
I walked into a store a few days ago without a mask—the first time in well over a year that I’d done that!—because I forgot my mask, I’m vaccinated, and I knew the store had a “if you’re vaxed, you don’t need the mask” policy nowadays. Doing that made me feel like some semblance of normalcy was returning—but it also made me feel like shit for not thinking of others. I could have caught COVID and carried it back to my family or spread it to strangers, even just by being in that store maskless for a few minutes, and I would’ve had no one to blame for that but myself.
Do I believe mandating masks in public was the right thing to do? Absolutely. Do I plan to keep wearing masks even when the mandates fall for good? Absolutely. Why? Because I’m not a selfish dickbag who only thinks of himself. That’s what a society is: caring for other people, easing the suffering of others, and helping each other realize our full potential. What the fuck is the point of having a society if a good chunk of people within that society care more about themselves (or property…) to the detriment of everyone else?
You didn’t contradict or push back on my assertion that you’d kill people without hesitation because they’re not property, y’know. That, uh…that says a lot about you, dude.
Anyone that doesn’t bow down to the socialism of your beliefs is anti human.
My beliefs have nothing to do with the fact that you, independently of whatever I’ve said, only took issue with efforts to repeal Section 230 when property rights entered the chat and have continually placed property rights in a position of importance over things like public health. You’re the one who sees property and property rights as more important than humanity; I’m only working with what you’ve given me.
An earthquake is not genocide.
You talked about sending California into the ocean. That’s going to kill a shitload of people on its own; the days and weeks that follow will kill more as essential supplies run out, power plants stop working, and the government drags its heels in trying to figure out what the fuck to do (which it always does, regardless of who runs it at the time). That’s a fucking genocide, and that’s what you wished for—and if you didn’t want to do that, you should’ve used a sarcasm mark.
I don’t see any horror over machine gunning Americans. In Florida.
I don’t see you expressing condolences for the victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting. Which were you angrier about: the dead people or the damage to the building?
You’ve already made your position on humanity clear; don’t blame me for taking that position seriously. Use a sarcasm mark in the future if you don’t want serious responses to “jokes” that seem to reflect your actual sociopathic positions—like, say, a “joke” about genociding an entire state to create an imagined paradise, which tends to align with your views about humanity (and liberals/progressives in particular) being near-worthless compared to the property they inhabit.
Poe’s Law is dead. So is the “I was just joking” excuse. Be clear about your humor or be taken seriously when you suggest something ghoulish. Make your choice.
The law is bound to be dead in the end. Doesn’t mean I won’t enjoy the back and forth.
That you see the process of dragging out the overturning of an obviously unconstitutional law (and the spending of taxpayer funds to do exactly that) as a form of entertainment might be more twisted than your property rights fetish.
On the post: Facebook Is Banning Anyone Charged With Participating In Capitol Hill Insurrection
I’d bet that you’re the type to claim any of the peaceful protests that happened in 2020 that didn’t become riots would also qualify for those bans. Then again, I’m not qwhite so sure why you’d be all for calling those events “riots” but are also willing to downplay an actual riot where people were chanting for the hanging of the sitting Vice President.
On the post: Facebook Is Banning Anyone Charged With Participating In Capitol Hill Insurrection
That’s no way to talk about your circle of friends, Koby.
On the post: Facebook Is Banning Anyone Charged With Participating In Capitol Hill Insurrection
I’m not morally opposed to this course of action because fuck the insurrectionists. But the ethics of this move (as alluded to in the article) do give me pause.
On the post: Law Enforcement Officer Openly Admits He's Playing Copyrighted Music To Prevent Citizen's Recording From Being Uploaded To YouTube
Any cop that does what he did should be placed on desk duty for at least six months—and that’s the bare minimum that could be done to deter this bullshit.
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
My god, he really is one of us deep down.
WELCOME TO THE STRUGGLES, COMRADE! ✊
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
One of the planks of his 2016 platform was “repeal Obamacare”. He shittalked John McCain after McCain sealed the fate of the AHCA. His administration fought to use the courts as a means of repealing Obamacare up until the end of his term. I can say without reservation that I believe Donald Trump absolutely would’ve signed a repeal of the ACA without a replacement plan.
Both Trump and the GOP in general couldn’t stand to let anything done by the first Black POTUS stand unchallenged—even if tearing down Obama’s accomplishments meant hurting millions of people in the process. The Republican party may not be a racist party per se, but it is the party most widely supported by racists and racist organizations. The GOP is also the party of lawmakers and politicians and pundits who use racial dogwhistles (and bullhorns, as of late) to stir up the voting base, and the party that literally depends on its voting base being racist as hell in their voting patterns. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you. They’re hoping you won’t read up on the history of the party after the ideological switch of the GOP and the Dems in the wake of the civil rights movement, the Dixiecrats, and the creation of the Southern Strategy. Don’t let them make you a fool.
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
My god, you sound like one of us America-hating communisocialist lefty bastards (except for the international aid and NATO/UN parts).
Welcome to the party, pal!
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
And which programs do you think they’re going to prioritize: the ones that help poor people or the ones that help protect rich people’s profits at the expense of poor people’s lives? Do you really think enough people in the federal government give a shit about poor people to change the priorities of those in charge, who want to keep the ruling class happy by making sure their profits aren’t touched in any way?
Tax the rich. Tax the fuck out of them. Being a billionaire is unethical and immoral, anyway.
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
He didn’t come up with anything other than saying “we’re gonna have a great plan” over and over (was that going to happen before or after Infrastructure Week?), so how about you say he fucked up, too.
The whole point of every vote to repeal the ACA—including the vote on the AHCA—was to repeal the ACA in its entirety (or close enough to that). None of the plans put forth by the GOP or Trump had any solid ideas for what to do about the healthcare system they were prepared to throw into complete disarray (with the side effect of kicking millions of people off their healthcare plans, to boot). They didn’t have a plan to counter the rising costs of drugs or the fact that poor people couldn’t afford even basic-ass healthcare without nearly bankrupting themselves. They just wanted to get the scary Black man’s healthcare plan off the books and feed that red meat to their voting base.
We might not know what Trump would’ve done if the repeal had passed. But we can make a hella-educated guess based on his entire life history up to (and after) that vote: He would’ve celebrated the repeal as a massive accomplishment for the American people while offering nothing to help those his “accomplishment” would’ve kicked off their healthcare plans. (“They’re all in states that didn’t vote for me anyway,” he probably would’ve said at a post-repeal cult meeti—I mean, rally.)
Everyone above the poverty level should pay some form of income tax. The trick is figuring out what percentage of their income should be taxed based on how far above the poverty level they are. A flat tax would fuck over the less well-off by making them give up a far more useful (and needed) amount of their money than a rich person would ever have to give up. As I’ve said before: The person making $30k would need $3k in a far more acute, direct, I’m-fucked-without-it way than the person making $30 million would likely ever need $3 million in the same way. If you seriously can’t understand (or care) how that works, I don’t know what the hell else anyone can tell you to make you understand (or care) about how a flat tax fucks over the poor.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Well, at least in terms of violence, you seem to care more about people than property. That’s…something?
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
The part of the plan that Trump and the GOP never came up with. “Repeal” was always the primary goal; “replace” was something they didn’t worry that much about, or else they would’ve had an actual plan ready at any point in the near-decade between the passage of the ACA and the fateful repeal vote during the Trump administration. Or did you forget that the GOP tried a few dozen times to repeal the ACA even before Trump took office, each time with no real replacement plan ready to go? And the plans they did have only ever yanked back parts of the ACA; none of them offered any solutions for the problems still plaguing the American healthcare system even after the passage of the ACA. (To wit: the Amercian Health Care Act, which was so unpopular that it was considered the primary factor in numerous Republican losses during the 2018 midterm elections.)
The point, you callous asshole, is that poor people can’t afford to pay as much into public funds as the rich can. Someone with a few thousand bucks in the bank at most—money which they’re saving as a buffer in case of a financial emergency—can’t afford to give a single cent of that up. Someone with a few tens of millions in the bank can give up a small fraction of that without their lifestyle changing in the least. A flat tax would tax them both at the same rate, but the poor person would need the money they’d be paying far more than the rich person.
As income grows, so does general comfort. Someone making $30k a year is going to be scrimping and saving and cutting corners on everything from food to clothing just to pay for rent and utilities. Someone making $30 million a year could literally pay $30k in taxes per month for a year and still not have to worry about food, clothing, shelter, transportation, or anything else they need to survive. The poor person will always have to worry about a doctor’s visit or a car problem or some other out-of-nowhere problem sinking their finances; the rich person never really has to think about any of that.
Sure, it sounds like a nice idea to make everyone pay “a fair share”, but “a fair share” isn’t fair to those who need their money in a far more acute and direct way. I know for a fact that those deductibles you keep mentioning as if they’re a financial miracle that prevents all poor people from paying taxes don’t always result in lower payments (or refunds!) when the taxes come due. And since the government—especially a conservative-controlled government, kinda like the one you helped vote into office in 2016—loves to cut the tax rates for the rich and refuses to close loopholes that would make the rich pay more into the public treasury, trying to force poor people into paying more because “it’s fair to the rich” or somesuch bullshit sounds like you’re in favor of socialism for rich folks.
A flat tax is like trickle-down economics: People who haven’t been brainwashed into believing those ideas would work know those ideas don’t work because those people aren’t “poverty is a moral failing”–believing conservative assholes. The appeal of a flat tax is a millimeter thin; your being unable to see that, for whatever reason, is a “you” problem.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
And would you be equally as violent if all I did was smash a window on your house? After all, I did destroy part of your property, and you’ve made your feelings about property and property rights abundantly clear, so… 👀
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
What’s the first half of that phrase, again?
Considering how he had no replacement plan at the time Congress came the closest it ever got to repealing Obamacare in its entirety and didn’t seem to give a damn about introducing an actual replacement plan at any point after that failed vote? I doubt he would’ve “responded” with anything but “WE WON, SUCK IT LIBS” or some variant thereof.
I’m going to try explaining this again. Try to keep up.
Assume the flat tax is 10% of all income, regardless of any deductibles or whatever. For someone making $30,000 a year, that comes to $3,000; for someone making $30 million a year, that comes to $3 million.
The person with the $30k income needs that $3,000 with far more urgency and utility than the person with the $30 million income needs that $3 million. The poor person might run into a bad run of luck and that $3,000 could be the difference between, quite literally, life and death. They can’t afford to lose that much money to taxes because they need that money in the here and now. The rich person won’t miss $3 million any more than they’d miss $3,000 because they’ll have $27 million to play around with. They don’t “need”, or can at least afford to lose, that $3 million to taxes because their needs are already met and they can afford luxuries that the poor person could only dream of renting, never mind owning.
A flat tax would punish the poor by making them give up an amount of money that could mean the difference between making rent and having to find a homeless shelter while letting the rich pay an amount of money that will barely affect their life in any way.
And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living. (Mark 12:41-44, King James Version)
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
I will only pick up a weapon in defense of self or others. All other violence is bullshit—and that includes the death penalty as well as violence intended to protect (or destroy) property.
My “issue” isn’t with the violence itself. It’s that I said you’d kill without hesitation because people aren’t property and you never pushed back on the idea. I mean, if you want to say otherwise, now is the time to assert that you actually give a damn about people—moreso than property, too!—instead of letting the idea that you sincerely believe in an ethos of “property over people” hang in the air.
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
You may as well give up trying to explain the flat tax thing to him. I tried, and he bit back with the “but the rich pay more money so it’s still fair” bullshit. He either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care to understand the law of diminishing utility.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Yeah, no, shit doesn’t work that way, son. If you claim not to be associated with racists, but you still allow racists to use your property as a soapbox for their speech, you’re still associated with racists regardless of how many disclaimers you put up. People will see your property being used by racists and assume you’re okay with the racists and their racism; that’s how human nature works. Being forced to host racists and their speech doesn’t change that fact. But it does bring up the question of why you might think being forced to host racists is a good idea if property rights weren’t a thing.
Oh wow, you had a semblance of an afterimage of a ghost of a heart somewhere in your body at one point. Bravo~.
Do you really believe people should have the right to knowingly and purposefully infect others with a deadly disease? Because I’m sure plenty of anti-maskers who contracted COVID would’ve argued for the right to be without masks in public…before they caught COVID, anyway. (And probably after—assuming they were still alive, that is.)
I walked into a store a few days ago without a mask—the first time in well over a year that I’d done that!—because I forgot my mask, I’m vaccinated, and I knew the store had a “if you’re vaxed, you don’t need the mask” policy nowadays. Doing that made me feel like some semblance of normalcy was returning—but it also made me feel like shit for not thinking of others. I could have caught COVID and carried it back to my family or spread it to strangers, even just by being in that store maskless for a few minutes, and I would’ve had no one to blame for that but myself.
Do I believe mandating masks in public was the right thing to do? Absolutely. Do I plan to keep wearing masks even when the mandates fall for good? Absolutely. Why? Because I’m not a selfish dickbag who only thinks of himself. That’s what a society is: caring for other people, easing the suffering of others, and helping each other realize our full potential. What the fuck is the point of having a society if a good chunk of people within that society care more about themselves (or property…) to the detriment of everyone else?
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
You didn’t contradict or push back on my assertion that you’d kill people without hesitation because they’re not property, y’know. That, uh…that says a lot about you, dude.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
My beliefs have nothing to do with the fact that you, independently of whatever I’ve said, only took issue with efforts to repeal Section 230 when property rights entered the chat and have continually placed property rights in a position of importance over things like public health. You’re the one who sees property and property rights as more important than humanity; I’m only working with what you’ve given me.
You talked about sending California into the ocean. That’s going to kill a shitload of people on its own; the days and weeks that follow will kill more as essential supplies run out, power plants stop working, and the government drags its heels in trying to figure out what the fuck to do (which it always does, regardless of who runs it at the time). That’s a fucking genocide, and that’s what you wished for—and if you didn’t want to do that, you should’ve used a sarcasm mark.
I don’t see you expressing condolences for the victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting. Which were you angrier about: the dead people or the damage to the building?
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
You’ve already made your position on humanity clear; don’t blame me for taking that position seriously. Use a sarcasm mark in the future if you don’t want serious responses to “jokes” that seem to reflect your actual sociopathic positions—like, say, a “joke” about genociding an entire state to create an imagined paradise, which tends to align with your views about humanity (and liberals/progressives in particular) being near-worthless compared to the property they inhabit.
Poe’s Law is dead. So is the “I was just joking” excuse. Be clear about your humor or be taken seriously when you suggest something ghoulish. Make your choice.
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
That you see the process of dragging out the overturning of an obviously unconstitutional law (and the spending of taxpayer funds to do exactly that) as a form of entertainment might be more twisted than your property rights fetish.
Next >>