He’s calling for a financial crisis so that the reforms he wants can be justified.

Oh well

The argument goes that stealing involves taking something from someone, whearas pirating produces a copy. If you take someone’s car, they don’t have a car anymore, but copy their game and now you both have one.

That said, I don’t think it follows from “buying isn’t owning” that “piracy isn’t stealing”. Its a pithy slogan that captures a mood, but I don’t think it really makes sense.

Your position, I believe, is more coherent: “I don’t care if it is stealing”. It might not technically be stealing, but its a breach of the terms of the sale that you tacitly agreed to when buying.

Something similar can be said for adblocking. People argue that it is “stealing” because there is a breach of the terms of use, and the ads fund the content. It might not really technically be stealing, but it is simpler to just say “I don’t care what it is, I don’t feel bad for giant corporations”. You can also say this about shoplifting.

The comment says a lot about what some people think therapy is for, too.

Help! We can’t extract wealth from Brazil! It’s unfair!

RickyRigatoni’s reply was valid. The OP mentioned Iran killing 20k protestors as a MAGAt excuse for Trump’s illegal and stupid war. You called this “whitewashing”, which it isn’t, because even though the killings did occur, they do not constitute a valid justification as the MAGAts claim… This was RickyRigatoni’s point. Nobody is defending or denying Iran’s killing of protesters.

Who would have thought that the pro-pedophile party would take such a position?

To an extent, yes, but they could do it much more easily and accurately if there was a unique, biometric identifier associated with all your actions across your devices which cannot be disabled.

It isn’t even just the government, big tech wants this too. They want to be able to track everything you do with your computer, and that’s more easily achieved if OS level identification is required. Big tech wants it for data harvesting and ad targeting, the government wants it for surveillance and narrative control. The end goal is government verified digital ID that will be required to use any operating system. There will be no anonymity anymore. This creates a panopticon effect in which people police themselves because they know they are always being watched. Furthermore, the information you receive in your social media feeds and web searches can be silently curated based on what is known about your political attitudes. It can all be managed by AI.

It blocks ads and promotional segments by default

It won’t be government supplied. You’ll buy a basic terminal from some big tech company, and then subscribe to a plan that will grant you access to remote processing, memory, and cloud storage. Think Google Stadia but for everything. Using a computer will be more like using, say, the PlayStation store. You won’t be able to install whatever you like - only what is made available. Piracy or adblocking will be impossible. Privacy and anonymity will become things of the past. Even news and information will be curated. And you’ll have to keep paying for it all in perpetuity, while being tracked and forced to consume manipulative, targeted advertising.

He just wants the picture of him getting blown by Trump to be released.

Pretty sure this is the direction big tech and government want to take things. Mandatory ID to use your operating system, perfect tracking and as targeting, no anonymity, censorship, consolidated monopolies, etc. Pornhub won’t be the only website requiring verified OS and ID. They want to build a locked down, surveiled internet, and moral panics are the way they’re doing it.

I’m guessing the logic is:

Gay people only have sex for pleasure (because they can’t reproduce), therefore, all sex for pleasure is gay.

Its like saying fish only swim in water because they can’t go on land, therefore, all creatures that swim are fish.

Also, anyone who drives faster than me is a maniac, anyone slower is an idiot.

“A government is an institution that holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.”

• Max Weber

Politics and violence cannot be separated. The only relevant factor is “legitimacy”, which is determined politically.

At what point, during the incremental rise of the Nazis, would it have become “legitimate” to take action against them, and how would this legitimacy be determined? Too early, and it would have been seen as illegitimate murder or “political violence” - too late and… Well, we know what happened.

I wouldn’t say its “very” misleading. He said he couldn’t care less about giving a divisive answer.

It is going to justify the expansion of fascist power, to crack down on the dangerous, violent leftists and their evil ideology. This assassination is exactly the kind of thing the right wants, to further their agenda. They want a war.