No, that argument is a complete lie. Technology is why we have a higher standard of living. Technological advancements have taken place in communist countries. They experience the same increases of quality of living as capitalist countries. This proves that argument false. Capitalism isn't responsible for technology. That's just wealthy people pushing a narrative to protect the system that consolidates wealth in their hands. Consolidated wealth at the top of the economic ladder is a well known and documented side effect of capitalism. That's why capitalism requires strong regulations, not free market dogma.
Crimfresh
joined 2 years ago
I said politics mods are the worst. Permanently banned after 12 years and 150,000 comment karma. I hope the site burns down.
Um, old timer here and squadrons is a different genre than tie fighter. One is a single player campaign, the other is a multiplayer game. Squadrons was nothing like x-wing imo. If space battles were a sport, squadrons would capture that level playing field. If you're looking for the experience of being a Jedi pilot who turns the tides of battles, squadrons isn't it.
Eve is still there as long as you're willing to be social and play regularly. It's a brutal game solo. Having a regular fleet to roam with or to provide protection is essential to making any money. Solo players are basically just food.
I oppose your reactionary, thoughtless response. You think that attempts to silence them is righteous. I think you're every bit as misled and confused as they are.
And fuck you for your assumptions about my race and gender as if they're at all relevant to the support of free speech.
You're just like those people you despise. You make ignorant assumptions, assume righteousness, and refuse to have open discussion. You're using the EXACT SAME in-group out-group dynamics that are toxic as fuck.
When you find yourself in opposition to the positions held by the ACLU, you're probably fucking wrong.
There's a never ending sea of people like you who just make assumptions about others. You know fucking nothing about me and have already dismissed my position in favor of free speech because you're so incredibly biased and not open to conversation. It's not surprising that someone so opposed to any opinions contrary to their narrative is opposed to free speech.
People who use cucked as a pejorative in normal conversations are stupid AF.
I couldn't disagree more. The ACLU are the biggest defenders of free speech in the world. Opponents of free speech are far more dangerous than advocating for free speech.
Downvoted for supporting free speech and the ACLU. Tell me again who are the extremists? Because fuck a Nazi but they aren't the ones trying to silence discussion in this thread. YOU ARE.
I don't think that's insensitive. I think claiming a 12 year user is harassing people and permanently banning them, because they complained about subjective moderation, is evidence of how poorly run Reddit is. I don't need an article about me but it's damning evidence and can certainly be beneficial to these authors who already are writing about Reddit and have an audience. But I have nothing to share if I can't get a hold of my comment.
I was a 12 year user and they banned me permanently on the 6th, during a blackout, for "harassment", on a comment that was mild and simply complained about r/politics moderators and shared my true experience of being banned from politics after a decade of use for saying, "only a fool links opinion pieces as evidence.". Would love to prove it but they removed my comment and I haven't been able to track it down subsequently.
Anyone have any ideas how to get it? I'd like to send my story to some journalists while Reddit is a hot topic to show they ban long term users who didn't break rules simply because they don't like what the user is saying.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/146ovat/comment/jnsj3w0
"The Court’s first overreach in this case is deciding it at all. Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff must have standing to challenge a government action. And that requires a personal stake—an injury in fact. We do not al-low plaintiffs to bring suit just because they oppose a policy.
Neither do we allow plaintiffs to rely on injuries suffered by others. Those rules may sound technical, but they enforce “fundamental limits on federal judicial power.” Allen v.
Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 750 (1984). They keep courts acting like courts. Or stated the other way around, they prevent courts from acting like this Court does today. The plaintiffs in this case are six States that have no personal stake in the Secretary’s loan forgiveness plan. They are classic ide-ological plaintiffs: They think the plan a very bad idea, but they are no worse off because the Secretary differs. In giv-ing those States a forum—in adjudicating their complaint— the Court forgets its proper role. The Court acts as though it is an arbiter of political and policy disputes, rather than of cases and controversies."
They claimed they had standing. All the liberal justices disagree. This was a partisan lawsuit from the beginning and conservative activist judges on the SCOTUS are legislating from the bench with this ruling and ignoring decades of standing precedent.