Compared to the US, they don't. 1A protections are extremely broad, to be outside protected speech it practically has to be either CSAM or inciting immediate lawless action.
As in "SLUR should be hanged from trees" is protected under 1A, "Guys, grab that SLUR over there and string him up" is not. CSAM is primarily illegal because production, distribution and even possession further harms the victim of the CSA performed to create it.
They got a majority of votes. Unless you live in a deep blue area it's likely to get you more customers than it costs, at least for now. Most customers won't care either way, they're at your business to buy your goods/services, not as a political statement.
Those signs will go down fast except for the very political and deep red areas once we're in a post-Trump world.
You're not wrong. There's nothing that requires the two parties be Dems and GOP. But you're not going to overturn one or the other in a single election, and that means losing to the farthest big party from you, likely a few in a row, while that gets resolved. Especially if you try to do it top down instead of building support from local/county offices up.
Basically, if you could get enough third party support, you could either supplant one of the existing parties or force them to shift to stay competitive. The argument is that trying to do so with the office of president when doing so promotes a fast track to outright fascism is a painfully bad tactic.
Honestly, we need to reform our economic system and not continually rely on fertility to solve all of our problems.
Fertility and demographic collapse aren't about supporting an economic system. Even if we were a post-scarcity communist utopia women would need to average 2.1 children/woman to maintain the existing population (2.1 isn't growth, it's maintenance - if you wonder why it's slightly higher than the number of people involved with making new people it's because you also have to cover for infertility and mortality among those children) or the same population-level result would occur. The nasty thing about demographic collapse is that it's subtle until it isn't and by that point it's really hard to fix. There is no economic system where people don't need to make more people to have a stable population, at least not unless/until we achieve some kind of immortality.
Ultimately you have three options when it comes to the topic, and they all have downsides:
What exactly does “should” mean in this context?
I think the implication is that it's essentially being prevented from collapse because it's so ingrained in international trade that if it were to collapse it would hurt you and your allies too much, so you don't allow it to collapse when it otherwise might.
Another reminder that blueMAGA don’t see Palestinians as human.
Every option with any real chance of being elected supported Israel. Unfortunately your choices are essentially Dem, GOP, or one of several people who is definitely going to lose unless you can round up another 60 million or so voters to back them.
I think white does most of the heavy lifting there, at least in western democracies (for example being white is not a benefit in say Japan). Straight carries a bunch of the rest (and would carry more, but you can't tell someone's sexuality just by looking at them), and then you get down to men.
To put it another way: If I asked to to provide statistical evidence that the criminal justice system is biased against black people, you could name off a bunch of stats that you would argue present compelling evidence. If I took the same data from the same sources and broke it down by sex instead of race, it would present a similar picture of men and you'd argue that same data is suddenly meaningless because it disagrees with your model. I'd argue that the idea that society has a sex hierarchy as such is the wrong model to use entirely.
Instead, when it comes to sex it's all about perceived agency - men are perceived to have more agency than they do and women are perceived to have less. Essentially men are seen as more "responsible" for what happens to them/what they do and women are seen as less "responsible" for what happens to them/what they do. And this cuts both ways. If a man hits a woman, even in self defense it's his "fault" and she's just a victim. If a woman hits a man, even in an unprovoked attack people will start by asking what he did to deserve it. Men get worse bail, higher chance of conviction, loner sentences, etc in criminal justice because they are more "responsible" for their wrongdoing than women. At the other end, men are also treated as more "responsible" for their accomplishments, in general. Which helps men reach the very top positions at a higher rate than women. If a male teacher commits statutory rape of a female student, she's definitely a victim and it won't be called anything but rape but if a female teacher commits statutory rape of a male student the media will often describe it as an "affair" or "romp" or similar and focus on how complicit he was with the activity. Etc, etc.
Why excuse the same being done for men? I would have said "a group based on sex", but the people doing this definitely understand the issue when it's women.
Especially since the most common sexuality just...wasn't on the tier list at all. Not even marked as F tier or something.
Permanently Deleted
OK, so this is just the general anti-AI image generation argument where you believe any image generated is in some meaningful way a copy of every image analyzed to produce the statistical model that eventually generated it?
I'm surprised you're going the CSAM route with this and not just arguing that any AI generated sexually explicit image of a woman is nonconsensual porn of literally every woman who has ever posted a photo on social media.
and I became a vegetarian.
That's just the estrogenization keeping itself active through phytoestrogens.
Usually space craft have relatively light power needs so why bother with a whole-ass nuclear reactor when an RTG is smaller, lighter, and has no moving parts? They're a pretty common choice for space probes, for example.
When I previously wrote that if you get deep enough into it they don't believe in gravity, I meant that. No gravity, what you and I call gravity is a consequence of everything accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2 causing a downward force exerted on everything. The sun and moon are also accelerating at the same speed (the entire firmament and its contents are). I have no idea about the other planets, but it's probably something equally dumb.
Permanently Deleted
was seeded with the face of a 15yr old and that they really are 15 for all intents and purposes.
That's...not how AI image generation works? AI image generation isn't just building a collage from random images in a database - the model doesn't have a database of images within it at all - it just has a bunch of statistical weightings and net configuration that are essentially a statistical model for classifying images, being told to produce whatever inputs maximize an output resembling the prompt, starting from a seed. It's not "seeded with an image of a 15 year old", it's seeded with white noise and basically asked to show how that white noise looks like (in this case) "woman porn miniskirt", then repeat a few times until the resulting image is stable.
Unless you're arguing that somewhere in the millions of images tagged "woman" being analyzed to build that statistical model is probably at least one person under 18, and that any image of "woman" generated by such a model is necessarily underage because the weightings were impacted however slightly by that image or images, in which case you could also argue that all drawn images of humans are underage because whoever drew it has probably seen a child at some point and therefore everything they draw is tainted by having been exposed to children ever.
Permanently Deleted
97% of the internet has no idea what Matrix channels even are.
I've been able to explain it to people pretty easily as "like Discord, but without Discord administration getting to control what's allowed, only whoever happens to run that particular server."
Permanently Deleted
A more apt comparison would be people who go out of their way to hurt animals.
Is it? That person is going out of their way to do actual violence. It feels like arguing someone watching a slasher movie is more likely to make them go commit murder is a much closer analogy to someone watching a cartoon of a child engaged in sexual activity or w/e being more likely to make them molest a real kid.
We could make it a video game about molesting kids and Postal or Hatred as our points of comparison if it would help. I'm sure someone somewhere has made such a game, and I'm absolutely sure you'd consider COD for "fun and escapism" and someone playing that sort of game is doing so "in bad faith" despite both playing a simulation of something that is definitely illegal and the core of the argument being that one causes the person to want to the illegal thing more and the other does not.
I used to work with one. The notion is that the sun travels in essentially a circle above the earth-disk and is also much smaller and much closer than you've been led to believe. They believe that the world actually is exactly as it looks in an azimuthal equidistant projection centered on the North Pole, and that it being what the world really looks like is why that's the map on the UN logo. Antarctica is essentially the rim of the world and what keeps the ocean from pouring over the edge of the disk, like the rim of a giant bowl.
You dig deep enough and you learn that they also don't believe in gravity (because if gravity was real then it would tend to pull people nearer the edge of the disk at a deeper slant relative to the surface). It's just that the Earth-disk is accelerating upwards through the void at 9.8 m/s^2.
Contrna Points
I found her video on Men interesting. Not the contents of the video as such (though her production was as always top notch) but the reaction to it. It seemed like a big chunk of her fan base was mad at her for touching the topic at all and another big chunk acted like she was saying a bunch of uniquely revelatory things and were pointing to stuff she said that Alison Tieman had arrived at something like a decade before.
I heard bears attract them
Only the ones with a poor understanding of risk. Maybe that's desirable?
Let's test this: Make some specific predictions for various points over, say, the next 5 years (start near future and work your way out). Put them somewhere where they can remain generally fixed but available (say on a pastebin or lemmy post or something). Then come back to look at them after those times have past and see how accurate you are. This would let you see your actual rate of accuracy as opposed to just the ones that stand out because they ended up true), which would ideally lessen your panic or alternatively if you really are getting it right in a consistent fashion we can start calling you gravitas_deficiency the Bleak Prognosticator.
For example just glancing at your profile one you seem to be doubling down on a lot recently is that there will be either no US presidential election in 2028 or no peaceful transfer of power in January 2029. That is easily verifiable in four years time. How do you imagine this will happen? Is it enough to satisfy this if the election happens and the GOP wins with a non-Trump candidate? Do you think opposition to the GOP will simply be made illegal? Do you think they will push an amendment to let Trump run again? Do you think Trump will just run again regardless and argue that the Constitution doesn't apply to him because seemingly no other law does?