In my experience growing up southern baptist Christians only bring up that interpretation when convenient. The Old Testament is completely valid when they want it to be, and invalid when they don’t.

Imagine enforcing shitty copyright laws on yourself like some code of honor. We developed the technology to make infinite copies of any media and then spend endless resources fighting it because it undermines our parasitic economic model.

Imagine for a moment that society embraced the full potential of digital technology. We could have a library of all human art and knowledge ever produced available for free, instantly, everywhere. If book libraries didn’t already exist and were proposed today the excuses for rejecting it would be the same. The answer is also the same, change our economic model to support people’s basic needs unconditionally and directly subsidize the production we need/want (like art).

Craigslist was always on the fringes, before Facebook marketplace came in there were a bunch of separate and disconnected online marketplaces. Facebook marketplace had the advantage of already having a massive user base (larger than any of the existing online marketplaces), causing it to become the largest one right out the gate, which then of course makes it the most attractive option for sellers since they will reach more people.

Biden needs to do whatever he needs to do to get elected.

Up to and including supplying weapons and funding for a genocide? This position is morally reprehensible. I’m sympathetic to the argument that people should still vote for Biden for harm reduction, but suggesting Biden’s support for Israel’s genocide is justified because it helps him get elected is way over the line.

No I certainly don’t. These protests are not unique in how successful they are at challenging the status quo. The police state is also very effective at suppressing them, which is precisely why they are important. It’s a constant push and pull, we gain ground and we lose it, but if people didn’t protest at all we would only lose it.

Your insistence on sitting on your ass and waiting for violent revolution while whinging about protestors not doing anything is lazy and cowardly.

The frontier of resistance is everywhere, and even the smallest act of insurrection pushes our lines forward. The day will come when all these protests and demonstrations, these moments of defiance will have flooded the banks of the status quo’s authority and then there will be one too many. One single thing will break the siege.

That last paragraph was paraphrased from Andor, because it’s a simple enough concept that even a Disney show gets it.

If these protests aren’t doing shit then why is the police state coming down so hard on them recently?

What would you suggest people do, willingly become homeless just so they can say they “didn’t play along?” What are you doing.

I understand wanting to break free of the system, that’s something I’m working towards myself, but you have to actually be realistic. If you want to make it to shore you still have to keep paddling to keep your head above water.

People have to make a living.

I’m not sure what I was expecting, but it wasn’t freestyle jazz.

Does the rule only apply if they’re name-calling other commenters and not the subject of the article? If not then mke_geek’s original comment should be removed since he directly calls the subject of the article an awful person with no conditional.

Personally I think this rule is being a bit over-enforced and none of these comments should have been removed. Being overly strict with civility rules allows bad actors to take advantage of “civility politics” to shut down dissent.

Edit: except maybe the one calling them a dickhead, I get why that one was removed. The ones that just reflect their own words back at them I think should be left alone.

Ah, but you see, it’s not hypocritical because rules are just weapons to use against your opponents, and we’re suckers for not using it against them first. /s

The problem here is that you seem to value your own property rights over the right of individuals to have shelter. Sure, it’s not an ideal situation; in an ideal society “squatting” shouldn’t occur, but we live in a society where people are forced to choose between being homeless or squatting in someone’s property. If you think they should forgo their right to shelter to preserve your right to property then you are the awful person.

Climate activists can lobby in person when available, taking time away from other things. Oil companies can hire armies of lobbyists - some of whom masquerading as “concerned citizens” - to overwhelm public hearings, buy out media companies to manipulate public opinion and engage in astroturfing campaigns, and directly sway politicians with legal bribery (deliberately being vague about the purpose of “gifts” to maintain the benefit of the doubt about there being any quid pro quo involved).

Lobbying effectively requires resources - namely capital - which oil companies have in abundance and climate activists do not. To suggest that climate activists should simply fight on their terms is ignorant at best and malicious at worst.

Coming at this from an IT perspective, a lot of things that people “already know” seem to evaporate when it’s time to actually apply that knowledge. Keeping that in mind, I think a game like this helps to cement the idea in people’s heads in a more intuitive way. It bridges the gap between system 1 and system 2 thinking.

Slow it down there Thanos, just because you can’t personally see a solution to our current predicament doesn’t mean that genocide is the solution. Do you honestly believe that would fix things? Are you a comic book villain?

You decrie brainwashing by the media and assume that you are unaffected, but you are clearly and dangerously mislead into losing all hope for a better world. The latest shift in climate disinformation is away from denialism and towards doomerism, and you seem to have fallen for it hard.

It is not too late. There are attainable solutions. Political change is possible, perhaps even inevitable. There will be consequences for what has already been done, but we can survive them and we will. What might not survive are the institutions that got us to this point, but we can build a better world in their absence. Don’t lose hope, that’s what the oligarchs want.

I know it’s hard to sympathize with those who refused to see reason and allowed the powers that be to bring us to the point of crisis, but it’s important to remember that they too are victims.

Be the change you want to see in the world; a diversity of tactics is always welcome.

According to this study LED lights made no difference.

It’s worth noting that blocking traffic has been a common tactic since the start of the civil rights movement, and we have been having this discussion over and over again for decades now.

Looking at this from a civil disobedience standpoint, the reasoning for civil rights or foreign policy protestors blocking traffic may be less direct than for climate protestors, but is in my opinion equally valid. Highways are the arteries of the capitalist economic system that both powers the US war machine and reinforces the social structures that keep black communities in poverty.

The main problem with this tactic is that recognizing how the action of blocking traffic relates to the protesters’ cause requires a political and class consciousness that most people lack. I personally still support the tactic because I believe we should be collectively working towards instilling that class consciousness in as many people as possible.

While many who choose to remain ignorant will continue to be annoyed and angry at such tactics, there will be some who stop to reflect and consider the arguments being made, and that is progress.

The injustice I see this as highlighting is not the existence of a law preventing the disclosure of confidential tax information, but the lack of a law requiring the President to disclose their tax information.

Presidents releasing their tax returns has been a historical precedent, but has not been codified into law. Trump promised to release his tax returns but then refused.

Love how esoteric this joke is. The only people who get this are nerds old enough to remember or people who watched that one Tom Scott video about phreaking.