DrJenkem

You could. Food is there for stealing. Land is there for growing on. People might shoot at you for trying, but you could.

I assume you're speaking in jest?

There is no ethical consumption.

I'm pretty sure that phrase isn't actually a call to apathy.

Not attempting to make a call to apathy. On the contrary, I just reject the idea that what you buy from who is leading to any material improvement in society. I think there are much better ways to push for positive change. Like sure, don't buy the thing, but don't fool yourself into thinking you've made a difference. Helping your community/mutual-aid, direct action, these are the sorts of things that I think go a lot further towards resulting in positive material changes.

I don't know, I'm American, I can't really eat if I don't indirectly pay money to the largest neo-imperialist empire in the world (who is currently funding a genocide btw).

There is no ethical consumption. You either consume unethically or you die.

Yes, rich white men like Musk are very oppressed and getting very racismed.

Yeah I just saw that, forgot/didn't realize they switched. Thanks.

As far as I know, SteamOS is already based on Debian. The dev is complaining about users trying to install steam on their own Ubuntu installs, not SteamOS.

EDIT: nvm, it used to be Debian, but the newer versions for steamdeck are based on Arch. Apparently they wanted rolling updates so that it would be easier to push out changes more frequently.

Isn't SteamOS based on Debian, not Arch?

EDIT: nvm, it used to be Debian, but the newer versions for steamdeck are based on Arch.

I clicked into the article wondering how they measured intelligence, and they polled people from Mensa. What a fucking joke.

True, but another commonly cited exception is that it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater where there is no fire. My assumption is the rationale being, if your speech is likely to present a danger to people it shouldn't be legal.

But you're correct, America is pretty tolerant of hate speech, and it does lead to some pretty negative consequences imo.

Probably a better comparison would be countries like Canada or Germany.

EDIT:

I do applaud you for taking the time to research it rather than getting caught up in the sensationalism of a Twitter post like so many others replying to me.

The bill covers both hate speech and hate crimes. Which aspects of the bill do you take issue with? I personally don't think it should be legal to incite violence against people of a protected class. I didn't realize that was such a hot take.

Sounds not unlike America. We've had hate crime laws since 1968, I don't know why everyone's acting like it's the end of the world.

Watch yourself, don't want to fall down that slippery slope.

Slippery slope fallacy. Hate crime laws have been on the books in America since 1968 and I'm not aware of them leading to the end of free speech in America.