:)

Good, eventually. Bad, at first.

It seems that way because I chose to say “you”, which is my bad. I meant it in the broader sense though, most of us are choosing not to sleep with the rest of us, most of the time.

There is no added exclusion to that just because some of us become more firm in refusing to, and give reasons why.

It most certainly doesn’t exclude anyone unless you think someone refusing to have sex with you is an act of exclusion.

Most of all of us are refusing to have sex with you at this very moment.

Would you mind saying what you mean here? I’d like for you to explain your thought a little more.

It doesn’t seem generalized at all to me.

• A series of laws are passed that make this thing riskier.
• Do less of the risky thing.
• Make it clear why.

What’s the problem?

This seems to me like a signal that Democrats are formally cementing as a conservative / neoliberal party. Which makes sense. I guess maybe the upside is that maybe it will carve out room for an adjacent political body to the left as well, sort of like what happened with the tea party.

Thanks for linking something actionable!

Also: it’s wild how many brands are just outsourced to these folks. It’s got to all be the same waffles, right? But I know the price difference between some of these brands is a stark one.

I agree and I’d take it one step further: it’s undesirable to play games with elaborate exploit / abuse guards. Those systems suck! They’re boring, same-y, and labyrinthine. I literally don’t care about pvp, or balance, or “winning”. It’s not that kind of game play

I have an idea. Why don’t I put a bunch of my website stuff in one place, say a pdf, and you screw heads just buy that? We’ll call it a “book”

It’s not extreme to seek their prosecution, it’s an extreme leap to jump from a post about how they should’ve known better (they really should have!) to “They should be prosecuted by the DOJ”.

I’m not sure they need to be prosecuted to have these funds seized, though. The government doesn’t even need to ask them for it I don’t think, depending on how the case proceeds. If the money is part of the case it is probably part of the verdict.

No. My god, no. What sort of nonsense is that?

You’re taking the position of a catastrophic extreme in response to someone saying they should have been more circumspect about where their money came from.

They should have been more circumspect, though. There’s leagues between acknowledging that and saying that they should be prosecuted by the DOJ.

Case law has been established in the prevention of actual image and text copyright infringement with Google specifically. Your point is not at all ambiguous. The distinction between a search engine and content theft has been made. Search engines can exist for a number of reasons but one of those criteria is obeisance of copyright law.

Why should I bother to watch something no one bothered to create?

“Goes”? It’s the same crowd. It always has been.

I know I sure would.

Questioning and reevaluating is good, but context matters. No choice exists in a place apart from its surrounding context. That means that sometimes you have to recognize when the context is such that perfect becomes the enemy of good.

Not being able to do that is a huge flaw, and it’s a vulnerability that the wealthy are happily helping Republicans exploit right now.

Yeah. It’s a genuinely pathetic trait for Democratic voters. Republicans think it’s hilarious and weak, and they’re correct. It is. It makes Democratic voters incredibly easy to troll and manipulate with rumor mills such as this thread.

Plus you don’t owe that guy’s links a view just to respond to a comment. What nonsense