Are you, Amimojo, willing to state here for the record that you will draw the line at videos telling kids to kill themselves and terrorist propaganda? Here and no further, here and no dilution to the meaning of "harm"?
If you do not make such a post in reply to me, I kindly ask everyone who reads this post to look up the "Motte and Bailey defense", and to view all further posts by Amimojo through the lens of that knowledge.
If merely getting rid of videos that call for murder could satisfy those activists, they would have quieted down already and we wouldn't be in this situation. Let's be real, this is political censorship made at the request of those who are willing to stretch the definition of "harm" so wide that no criticism could escape, and are willing to interpret the rules so capriciously and self-servingly that no amount of adherence to the text of those rules could offer protection against punishment.
Skeptics are now more often cast as "far right". Call out Christian BS 15 years ago? Cool dude. Call out Muslim BS now? FAR RIGHT RACIST BIGOT. Don't believe three-letter government agencies 15 years ago? Smart independent thinking dude. Don't believe three-letter government agencies now? FAR RIGHT RUSSIAN BOT. Resisting the constant shifting of definitions 15 years ago? Haha George Carlin is pretty badass. Resisting the constant shifting of definitions now? YOU ARE BAD AND AN ASS AND FAR RIGHT.
4chan threads which asked people to review bomb Captain Marvel have been met largely with replies of "not your personal army" and accusations that the OP is a journalist looking to manufacture evidence for a narrative. It's all in the public archives. Anyone can google "/pol/ archives" or "/tv/ archives" and see for themselves.
When websites, not ISPs, are the ones censoring people through double standards and selective enforcement of rules, sometimes of rules that don't even exist, Net Neutrality is demonstrably irrelevant.
Uhhhhh... With crappy logic like this, why should I not assume someone paid for this article intending to dissuade other buyers while they load up during the dip?
Plenty of pesticides are used in organic farming, just not synthetic ones designed, for example, to target specific organisms or to break down quickly before reaching consumers.
As another comment pointed out, wealth is associated with both organic food consumption and better health. As well those who make the conscious decision to buy higher priced organic food have demonstrated a greater awareness of personal health choices (however misguided they may be on the subject of organics and pesticides) and a greater willingness to make an effort into improving their lifestyles, perhaps some stumbling into some that are actually effective.
The argument is not over whether something is personally OK (acceptable to oneself), it is over whether someone has a right to express a belief. When you bring an argument of what is OK to a debate over rights, you muddy the distinction and ditract from the issue.
You are conflating a natural right with the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. They are not the same. The former is broad and philosophical, the latter is narrow and legal. The latter is derived from the former and is subordinate to the former when talking about spirit and intent, as OP was.
"I now live as a trans woman." Any physical or behavioural criteria for limiting womanhood would be transphobic, so no one can question this declaration even if you change absolutely nothing about yourself.
The ++ in C++ evokes the Greek Orthodox cross, and is offensive to non-Christians! The ++ additive operation has been taken up by the Alt Right as a secret code (much like the "OK" hand sign) to represent White Christian expansionism and an anti-Muslim rallying cry! Fight Back!/s
Members of a stable domestically reliant economy is afraid of an export reliant economy. LOL these comments.
American1: "China has been taking advantage of us" American2: "Let's fight back while we have the muscles" American1: "Oh no no I'm too scared what if he punches me on the arm?"
All leftist speech are dog whistles for class hatred, are endorsement of policies which result in famine, and are violence enacted upon my minority body.
This will be my claim when you knock down these protections, and you can't argue against it because you're white and I'm not.
Republicans will find it easy to find the same "possible collusion" between Democrats and agents of China - who now is as desperate to avoid Trump as the Russians were with Clinton - especially if they commission another dossier from a supplicating ally (looking at Australia).
Agents of China buying 100k worth of US social media presence? Pocket change.
Slashdot Mirror
Scantily clad women in irl slutwalk: Good
Scantily clad women in vidya games: Bad
So the skin factor isn't the honest reason. I think it might just be jealousy. Them well-poportioend polygons, man...
Are you, Amimojo, willing to state here for the record that you will draw the line at videos telling kids to kill themselves and terrorist propaganda? Here and no further, here and no dilution to the meaning of "harm"?
If you do not make such a post in reply to me, I kindly ask everyone who reads this post to look up the "Motte and Bailey defense", and to view all further posts by Amimojo through the lens of that knowledge.
This is an attempt to enforce equality of outcome
If merely getting rid of videos that call for murder could satisfy those activists, they would have quieted down already and we wouldn't be in this situation. Let's be real, this is political censorship made at the request of those who are willing to stretch the definition of "harm" so wide that no criticism could escape, and are willing to interpret the rules so capriciously and self-servingly that no amount of adherence to the text of those rules could offer protection against punishment.
...and what to expect in the year 2070
Skeptics are now more often cast as "far right".
Call out Christian BS 15 years ago? Cool dude.
Call out Muslim BS now? FAR RIGHT RACIST BIGOT.
Don't believe three-letter government agencies 15 years ago? Smart independent thinking dude.
Don't believe three-letter government agencies now? FAR RIGHT RUSSIAN BOT.
Resisting the constant shifting of definitions 15 years ago? Haha George Carlin is pretty badass.
Resisting the constant shifting of definitions now? YOU ARE BAD AND AN ASS AND FAR RIGHT.
4chan threads which asked people to review bomb Captain Marvel have been met largely with replies of "not your personal army" and accusations that the OP is a journalist looking to manufacture evidence for a narrative. It's all in the public archives. Anyone can google "/pol/ archives" or "/tv/ archives" and see for themselves.
When websites, not ISPs, are the ones censoring people through double standards and selective enforcement of rules, sometimes of rules that don't even exist, Net Neutrality is demonstrably irrelevant.
Why didn't they do that in the first place?
Uhhhhh... With crappy logic like this, why should I not assume someone paid for this article intending to dissuade other buyers while they load up during the dip?
for collecting info?
Wonder if they're legit. That's his last resort.
Organic != Pesticide free
Plenty of pesticides are used in organic farming, just not synthetic ones designed, for example, to target specific organisms or to break down quickly before reaching consumers.
As another comment pointed out, wealth is associated with both organic food consumption and better health. As well those who make the conscious decision to buy higher priced organic food have demonstrated a greater awareness of personal health choices (however misguided they may be on the subject of organics and pesticides) and a greater willingness to make an effort into improving their lifestyles, perhaps some stumbling into some that are actually effective.
Don't have a set of rules you show, and another set you enforce.
The argument is not over whether something is personally OK (acceptable to oneself), it is over whether someone has a right to express a belief. When you bring an argument of what is OK to a debate over rights, you muddy the distinction and ditract from the issue.
You are conflating a natural right with the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. They are not the same. The former is broad and philosophical, the latter is narrow and legal. The latter is derived from the former and is subordinate to the former when talking about spirit and intent, as OP was.
If you distrust politicians or the media, you have been manipulated by Russia.
"If I misunderstand you, its your fault."
"I now live as a trans woman."
Any physical or behavioural criteria for limiting womanhood would be transphobic, so no one can question this declaration even if you change absolutely nothing about yourself.
The ++ in C++ evokes the Greek Orthodox cross, and is offensive to non-Christians! The ++ additive operation has been taken up by the Alt Right as a secret code (much like the "OK" hand sign) to represent White Christian expansionism and an anti-Muslim rallying cry! Fight Back! /s
"Comrade_Commissar" / "Comrade_Citizen"
Members of a stable domestically reliant economy is afraid of an export reliant economy. LOL these comments.
American1: "China has been taking advantage of us"
American2: "Let's fight back while we have the muscles"
American1: "Oh no no I'm too scared what if he punches me on the arm?"
Right when my new business is starting to grow, capitalism dies.
All leftist speech are dog whistles for class hatred, are endorsement of policies which result in famine, and are violence enacted upon my minority body.
This will be my claim when you knock down these protections, and you can't argue against it because you're white and I'm not.
Republicans will find it easy to find the same "possible collusion" between Democrats and agents of China - who now is as desperate to avoid Trump as the Russians were with Clinton - especially if they commission another dossier from a supplicating ally (looking at Australia).
Agents of China buying 100k worth of US social media presence? Pocket change.