So tell SCOTUS either they reverse it and add that they’ll never do it again or they get “executive ordered”. If they refuse you “executive order” them, after all that’s what they thought wouldn’t be illegal. Continue until you get a SCOTUS who won’t refuse. If the SCOTUS wants to throw their lives away for their own stupidity, let them.

If he has practicality no limits what’s preventing him from getting the decision undone and making it so that the president could never have such power?

If he has all the power in the world he should also have power to undo that power.

Maybe in some very broad strokes, but in very broad strokes legs and cars are also the same because they move you from point A to point B.

So you’re mixing up two different meaning of AI to say that AI doesn’t mean the same thing everywhere? When people are talking about bats, the flying mammals, do you also interject with “bats are use to hit a ball” to make some point? No, because deliberately mixing up homonyms is stupid.

It’s pretty clear what kind of AI people are talking about here. Nobody was discussing game AI.

Genuinely not sure if joking or actually dumb.

And what exactly does Hamas gain by dragging it out?

Citation required

Online casinos are also tech. The devops in the article literally says they set up proxies to continue operating in countries where their main domain is blocked. I know the core domain of casinos are very regulated, but I doubt the entire tech aspect of online casinos are regulated. I imagine there’s plenty of fuckery to do there.

Also casinos will throw out people who benefit too much at the expense of the casino. The casino benefitted too much at the expense of Cloudflare and refused to share the profits, so Cloudflare did what any casino would do and kicked them out.

But got haven’t presented a counter opinion to support. All you’ve done is complain about something you don’t like.

Nothing to offer? There’s nothing to say to “I’m not stupid, you’re stupid”, which is the gist of your comment. How about you address what I said instead of being a manchild. How about you explain why you’re throwing all the dead Palestinians in the “supports Hamas” pot but then turn around and state it’s important to know throw all the Israelis in the “supports Isreali government” pot?

Actually let’s consider those rhetorical questions and this my last word. I’ve got better things to do than waste time on your Elon Musk intellect.

You one of those people who will try to get the last word even if you’ve got nothing to say?

When people say Israel they mean the government. It may also contain the Israelis supporting the actions of the government, because there the distinction is unnecessary. It never contains Israelis critical of the government because it’s obvious that unless the discussion is contains points about them they don’t matter in the discussion.

Everyone is already making the distinction, just not the exact way you want it. This is why you’re unfit to have this discussion, because either you’re arguing over pointless semantics or you’re too stupid to understand what the fuck the rest of us are talking about.

You can’t be that stupid. Nobody is going to write “Israeli government” every single time. Isreali government represents Israel so people write Isreal. furthermore, IDF is an extension of the government which makes it an extension of Israel. Putting the responsibility on the IDF is like saying Russia didn’t invade Ukraine, Russian military did. Absolute nonsense.

You refuse to understand commonly used meanings and instead create your own meanings, and then call everyone else idiots. You’re unfit to have this discussion.

So if the numbers don’t matter then Hamas killing just one child justifies Isreal killing tens of thousands of children?

If the numbers were reversed and it was Hamas killing tens of thousands, would you be just as indifferent to the numbers?

I think you don’t care about the numbers because it fits your world view of Israel is right and Hamas is wrong. Excessive killing by Isreal doesn’t matter because they’re right, but if it was excessive killing by Hamas (and 3000 is excessive under normal circumstance) matters because Hamas is wrong.

So what’s the alternative? Deliberately create a classist structure where you have a voting class and non-voting class of citizens? Seems like a worse idea than the current one. Democracy is not perfect, but it’s the best we have.

Also worth mentioning that if your own political party decides to feed people populist shit then that’s the country shooting themselves in the foot. When a foreign entity does the same things that’s no longer shooting yourself in the foot, that’s someone wanting you to shoot you in the foot.

And if everyone had common sense an anarchist society would be possible. We have laws, that are inherently authoritarian, to make society work because society is too stupid to function without. To quote men in black “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it”.

In that sense I don’t see an issue with protecting your impressionable morons from deliberate foreign state propaganda.

I would think that’s implied. Almost every activity where you’re creating something can be considered harmful because you can’t create something from nothing.

If we take the stance that we should consider harm in absolute, then whatever support you might be getting should be cut off because we individually are the most harmful being on the planet. It wouldn’t matter if you cut yourself off from society, build a little cottage in the woods and live a frugal lifestyle, the absolute harm is still many times higher than any other non-human living being on the planet could have. The good it would do doesn’t matter because we’re only looking at harm.

In what way does it benefit the discussion to talk about harm in absolute? Because from my perspective it has no benefits, it just comes across as a contrarian copout.

Putin strikes me as the kind of person who’d get angry if they couldn’t mate you with the scholar’s mate.

Art and a rally are both forms of speech.

Speech is when words are coming out of your mouth. Art, rallying and speech are all forms of expression. Art can contain speech but doesn’t have to, rallying can contain speech but doesn’t have to.

You can walk away from one and not the other.

Because walking is a physical activity and when you take physical damage your physical capabilities can be hindered. Just because you can walk away from something doesn’t mean it didn’t do any damage.

Legality doesn’t determine morality. Me thinking it should be legal doesn’t mean I think it’s okay.

But morality generally determines legality. The vast majority of our laws originate from what we as a society deem morally acceptable. It’s not morally acceptable to kill someone hence it’s illegal to kill someone. If you think it’s not morally acceptable to tell someone to kill themselves until they do why should it be legally acceptable?

So suppressing a rally is not censorship? Burning art is not censorship? Censorship has historically applied mostly to speech and literature and as such is generally associated with those two things, but censorship can be far more abstract and in it’s most abstract form applies to any form of expression of an idea. In that sense the limitation isn’t speech, it’s the act of expression.

And in essence what really is the difference between beating someone to a pulp vs wanting to verbally (or by typing) assault someones existence? The only real difference is that if done one causes physical damage while the other causes mental/emotional damage. The intent and outcome of that action is the same, to harm someone. So how come you consider one censorship and not the other? Simply because the method of expression is different?

To put your defense of censorship very bluntly. You think it’s not okay to repeatedly stab someone with an small knife over and over until they bleed to death, but you do think it’s okay to repeatedly tell someone to kill themselves until they kill themselves? Because the latter is essentially what you are defending by calling limiting language of that nature as censorship.